Reputation and usernames

[Vladimir]

I think it would be better if members could see who added or took away reputation from them. It would help avoid trouble and confusion in my opinion. What do you think about it?

 

[Cen Aeonis]

The problem is, anonymity was established into the reputation system to prevent backlash from one user who was given reputation to the user who gave it; a safeguard, if you will. Not saying that everyone would do that if they knew the name of the person who neg-repped them, but it's meant for safety reasons and to keep the forums somewhat civil. That's at least how I remember it being said as.

 

[Vladimir]

If it was mentioned in a previous post or thread, sorry about that, there are too much reputation-related threads to make a proper search.

 

[Moo]

This was debated back on the old boards. It was decided that anonymous rep was the way to go.
If people could see who gave them rep, then giving rep might cause you to get the same rep back. This would have a bunch of problems :
(1) People who gave out +rep would get +rep back, even if they diddn't deserve the +rep they got back.
(2) People might try to increase their rep by giving out lots of +rep for not-very-good reasons, and counting on others to give them +rep back even if they don't deserve it.
(3) People might stop giving out -rep, even when it was justified, because they feared the other person's response.
(4) People who do give out -rep might unintentionally (or intentionally?) cause a fight with the person they gave the rep to. This could lead to negrep wars and drama.
(5) Making rep non-anonymous would result in more rep being given, meaning more rep for me to check.
(6) Currently, people have a choice about whether they reveal their name or not when they give rep (though, doing so is discouraged, they can still do it). Why force someone to identify themselves when they don't want to?
(7) What about the people who gave rep in the expectation it would be anonymous? Is it fair to change the rules on them now?

 

[Raccoon]

All those reasons are valid; I like the system we have. You have the option to sign rep as things stand. I assume mods who can adjust rep are able to see who gave it and get on a person's case if need be.

 

[Tigger]

I've found that most of the time when I get posotive repped that the person who gave it to me says who they are in the rep comment.

 

[AlexRianSabaw]

This was debated back on the old boards. It was decided that anonymous rep was the way to go.
If people could see who gave them rep, then giving rep might cause you to get the same rep back. This would have a bunch of problems :
(1) People who gave out +rep would get +rep back, even if they diddn't deserve the +rep they got back.
(2) People might try to increase their rep by giving out lots of +rep for not-very-good reasons, and counting on others to give them +rep back even if they don't deserve it.
(3) People might stop giving out -rep, even when it was justified, because they feared the other person's response.
(4) People who do give out -rep might unintentionally (or intentionally?) cause a fight with the person they gave the rep to. This could lead to negrep wars and drama.
(5) Making rep non-anonymous would result in more rep being given, meaning more rep for me to check.
(6) Currently, people have a choice about whether they reveal their name or not when they give rep (though, doing so is discouraged, they can still do it). Why force someone to identify themselves when they don't want to?
(7) What about the people who gave rep in the expectation it would be anonymous? Is it fair to change the rules on them now?

So... does it at least tell you what post it was that caused the neg-pos rep? I know it shows you for +, but what about for -?

 

[Craig]

I think its a good idea in theory, I supose it could cause problems but its nice to see exactly why you have got a rep.

~ Craig

 

[EmeraldsAndLime]

Live and let die... leave it anonymous, and if people want to sign their name, they can.

 

[Moo]

So... does it at least tell you what post it was that caused the neg-pos rep? I know it shows you for +, but what about for -?

Yes, it does.