Reputation Change

[!King_Amazon!]

I have an idea to possibly cut down on the number of bullshit reps given. Perhaps when a post is repped, have it show as "marked for positive or negative reputation" and for it to go through make it where 2 people other than the rep giver have to "approve" the rep.

Something like that, anyway.

[HandOfHeaven]

Seems a bit too in depth, but it's a good idea. Would it show up right by the checkmark and x?

[!King_Amazon!]

Sure. Maybe have a green + sign for positive or a red - sign for negative. Who knows. This is just the basis for the idea.

[Thanatos]

Eh, I say leave it be. It seems pretty fair the way it is now with having to wait 24 hours to give out more rep. If you're that hell-bent on giving somebody negative rep over and over, you've got problems.

[!King_Amazon!]

I think having it where it has to be approved by others would give more of a "this is how everyone feels about you" feel to reputation than if it's single people, though. A single person can keep targeting someone that the majority of people like and there's nothing that can be done about it. I think it would make reputation actually reflect what it should.

[HandOfHeaven]

I got negative repped by someone who hasn't posted in two years. Fun stuff, I suppose. Maybe we should make it for active or semi active members, and not lurkers?

I honestly don't care about the repping too much, but I found it odd to get negative repped for posting about yoshi coins by some guy who hasn't shown his opinions in a post since 9-23-05.

[!King_Amazon!]

Was it Afroman? I got negatively repped by him on just a random post of mine.

[D3V]

So basically you would want to create a poll somewhat for each individual post? Idk if WW would be able to do anything like that because I don't believe anything like that really exists yet, I do like the thought of it though.

[Lenny]

I think rather than that, it might be worth going back to an idea that was originally mentioned - reporting reps.

Obviously, some people will report reps simply because they're bad, but the staff will have the final say on whether the rep deserves to be 'cancelled'. It might mean a bit more work for us, and may even lead to a couple more staff members, but I see it as being far eaiser that having to set up a mini-poll system for repped posts. As I see it, also, reps aren't supposed to be public - if I rep you, I don't want to have two other members agreee with me before the rep is added. Adding the rep is my opinion, not someone elses, and we all hve different opinions. I can also imagine it may get to the point where people are purposely disagreeing to the rep, simply because they dislike the reper or repee.

[!King_Amazon!]

Staff approval/denial sounds fine to me, though it would have to be where you can't approve/deny your own given or recieved rep. For instance, if I rep d3v negatively, and he reports it, I shouldn't be allowed to approve it anyway. Also, if D3v reps me negatively, and I report it, I shouldn't be allowed to deny it as well.

[D3V]

Correct, sounds like a good system, passing it upstairs probably wouldn't work.

[Thanatos]

I think having it where it has to be approved by others would give more of a "this is how everyone feels about you" feel to reputation than if it's single people, though. A single person can keep targeting someone that the majority of people like and there's nothing that can be done about it. I think it would make reputation actually reflect what it should.

... That's stupid.

I agree with Lenny. Everybody's opinions differ, we're not all going to agree "Hey, this was a good post."

Keep it the way it is. Why fix something that isn't broken?

[!King_Amazon!]

Because it is broken.

[Thanatos]

How? You can't +/- the same person until you've done it to 6 other people and you have to wait 24 hours if you've done it too much. I think that's a pretty fair system.

[!King_Amazon!]

That only affects how often you can do it. People can still rep for whatever the hell they want, whether or not they have a good reason or not. There at least needs to be SOME sort of approval system, be it by staff or by members.

[D3V]

I'd say just allow people to report it, and assign somebody fair enough to be a Reputation manager and moderator, something. And if THEY feel it IS unjust, they can use their own good judgement and/or pass it along to the other staff.

[!King_Amazon!]

That sounds a bit too complicated. Just make it where staff handle any reports about rep, but cannot alter anything that is in relation to them(that they either gave or recieved, basically.)

Would be just like approving new members. We weed out the pointless ones.

[WetWired]

So basicly re-write it from scratch, then...
Even if you do something fancy like that, three people could gang up to pick on someone.

I can make it so only positive rep can be left, but even that can be abused.

[!King_Amazon!]

That actually might not be a bad idea. I kinda like that.

[Demosthenes]

I actually think it's fine the way it is. I would just like the comments to be anonymous.

[!King_Amazon!]

I agree with that as well. That would help cut down on the BS repping, I think. I've gotten retaliation rep (which was probably well deserved) myself.

[Thanatos]

It
is
fine
the
way
it
is.

i
think
im
going
to
start
talking
like
this
more
often.

[!King_Amazon!]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Thanatos again.

[Thanatos]

Aww... :(

[Vollstrecker]

I'm assuming linking it to peoples' activity would be a major modification to the system? If not, just make someone in charge of Rep complaints and have 'em only report negative flagging from inactives for removal.

[!King_Amazon!]

I could see having higher activity give you more repping power, but other than that I don't see how they could be connected.

[Vollstrecker]

Well, wasn't the Activity mod something WW coded himself? If so (or even if simply unsupported), it would require a substantial modification of the Rep system for it to read the Activity information.

[WetWired]

I think he was suggesting an activity threshold for imparting negative reputation to another.

[Vollstrecker]

I think he was suggesting an activity threshold for imparting negative reputation to another.

Exactly, I'd honestly say the same for leaving positive rep as well, as it just doesn't seem right for inactives/brand new members to leave reputation changes.

It certainly wouldn't need to be very high.

[klo]

Just a question...why can't we view anyone elses' reputation? :(. lol.

[Vollstrecker]

Just a question...why can't we view anyone elses' reputation? :(. lol.

*Twirls his moustache as people view his distinguished-ness, or something*

Reputation m'dear?

[D3V]

Is there ever a point where it goes from 2 green 'dots' to 3,4,5 etc? Or is it just at two.

[Thanatos]

I'm sure they'll increase over time.

[WetWired]

I know it gets larger, but I don't know the pattern. Two dots is at 100, though, so I'm going to assume three is at least 200.

[150089]

i think its a pretty god dawm idea

[150089]

good idea

[D3V]

good idea

Hey bud, just a tip. When you want to change your point try going back and editing your Origional post, especially if you doublepost, and you only have to click reply once.

[Bon Clay]

Rep systems are fail in general. They are used for the vaginas who can't settle things in a good war of words and instead resort to cowering anonymously behind some negative reputation.

[HandOfHeaven]

Drink brass monkey. You don't need the rep system.

[Thanatos]

If you had been here actively, you would have noticed that this place was on a downward spiral towards boredom. We needed something, anything, to liven this place up. I'm glad WW implemented a reputation system.

[Demosthenes]

Rep systems are fail in general. They are used for the vaginas who can't settle things in a good war of words and instead resort to cowering anonymously behind some negative reputation.

You do realize that our rep system isn't anonymous, right?

[!King_Amazon!]

If you had been here actively, you would have noticed that this place was on a downward spiral towards boredom. We needed something, anything, to liven this place up. I'm glad WW implemented a reputation system.
A fairly dead reputation system.

[D3V]

I used to rep people alot, now it's down to 3 times a day? Not really sure why,.. mines almost at 200 if that means anything.

[!King_Amazon!]

I used to rep people alot, now it's down to 3 times a day? Not really sure why,.. mines almost at 200 if that means anything.
My rep is higher than yours and I'm only at 166. Liar face.

[Thanatos]

How is it fairly dead?

I just repped somebody earlier this morning..

[D3V]

My rep is higher than yours and I'm only at 166. Liar face.

Hm, must've gotten negged. Still, it's not dead, just nobody uses it regularly, it'll catch on eventually.

[!King_Amazon!]

How is it fairly dead?

I just repped somebody earlier this morning..
Compared to how it was, it's relatively inactive now. The "cool" factor has worn off.

[D3V]

Compared to how it was, it's relatively inactive now. The "cool" factor has worn off.

I feel it still needs to be revamped, change it from every 100 to every 50, it's not cool because everyone has 2 fucking green dots, change it around a bit.

[Demosthenes]

I rep people from time to time. A good post that really gets my attention gets a positive rep if I'm allowed to give it. Exaggerated misinformation usually is the only thing that gets negative reps. Or if you call someone a moran. The irony of it alone is worthy of negative rep imo.

[Thanatos]

Lmao. Gotta agree with you there.

I was browsing old posts, some retard (I think Muldy) made a flame thread and got owned by everybody and Gruesome comes in with 'This kid is a moran'

Good stuff. :)

[D3V]

Hah. I try and do it more often but now we can only do it 3 times a day? .. Everyone eles needs to do it more..