POLL on changing the forum's reputation system.

[Oldschool]

IMPORTANT REMINDER: This poll has multiple categories. Therefore, more than one vote is possible. With that in mind read and make all poll selections carefully. Also some poll choice may require an explanation. If so, please post accordingly or quote/"second" another member's explanation.

POLL CLOSES IN THREE WEEKS.

Now with that out of the way an explanation is in order as not all members may be aware of the situation.

There has been discussion about changing the forum reputation system. The purpose of this poll is to attempt to establish some sort of consensus regarding such changes.

Thanks to everyone in advance for their participation.

Also I considered migrating the previous posts on the issue to this thread or starting a poll in that thread. However, on second thought it may be better to start anew. Anyone that has made previous posts or seen ones they feel worthy of quoting can obviously do so.

Also here is a link to the original thread. Note: Page length depends on your settings but the discussion is around 50'ish posts into the thread.

http://www.srythforum.com/showthread.php?t=73

[psychoadept]

Am I overlooking the poll? I can't find it.

[Oldschool]

For the record I'm for changing the rep power. One vote is one point - period. I'm also for resetting everyone's rep to 10 which was our original starting rep, or alternatively 0.

Also I'd like to reiterate that if we don't change the repping power there is no reason to reset anyone's rep.

I also voted to cap rep power. While one rep one point is a cap a different consensus may be reached. If so and keeping in mind that Havoc's admin rep is ten in "strength" I propose a maximum of 5 for reputation power.

Also while I've been very vocal against the "rep-limiter" the current system allows 10 reps in a 24 hour period and you have to rep two other folks before you can rep someone again. While I have fumed over that on multiple occasions that is a fair system and in retrospect I don't see a need to change it.

Either way, that is a discussion better left for later. Especially in light of possible changes to the rep system. Of course that doesn't mean I can't and more importantly won't :rolleyes: complain when my rep power wanes.

Also the following post from the original thread further explains my thoughts on the issue. http://www.srythforum.com/showpost.php?p=17258&postcount=99

Edit: Psychoadept posted the previous post while my opening post was up but the poll itself was still 'under construction'.

[Elrond]

Sorry to rain down on this thread, Oldschool; but I would have voted for an option along the line:

This doesn't interest me; and I don't have an opinion one way or another!

[Oldschool]

Sorry to rain down on this thread, Oldschool; but I would have voted for an option along the line:

This doesn't interest me; and I don't have an opinion one way or another!

Well it would seem there's an forum umbrella handy as polls can be edited. The "extra" question had been edited accordingly.

Also I am feeling a bit uber-powerful as it also seems that poll votes can be edited. Oh the lure...... ;)

[thingirl]

I’m annoyed. When I was voting, the last option said “I have thoroughly read all the above” or something close. But now it looks like I voted for IDC :(. Could anybody who can change it correct that please?

Anyway: Rep power should be changed but differently from above. Please explain in a post. I’d say: one repp power = every year registered, every 1k posts (ok, maybe not, but still…), and every 500 of your own repp.

Repping power should be capped. Please explain in a post.
I’d say capped for regular members (aka, not mods or Havoc) at 10, mods at 15, and Havoc have no limit. Or, if that’s not possible, 9 for everybody except Havoc at 10.

[Scarbrow]

For the record, the present discussion starts with my "Provocative Question" (http://www.srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=17092#post17092).

Havoc stated (http://www.srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=17199#post17199) that there is no way to cap the repping power, so options 4 and 5 are not possible and should be removed. They could be substituted by options on how to implement the new limits (like the +1 per year and the +1 per 500 reps), instead of leaving it to repeating statements we've already made in the other thread.

Also, original starting rep was 10 not 0, so the correct value for "starting value" in the 7th option should be 10.

[Oldschool]

I’m annoyed. When I was voting, the last option said “I have thoroughly read all the above” or something close. But now it looks like I voted for IDC :(. Could anybody who can change it correct that please?



My bad.... I musta been editing the poll while you were voting. Considering Elrond was the catalyst for that edit (a good one I might add) that may be sorta like throwing kerosene on the "annoyance" fire. Just kiddin' TG, I'll subtract the vote you mention momentarily.

EDIT: I should mention that editing polls appears to be a 'staff' only function. I should have remembered that as I modded one for another member (can't recall specifics) previously.

[wetheril]

Reputation levels should be reset but differently from above. Please explain in a post.

As brought up before, it would be ideal to have everyone's past reps retroactively count as "1". But if that cannot be done, then resetting (or not) is fine too.

[spencer]

I think that repping power should be based solely on reputation...the higher your rep, the more reps you give, or take away. I think we should keep the current scores and I would not object to a cap on maximum rep a person can give or receive at some point.

[taproot97]

pzzzz. look at the % of the votes


0%
60.00%
20.00%
0%
30.00%
20.00%
40.00%
10.00%
10.00%
20.00%

[scout1idf]

I voted

"Rep power should be kept the same NO changes."

We're all here to play a great game and to interact with each other.

NOT to fight and complain because one person has 488,484 rep points and can give out 1,343 points in one click of the mouse.

It would be nice if that person would rep me once or twice a week.

In my opinion, I think the whole thing should be forgotten and both threads deleted so everyone can get back to their grinding or whatever they were doing and enjoy the game and the community........

[Young Ned]

Unfortunately, you can't put the worms back in the can...

[Zeriken]

You guys are silly. This thread being here means (most likely) that somebody doesn't like the fact that another person's rep is higher than theirs. Doesn't matter, IMO.

I use the rep to keep track of what people think is interesting (or not interesting). Sure, I look at the number, but I realize that it doesn't really mean much. After all, this community is pretty nice to each other, and I bet negative rep is a rare occasion.

Though I suppose there would be a problem if somebody with a huge amount of rep power, say, negative repped me (Or another person. Doesn't matter, just an example) and I became unable to rep others because of it.

So, if that were the case, then, I suppose, we should perhaps reset the rep numbers.

[Scarbrow]

Unfortunately, you can't put the worms back in the can...

And that's quite my fault, I'm afraid. However, from the discussion and the current vote numbers, seems like quite a few users, both new and veteran, share the impression that a change was in order. After all, when Havoc set up the original rules, he couldn't have known the future development of the system, and by the volume of comments and votes I'd risk saying that this is a question that matters quite a bit to quite a few people here, so I feel justified, if only by participation, for bringing up this matter to public review. .

[Badstench]

I believe scout has a valid point, but maybe not to the same extreme.

I utilise the repping system to view why the people who repped me, repped me.

If they comment on the reason why they liked a particular post, I feel vindicated, or chuffed, or quietly staisfied. In the same vein, If I get a negative rep (and it has happened), it's also good to know why.

You could argue that a comment in the actual post would suffice just as well, but that would create a number of posts in the thread that are superfluous.

If anything, I think the rep system should be one point per rep, regardless of the reputation of the repper.

However, the repping system is open to alot of... not abuse... but reps that are unnecessarily gratuitous.

My point to the above comment is that there seems to be a sub-culture of "I've got more reps than you, so I'm obviously more important and better thought of and if eggs are for sucking, then you suck more eggs than me and I'm, ultimately, a more valued member of the forum."

This is only true of me... so there!

Disclaimer: I will deny I ever said that last comment if taken to task

[scout1idf]

And that's quite my fault, I'm afraid. However, from the discussion and the current vote numbers, seems like quite a few users, both new and veteran, share the impression that a change was in order. After all, when Havoc set up the original rules, he couldn't have known the future development of the system, and by the volume of comments and votes I'd risk saying that this is a question that matters quite a bit to quite a few people here, so I feel justified, if only by participation, for bringing up this matter to public review. .


I wonder how much it really matters to the community at large......

Threads: 527, Posts: 17,419, Members: 291, Active Members: 117Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 18. You have already voted on this pollOut of 291 members or 117 active members, however anyone chooses to look at it, only 18 have voted.

I haven't counted how many different people have voiced an opinion in both threads and I'm not going to, but still the numbers should speak for themselves. Only 18 have voted.

All the more that I will say is, do as you feel you must.

**waits for the negative reps to start rolling in**

[Badstench]

Scout... another good point.

But I think the people who respond are the people who "care" about how the forum is developing and how it should continue to present itself.

Your response about the repping system is one that deserves consideration, and I'm one for keeping the forum as a point for game information and news.

But... if you take my last comment for granted, then we should do away with the 'general section' altogether?

I'd like to think the interaction between players is a healthy thing for the game. Players who don't want the social interaction are welcome to be players only, and as such, they should be able to talk about things non-game related.

So, the "community at large" is different from "regular contributors to the forum". To put my neck on the guillotine, I hint at this through the birthdates thread: when a member has a birthday, I note them in different terms... which I won't get into lest it open more cans of worms

I know this isn't what you meant, and I value your input highly. The fact remains, people play online games for different reasons... some of us enjoy the social interation afforded by the forum, and some of us contribute more than others.

The fact remains... we play a game. How we play the game is an individual experience.

I want to write a lot more, but I think the "full stop" is already in place.

[shadowblack]

If possible limit repping tpower to 1. If not, then make it so we get 1 extra point for every 10 years, every 10'000 posts, and every 10'000 reputation points. This way people will stay at 1 rep power for quite some time.

Just what is the point of reputation, anyway? What does it tell us if someone has 24 reputation? Is it because 14 people repped him for 1 point each, or did 7 people rep him for 2 points each, or did a single person rep hom for 14 points? We have no way to know, just like we have no way to know WHY someone was repped. And that makes Reputation just another stat, similar to number of posts - it doesn't tell anythiong useful.

Myabe I should've voted for "The entire reputation system should be deactivated."...

[Doolipalally]

I would like one rep to be one point. I don't really like the idea that some people's opinions are 'worth more' than others, and I don't like the idea that my opinion now might be 'worth less' than in six months' time.

I don't think we need to reset the reps, though. I think repping is about showing appreciation to other forum users, not about keeping score - so it doesn't really matter what the totals are.

[Oldschool]

If they comment on the reason why they liked a particular post, I feel vindicated, or chuffed, or quietly staisfied. In the same vein, If I get a negative rep (and it has happened), it's also good to know why.

You could argue that a comment in the actual post would suffice just as well, but that would create a number of posts in the thread that are superfluous.



I'm not going to add anything more to the rep debate but I agree with the above. I like the fact that unlike the old forum if you rep someone here that you can comment on it and like Badstench I like reading the comments or at least knowing who repped or de-repped me. I also like the fact that a +/- rep is reported to the recipient. That function definitely put the brakes on problems we had with the system on the old forum.

While sometimes I do acknowledge a rep in open forum it's usually an "extra" to a reply. While I have posted strictly for acknowledging a rep I try to limit that. That's what I like about the recording and ability to comment on reps, it serves as a rep acknowledgement (dang spell checker flags this everytime - lol) without having to post/pm the recipient.

[Lightwielder]

I've actually been around for awhile, but I don't have much rep power. I was talking to Badstench, who had noticed one time that I had temporarily gone missing. I figured that no one would notice me missing, because I don't post much. I don't go browsing the Forums, looking for things to post on; I post on things that I see that I should post on. Badstench told me that the quality of my ability to post made up for the quantity, and that's why people know who I am, even though my reputation amount is comparatively low.

I notice that people tend to rep someone back when they get repped. I don't do that. I rep people for what they posted, if they posted something worth repping.. I choose who I (+)rep carefully, and who I (-)rep even more carefully.

I do think that post quantity is a little overpowered, but I see no problem with the way it is, overall. Reputation is only a label, so I have little opinion on whether or not you change it, or how you change it.

One opinion I do have, however, is this...
I don't think we need to reset the reps, though. I think repping is about showing appreciation to other forum users, not about keeping score - so it doesn't really matter what the totals are.

Dooli is correct. That is why I rep people; to show appreciation or agreement with someone's post, not to help tally-up their score.

[Scarbrow]

Just resurrecting the poll to attract attention, since a week has passed without more comments or votes.

[Elrond]

Just resurrecting the poll to attract attention, since a week has passed without more comments or votes.

It is either that we have 25 people who have participated (only 16 of them concerned with the subject since 9 of us voted that this doesn't interest them); or that we only have 25 active forum members ;) .

[Scarbrow]

I had asked myself the same question concerning my efforts to backup the old forum. Did you know that while in the old forum there are almost 4000 registered members, less than 1200 actually posted something? From those who posted:

- 262 users only posted once, 186 posted twice, 114 three times. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 times (number of users): 66, 55, 37, 37, 24, 29, 21. The total posts made by the 831 low-volume contributors: 2659 posts.

This is during almost 5 years!

On the other hand, from 57,442 total posts, only 55,856 are accounted for: the rest are from deleted users (like yours, Elendil). Of the accounted for, 19,617 come from the top 10 posters, and 45,592 from the top 100 posters. The 235 in-between users contributed a total of 7,435 posts.

I still don't have solid data backing up this, but I'm under the impression that after 2008, when the GM made Sryth his primary profession, the number of posts and frequent posters skyrocketed. The data of this forum (so far, and only for the few months it's been running) seems to support this:

Registered users: 294. Users with al least 1 post: 180. Users with less than 10 posts: 108. (Incidentally, that means that any change to the reputation system will only affect 72 users, the only ones with some actual reputation-altering power. And if 25 of those have voted, that means 1/3 of the population, so it makes for a good enough democratic participation, I've seen worse on the RealWorld).

In the new forum, the heavy users have still more representation than in the old one. Total posts: 18,173. Posts by the low-volume contributors (less than 10 posts): 336. Posts by the top 10 posters: 11,801. Posts by the top 25: 15,929.

So, as a summary, it seems like we're indeed very close to 25 active (or at least very active) contributors, though this is not absolute (BTW, I'm number 37 in posts).

I hope these stats are useful

[Young Ned]

Wow, that's some very impressive research, Scarbrow! You amaze me. :)

[psychoadept]

I think it's worth noting that the old forum required people to register to even access the content, whereas this one doesn't. So there will probably be fewer "non-participatory" registrations here.

[Oldschool]

I have noticed that the News & Announcements thread isn't visible until I log on but you make a good point Psychoadept. I often peek at "who's online" and usually there are a few to several guests surfing the forum.

[psychoadept]

I have noticed that the News & Announcements thread isn't visible until I log on.

As have I, but I doubt that many people who aren't registered even realize they're missing something. The only way they would find out is if they happened to hit a link from a different forum that pointed there.

[Young Ned]

Another week for this poll to run, but voting seems to have died off.

[Scarbrow]

Well, the time has passed, and to me the poll result is quite clear. The majority of votes have gone to Rep power should be changed. One vote is one point.. A less emphatic, but nevertheless clear result, is in favor of Reputation levels should be reset to either 0 or 10 (original starting rep). And also important, the other options presented didn't achieved a wide support, so controversy, if present, is minor.

According to my previous post (http://www.srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=18531#post18531), around 1/3 of all the registered users with reputation-altering ability have voted. And most of them are also among the most active users. I think this makes this poll representative of the community's opinion.

Moreover, this poll has been revived two times, without new opinions or votes being cast, and now it's locked. I think this means that there are no more people with an opinion on the matter wanting to participate, in any direction, on this discussion.

So Havoc, please, enact the will of the community.

Addendum:
I'll miss my reputation of 432 with only 82 posts, even better than the 4/1 ratio I achieved on the old forum. I thought maybe other players would feel the same, so I've taken a snapshot of the current state of the people's reputation. There are 109 members with Reputation above 10 (spoilertagged to save space)

-User|-Posts|-Reputation
Wetheril|889|2474
smv1973|1,087|2422
racey|553|2138
Oldschool|1,353|1676
thingirl|3,838|1574
scout1idf|554|1471
shadowblack|984|1468
Badstench|708|1428
Elrond|820|1225
spencer|499|1162
Doolipalally|560|1024
texlaw1992|281|960
zmflavius|1,444|909
Joddelle|757|833
Young Ned|515|821
Moria369|140|673
psychoadept|432|545
jimyred|121|471
Scarbrow|81|432
Taleria|143|366
Hastifer|196|362
MrBlack|54|324
Lightwielder|201|321
billydakid|314|308
Havoc|161|260
mordain|41|245
Rangerlord|106|195
taproot97|209|190
Zedalion|68|180
cddanforth|82|130
Chareos|97|117
Zen And Tonic|17|109
Daffanka|112|108
HairyKeysagain|8|103
SiannaDey|37|100
Dranikos|43|85
paladin|247|78
ValothBranstrommer|23|77
Mattman20|73|73
Mordi|5|68
Sub Zero|1|61
Ka keng|59|59
solitu|113|55
Almathea|27|54
Draxas|2|53
srythadventurer|69|52
narion|10|49
Tazar Yoot|31|48
Arik|34|46
kanex7|40|45
hephaestus16|3|44
Silk|20|41
Thassa|13|40
Ole1kanobe|16|39
roggs|19|38
srythgm|1|36
TheRedFear|21|36
Ganymede|3|35
barn42|17|33
majesty|18|33
Choson One|28|32
Maskull|71|28
Sarcast67|8|28
Zeriken|43|28
RaleighTSakers|3|27
Godofpride|161|26
Glowworm|10|25
dejrfan|14|23
Mak|21|23
Jesphulin|13|22
Kruck|26|21
Valiance|14|21
acebrock|28|20
Beowulf|8|20
Dragonscloak|10|20
Plezier|151|20
Zephyr|4|20
Ariel|2|18
CarolinaDruid|8|17
Grymlok|4|17
Lugwy|27|17
Bowen Cranbourne|8|16
SemperFidelis|3|16
grimbold|3|14
Lyfebane|3|14
Maghnosius|2|14
Lhiannan|2|13
wolfman10|11|13
Aracelis|25|12
Belladonna|3|12
Corgrim|17|12
David123123|5|12
Disco Soup|21|12
dman2life|1|12
Gabringel|5|12
kaffe|12|12
Aeryl Silverheels|4|11
Ayeohx|10|11
ChaunceyK|4|11
Dinkem|40|11
Djin|3|11
electrox|8|11
Erelas|1|11
jp123james|7|11
kschons|4|11
Mongwen|7|11
Nokturnal88|5|11
TimothyPine|2|11
Zanthal|5|11

[racey]

Out of curiosity how is 5 more votes for 1 rep equals 1 point (14 votes) than this doesn't interest me (9 votes) demonstrate the will of the community? I think that the fact that this topic kept on dying off then was tried to be revived twice, unsuccessfully I will add, indicates that the will of the community would rather this topic go away.

[thingirl]

Out of curiosity how is 5 more votes for 1 rep equals 1 point (14 votes) than this doesn't interest me (9 votes) demonstrate the will of the community? I think that the fact that this topic kept on dying off then was tried to be revived twice, unsuccessfully I will add, indicates that the will of the community would rather this topic go away.

True that!

[Scarbrow]

Out of curiosity how is 5 more votes for 1 rep equals 1 point (14 votes) than this doesn't interest me (9 votes) demonstrate the will of the community? I think that the fact that this topic kept on dying off then was tried to be revived twice, unsuccessfully I will add, indicates that the will of the community would rather this topic go away.

The poll has (had) two separate options, one of them labeled "Rep power should be kept the same NO changes." and another one labeled "This doesn't interest me; and I don't have an opinion one way or another!". Now, correct me if I'm wrong, since English is not my primary language, but I understand that "the will of the community would rather this topic go away", as you are saying, would correspond to option 1, "Rep power should be kept the same NO changes.", while last option , "This doesn't interest me; and I don't have an opinion one way or another!" should be interpreted as "I'll accept whatever decision the majority make, I have no opinion on the matter". In fact, I see you're the only forum user that has marked both of those options, so maybe you've interpreted them differently from me. And if you marked the last option as not interested on the matter, I think you're the only one (among the voters) who interpreted it that way.

So, it's not a matter of 14 votes against 9, but instead 14 votes against 4. That is, if we agree on my interpretation (we can discuss that, of course)

However, even if I'm wrong and your interpretation is right, still the majority of the voters (maybe I've rubbed a sore spot with that reference to "forum community", since you didn't felt represented by my statement? - if so, I'm sorry) have backed the "One vote is one point" option. That is true even if you took that all the votes for "keep the same" and "I don't care" (13) against the "One vote is one point" option (14), albeit I'd concede in that case it would be a fringe advantage.

As an alternative interpretation to yours, I think if the discussion died is because all people minimally interested on the matter had already voted and written by the first week. I support that on my previous analysis of forum heavy users, that gave around 25 users - not all, but most of the voters are from those ones, including you, racey

Is that an adequate explanation?

[zmflavius]

The poll has (had) two separate options, one of them labeled "Rep power should be kept the same NO changes." and another one labeled "This doesn't interest me; and I don't have an opinion one way or another!". Now, correct me if I'm wrong, since English is not my primary language, but I understand that "the will of the community would rather this topic go away", as you are saying, would correspond to option 1, "Rep power should be kept the same NO changes.", while last option , "This doesn't interest me; and I don't have an opinion one way or another!" should be interpreted as "I'll accept whatever decision the majority make, I have no opinion on the matter". In fact, I see you're the only forum user that has marked both of those options, so maybe you've interpreted them differently from me. And if you marked the last option as not interested on the matter, I think you're the only one (among the voters) who interpreted it that way.

So, it's not a matter of 14 votes against 9, but instead 14 votes against 4. That is, if we agree on my interpretation (we can discuss that, of course)

However, even if I'm wrong and your interpretation is right, still the majority of the voters (maybe I've rubbed a sore spot with that reference to "forum community", since you didn't felt represented by my statement? - if so, I'm sorry) have backed the "One vote is one point" option. That is true even if you took that all the votes for "keep the same" and "I don't care" (13) against the "One vote is one point" option (14), albeit I'd concede in that case it would be a fringe advantage.

As an alternative interpretation to yours, I think if the discussion died is because all people minimally interested on the matter had already voted and written by the first week. I support that on my previous analysis of forum heavy users, that gave around 25 users - not all, but most of the voters are from those ones, including you, racey

Is that an adequate explanation?

I think what he meant is that most people don't care about this anymore, but before, that was what they thought when they voted.

[racey]

The poll has (had) two separate options, one of them labeled "Rep power should be kept the same NO changes." and another one labeled "This doesn't interest me; and I don't have an opinion one way or another!". Now, correct me if I'm wrong, since English is not my primary language, but I understand that "the will of the community would rather this topic go away", as you are saying, would correspond to option 1, "Rep power should be kept the same NO changes.", while last option , "This doesn't interest me; and I don't have an opinion one way or another!" should be interpreted as "I'll accept whatever decision the majority make, I have no opinion on the matter". In fact, I see you're the only forum user that has marked both of those options, so maybe you've interpreted them differently from me. And if you marked the last option as not interested on the matter, I think you're the only one (among the voters) who interpreted it that way.

So, it's not a matter of 14 votes against 9, but instead 14 votes against 4. That is, if we agree on my interpretation (we can discuss that, of course)

However, even if I'm wrong and your interpretation is right, still the majority of the voters (maybe I've rubbed a sore spot with that reference to "forum community", since you didn't felt represented by my statement? - if so, I'm sorry) have backed the "One vote is one point" option. That is true even if you took that all the votes for "keep the same" and "I don't care" (13) against the "One vote is one point" option (14), albeit I'd concede in that case it would be a fringe advantage.

As an alternative interpretation to yours, I think if the discussion died is because all people minimally interested on the matter had already voted and written by the first week. I support that on my previous analysis of forum heavy users, that gave around 25 users - not all, but most of the voters are from those ones, including you, racey

Is that an adequate explanation?

I was not referring to the votes themselves when I stated that the will of the community prefer this topic to go away. I was referring to the complete lack of interest by the community in this topic. I could/would not consider my opinion on this matter the opinion of the forum community. You did not offend me nor did you hit a sore spot. I posted what to me is an obvious case of lack of interest in this topic.

I accidentally clicked on this doesn't interest me when I went to click submit vote. I originally was going to have that vote removed but decided that it really didn't matter. My true personal feelings on this whole topic are what is really the issue here? Why is this important? Why can't it just go away? Initially I was going to ignore the thread in its entirety. I wish that I would have. Not to drag anyone in to this but please explain to me how resetting everyone's rep back to 10 will be fair to a player like Smv1973. How will he be re-repped for achieving legendary status in all his skills? How about players like Wetheril and Shadowblack (to name a few) who gained a lot of reputation for helping other players and for work on the Wiki and Badstench for his outstanding interviews. How will they be re-repped? Does anyone care? The reps are what they are. There is no need for a change. They have no affect on any other aspect of this game. I know I am not alone on feeling this way. I encourage anyone else who like myself and Thingirl and a few others who PM'd me post and let your opinion be known.

[wetheril]

I was hesitant to say anything at first, but since Racey brought up the issue regarding the lack of interest, I will chime in. I cannot speak for everybody, but for myself, I would count as one who would rather this topic go away. I agree that the reputation system could be fixed, but I don't see it as being necessary to change anymore. What brought about my change in attitude is the negative feelings that seemed to have perpetuated as a result of the thread (and the discussion) prior to this topic. I thought about it for days. In the end, does it really matter what the number is next to your name? I would rather not compromise the goodwill and happiness of the forum by further engaging in a topic that seems to be the source of strife. Yes, I just want everybody to be happy and get along.

[Oldschool]

First Scarbrow and I share the same interpretation of the last choice - "....this doesn't interest me....". However some folks may interpret it differently. Also I should mention that initially that vote option wasn't there and it was edited in later. I feel confident that I accounted for any known errors related to that. Still Scarbrow's explanation is well done.

Although he didn't ask I took the liberty of editing the poll to subtract the vote Racey mentions - just as I did previously for another member.

Racey makes an excellent point in regards to reppable achievements/posts/etc... that members have made that can't be repeated. While that may be a moot issue IF the system could be reset to allow for all past reps to count as one point it bears serious consideration.

It seems that the whole concept and practice of repping has sorta fell by the wayside in the community overall. Perhaps this is partly because the novelty of the new system has wore off. However, I suspect it may be in larger part due to indifference borne outta this debate - or worse yet some earnest discord.

With that in mind Wetheril's aptly put post is pretty much dead on as far as conveying my current thoughts on the matter. Not to sound over dramatic but in other words - "fixing" the rep system may cause more harm than good.

Just my two cents......

[Scarbrow]

I would rather not compromise the goodwill and happiness of the forum by further engaging in a topic that seems to be the source of strife. Yes, I just want everybody to be happy and get along.

Well, I trust Wetheril better than myself to gauge forum's feelings about a topic, and I also don't want to create unnecessary drama. While I still stand by what I said before, and think the system should be brought back to a simpler scheme (1 vote, 1 point), I will no longer pursue this objective. I felt that something had to be done, and I did what I thought necessary. A community has to create their own rules by consensus (though if an open, long discussion followed by a poll with long running time does not establish a base for a consensus, I don't know what will).

The last think I want to say: I used to be proud, on the old forum, about the karma associated to my name. I felt that, even if I was not the most frequent contributor, or rarely helped the newbies, I was appreciated by my investigations and statistics. Of course, when I started my career on the wiki, my karma skyrocketed. I was fueled by those compliments, and strove to keep my posts high on content, and always helpful. I could compare to others, more veteran, more frequent contributors. I had a certain measure of how respected my name was, and others could also see it. Not that I'm saying that the current system does not have its merits. I'll keep using it, if only because it's good to be able to say people how you appreciate their efforts. But now I'm no longer able to compare with others, nor can I say (after the few reps you can check at CP) how much am I respected, since as some of the people that respect and appreciate me just make 30+ changes each time (and they'll soon make 100+ changes, and then 500+, and so on). I think that by dropping this issue we as a whole will be dropping our opportunity to recover one of the best features of the old forum. Reputation is quite meaningless now, and will become a more and more meaningless stat because of this.

I foresee a future in which the weight of this will become more and more obvious for more and more people, and then this discussion will be had once again, with even more drama for more people. Right now a little over 70 people would be affected, and as most of them are active (very active, indeed) they will recover their status through even more contributions (not to mention you'll be able to repp' them again for their achievements on the original post which elicited them from the start). But if you really feel that my fears are unfounded, and losing the meaning of a cool feature is the price to pay for the peace, I'll pay it. Sorry for the long rambling, this has been just disheartening

[psychoadept]

I, too, have noticed that repping in general seems to have dropped off since this discussion started. I'm guessing a resolution - any resolution - would go a long way to solving that. Anybody feel differently?

I'll say the same thing I said before: I don't care nearly as much what my rep is currently as that I got a rep from somebody for something. It's a very ephemeral reward. As for SMV, etc, losing their reps... we can always re-rep them if we feel its important. Anybody who has a very high rep want to put in two cents on whether you would care if it went down again for a while?

In general, I tend to agree with Scarbrow's reasoning and that we should go ahead and make the change now or it's going to come up again in the future. Is there anyone who would be seriously offended if we made the proposed change?

[Elrond]

Dang it! I voted the last option because I the issue was non-issue for me. But I've read the discussion and it seems to have become very interesting.

First off, the old Karma and current reputation system is a measure of appreciation and respect by other forum members. It is tempting to keep measuring one's self against others in this. It is opposite to post count, which is an individual stat with minimal comparison lure.

But it should be noted that there will be very few SMV's, Racey's, Shadowblack's and Billydakid's who grind millions of xp monthly and have millions of general xp lying around "just in case!" There will be few Wetheril's, Badstench's, and Oldschool's who are helpful and make the forum interesting to visit. And there are already too few people working marvelously on the Wiki. Not everyone will be appreciated as much. It is proportionate to effort put in the forum.

However, there seems to be a fair number of people who think the system is flawed. And regardless of my opinion, I'm in favor of fixing such a flaw instead of tearing down the system and starting from scratch. Restarting the reputation system will take away my appreciation of some very tremendous achievements and contributions by players. And I don't want to loose that.

Making the reputation system a standard 10-pt. repp might be a good suggestion.

[scout1idf]

I though this subject died off.

I still vote to leave it alone.

I don't want my rep's given or received to be wiped away like they meant nothing. I meant for the people I rep'd to have them and I want them to keep them.

Just my opinion for what little it matters....

[Lightwielder]

I'll be honest. I think everybody is overreacting on this. (This does include you, too, Scarbrow.) The reputation system, in my opinion, is a separate method to provide appreciation and acknowledge acheivements(such as birthdays) than a whole bunch of meaningless posts in every Forum just saying "good job" or "repped."

I simply use the reputation system to show people that I liked their post, without actually posting unnecessarily. I like it when someone reps me, regardless of who it was, or how much repping power they have.

I don't really care if the repping system is reset, or what's done with it. Too much drama going on here, I think.

[Doolipalally]

I'd like to try and summarise the opinions that have been voiced in the last few posts, because I for one am finding it hard to keep track of what people are saying. Please correct me if you feel I've misinterpreted your views.

Racey says he wants this issue to go away and that it shouldn't be important, but also says quite strongly that he feels resetting the reputations would be unfair to players who have earned them. (Racey, no offense, but this sounds like it is important to you and you don't want it to change, rather than that you don't care whether the system is changed or not.)

Wetheril says she would rather the reputation system be left alone than have it continue to cause bad feeling on the boards.

Oldschool agrees and worries that this debate has caused the practice of repping to become less popular overall.

Scarbrow still feels that the way the current reputation system works doesn't accurately reflect how much someone is respected on the forum, and that it would be easier to fix it now than have the problem crop up even more seriously in the future, but will agree to do nothing if making changes will cause serious upset.

Psychoadept agrees with Scarbrow, and also asks whether anyone with a current high rep score would like to comment on whether they would care if it dropped.

Elrond thinks that the temptation to measure oneself against others by rep score is understandable but should be avoided (is that what you meant?), and is in favour of tweaking the system rather than starting all over again.

Scout says he does not want the current rep scores to be erased.

Lightwielder doesn't care one way or another and suggests we all calm down a bit :)


Looking back through all that, as well as previous posts, it seems to me that the issue which is causing all the discord and contention is the issue of whether we reset the current reputation scores back to zero. It seems clear that if we do that a number of people are going to be seriously upset. I'd therefore suggest that we don't do it.

The issue of how much a rep is worth doesn't seem to cause as much strife (so far, anyway). Does this mean there's room for a compromise? Should we leave the current scores as they are, but change the system so that one rep equals one point? The latter idea seemed to get a reasonable amount of support in the poll.

I'm a bit hesitant to suggest this because it's what I voted for anyway so I may not be unbiased. But like Elrond, I think the system needs to be tweaked rather than restarted, and like Wetheril and Oldschool I would hate for this to become a source of major discord on the boards. I personally haven't noticed any decline in the use of the repping system - other than that Thingirl hasn't been around so much! :) - but I'm willing to believe that the argument might have affected things, and I would suggest that some form of compromise is the way forward.

[thingirl]

I've been busy. I agree with Scout, Wetheril, And, as much as I hate to say it, I agree with Elrond.

[psychoadept]

Yeah, Elrond's proposed compromise is probably a reasonable one. Anyway, it's all moot until Havoc shows up to change it. :)

[texlaw1992]

I agree with Elrond and Dooli. There seems to be way too much fuss over this issue.

[Young Ned]

I agree with Scarbrow's analysis as to the meanings of the different poll options.

I was not referring to the votes themselves when I stated that the will of the community prefer this topic to go away. I was referring to the complete lack of interest by the community in this topic.

Considering the number of posts, often very emphatic, in both this thread and the previous one where Scarbrow first brought up the issue, that seems to indicate a fairly strong interest within the community to me. Yes, there hasn't been much discussion lately, but that's because the poll was set up to close itself after three weeks (which seems to have been about a week and a half too long) and once everybody interested had cast their votes, what was there to discuss? We've just been waiting for the poll to close. Now that it has, note that discussion has resumed.

I, too, have noticed that repping in general seems to have dropped off since this discussion started. I'm guessing a resolution - any resolution - would go a long way to solving that. Anybody feel differently?

I don't know about others, but I for one have been doing less repping precisely because there didn't seem much point in it if we were about to revamp or reset the rep system. Once we have a resolution, I will resume repping again. Although I don't know if I will rep as frequently as I did before this whole discussion started, as this discussion has caused me to think more about when and why I rep people.

However, there seems to be a fair number of people who think the system is flawed. And regardless of my opinion, I'm in favor of fixing such a flaw instead of tearing down the system and starting from scratch. Restarting the reputation system will take away my appreciation of some very tremendous achievements and contributions by players. And I don't want to lose that.

Well said. Makes sense to me.

Looking back through all that, as well as previous posts, it seems to me that the issue which is causing all the discord and contention is the issue of whether we reset the current reputation scores back to zero. It seems clear that if we do that a number of people are going to be seriously upset. I'd therefore suggest that we don't do it.

The issue of how much a rep is worth doesn't seem to cause as much strife (so far, anyway). Does this mean there's room for a compromise? Should we leave the current scores as they are, but change the system so that one rep equals one point? The latter idea seemed to get a reasonable amount of support in the poll.

...Like Elrond, I think the system needs to be tweaked rather than restarted, and like Wetheril and Oldschool I would hate for this to become a source of major discord on the boards. I personally haven't noticed any decline in the use of the repping system - other than that Thingirl hasn't been around so much! :) - but I'm willing to believe that the argument might have affected things, and I would suggest that some form of compromise is the way forward.

Great job summarizing the previous posts, and I have to say I agree with you on the main issues. Several folks seem to feel that resetting the reps back to 10 would be unfair, so I agree that in the interest of harmony on the board we should not do this. Making one rep equal one vote from now on seems much less controversial, and was the clear winner among the poll options, so I think we should do that.

There also seems to be support for the idea of retroactively redoing the reps so that all previous reps only count as 1 point each, as that would be much fairer to those who currently have a lot of reps than simply resetting everyone back to 10. If that's feasible, I'm in favor of that approach.

[wetheril]

I just want to say that I agree that Dooli's assesment of the situation is spot on. If you have been following the discussion from start to finish, there was quite a lot of support for changing reputation power. After resetting reputation levels were brought into the picture, several people did not embrace that idea. Trying to sell the changes as an "all or nothing" is what seems to be me to be the root problem, and the cause of the tension. I am in favor of a compromise.

[Havoc]

Ok, some changes have been made. From now on, all reps are worth one point.

You get an additional point of reputation altering power per million posts, and per million rep, and per million days you have been a member. :D

[Zedalion]

Soo...I don't really care, and I want to applaud those of you who weighed in on this. I know that grappling with controversial topics amongst strong-minded people is not easy.

That said, if I understand what's happened, essentially it just became impossible (or very very difficult) for new posters who can only get 1 rep at a time to catch up to the massive rep power of some of the people who benefited from the previous system. Correct?

As I said, I don't care. Have never won a popularity contest in my entire life, and the Sryth forum certainly wasn't going to break that trend, old system or new. Just want to make sure I have it clear.

[texlaw1992]

I bet TG does it by the end of the year (lol).

I'm fine with the change.

[Young Ned]

That said, if I understand what's happened, essentially it just became impossible (or very very difficult) for new posters who can only get 1 rep at a time to catch up to the massive rep power of some of the people who benefited from the previous system. Correct?

Which is exactly why several of us supported resetting the existing reputations in some way, either by restarting everyone back at 10 or by "reprocessing" all the old reps under the new system of one point per rep (or whatever the new system, if any, turned out to be).

[psychoadept]

My understanding was that "reprocessing" wasn't really possible. So it's either leave it as-is or start from scratch.

Did others find the debate to be particularly contentious? I feel like everyone's been very reasonable in making their points, but then I'm used to dealing with debates on much more inflammatory issues...

[racey]

From my post in the original thread...

Having said all that I must say that I can see where the amount of rep power acquired by some has the potential to become outrageous. Is it really necessary to reset everyone's current amount of reps to reign in this animal? Somewhere every rep that has been given out has been logged/recorded. Now I don't know all that much about maintaining a forum (so please be kind) but I would like to know if the forum community decides on a standard system why can't it be implemented retroactively? If it is not possible to do so then I would vote to keep everyone's current rep level as it is and institute a rep power cap system. 1 rep for every 500 of your own reps + 1 rep for each year of membership to be maxed maxed out at a total of 10 points per individual rep.


Right now a little over 70 people would be affected, and as most of them are active (very active, indeed) they will recover their status through even more contributions (not to mention you'll be able to repp' them again for their achievements on the original post which elicited them from the start).

I, too, have noticed that repping in general seems to have dropped off since this discussion started. I'm guessing a resolution - any resolution - would go a long way to solving that. Anybody feel differently?
I'll say the same thing I said before: I don't care nearly as much what my rep is currently as that I got a rep from somebody for something. It's a very ephemeral reward. As for SMV, etc, losing their reps... we can always re-rep them if we feel its important.

As for the above posts how many members would actually go back and re-rep posts? In other words how many people are going to start reading every thread from the beginning post to the last post and re-rep them? Not too many I'm fairly certain.

A change has been implemented by Havoc and Zedalion has already stated the biggest flaw with the new system. Now new/newer forum members will really feel like they are behind the 8 ball. My point the entire time has been that if the rep count could not be retroactively implemented and then capped at a community agreed upon level it should just be left alone. I concede the fact that other members made good posts supporting their stance on the issue however, I agree with Wetheril's statement that the all or nothing approach was just a bit too much. I really would have liked to see more discussion on the feasibility of retroing the current rep levels and capping the rep point levels (which I believe Havoc stated he could not do but he could alter some of the components of the rep system). If that possibility had been further explored and then shot completely down (not feasible), I think, a vote should have then been taken and the will of the community exercised.

[Scarbrow]

Ok, some changes have been made. From now on, all reps are worth one point.

You get an additional point of reputation altering power per million posts, and per million rep, and per million days you have been a member. :D

An excellent answer, Havoc. Humour is always a good resource. All in all, a good compromise, I think. Thank you to all the people who came here to bring some common sense into this, and sorry if my opinions have been a little too "strong".

[Young Ned]

The problem is that if reprocessing isn't possible, there IS no solution that will satisfy everyone. Resetting the existing reps won't satisfy some people, and NOT resetting the existing reps won't satisfy other people. And leaving the system at what we had before, as Racey advocates, wouldn't satisfy the majority of voters who felt it needed to be changed.

My feeling is that if reprocessing the reps isn't possible, which it sounds like it isn't, then we should reset everyone back to the default of 10. Those who got lots of reps before will continue to get lots of reps, so in a month or two you won't even be able to tell we all got reset.

That seems fairer to me than leaving things with a large imbalance between those who got "inflated" reps under the old system and those who are just starting out. Some of those who have high reps have already stated they don't care what the numbers are, so it's not a big deal to them. Heck, my own reputation isn't stratospheric, but it's a lot higher than anybody just joining would be able to get for a long time under the new system, and I don't mind if it gets reset.

[psychoadept]

I note that only three people voted NOT to reset rep levels in the original poll. If more people felt strongly about it, why didn't they vote? (That doesn't have to be a rhetorical question...)

[zmflavius]

I note that only three people voted NOT to reset rep levels in the original poll. If more people felt strongly about it, why didn't they vote? (That doesn't have to be a rhetorical question...)

27 members voted. There are maybe 70 people who would be affected by this in the first place and half of those aren't even active (info courtesy of Scarbrow).

[Badstench]

I have always been ambivalent of the repping system - the whole argument/ discussion/ debate was greeted with the same annoying ache in my elbow that use to happen when a particularly confusing school lesson had me concluding that everyone else in the world was having more fun than me.

However, now that the repping system has been changed, I think it sensible to re-set all the rep stats.

[thingirl]

I bet TG does it by the end of the year (lol).

I'm fine with the change.

I knew someone would say that the moment I read the 1m posts thing.