Feature Overview: Reputation system

[Havoc]

For a quick overview of the reputation system on this forum, visit the FAQ (http://www.srythforum.com/faq.php?faq=vb3_user_profile#faq_vb3_reputation).

Details:

To affect a person's reputation, click on the http://www.srythforum.com/images/buttons/reputation.gif or http://www.srythforum.com/images_sryth/buttons/reputation.gif icon (depending on what skin you're using) to the top right of any particular post.

You start off with a reputation of 10.

Although you can give reputation at any time, your reputation hits count on others only after you have made 10 posts, and your own reputation is at 10 or above.

Each reputation hit affects a user's reputation by 1 point.

You can affect a user's reputation once per post. You can both add and subtract reputation, though the ability to subtract reputation might be withdrawn if people misuse it.

You can make up to 10 reputation clicks per day. After 'rep'ing a user, you must rep at least 2 other users before you can give reputation to the same person again.

Comments and suggestions welcome.

[scout1idf]

If I understand the FAQ's, until you post at least 10 times and your own reputation has to be at least 10, rewarding someone else doesn't count?

That doesn't seem fair to the person that you rewarded.

Or did I read that wrong?

[Oldschool]

That's the way I understand it also. At least we start off with the required amount of rep so the ten posts should be all that's required.

[Havoc]

One of the major reasons it's set up this way is so that you can't abuse the system by setting up multiple accounts solely for the purpose of 'rep'ing someone. Having to wait till 10 posts seems like a reasonable sacrifice to me.

[spencer]

Can someone direct me to where the reputation score is, please? (And, now, I am one step closer to having my rep reward count) :D

[acebrock]

you can't see the actual rep score of someone, but below tehir number of posts is the rep amount on a vague graph.

If you want to see who's reping you and how, then click on user CP on the top bar and it will show you.

[spencer]

you can't see the actual rep score of someone, but below tehir number of posts is the rep amount on a vague graph.

If you want to see who's reping you and how, then click on user CP on the top bar and it will show you.


Thanks, acebrock....I was able to view my own rep as you suggested, but the only thing that I see under the number of posts for the different members is a green dot...is that the graph that you mean?

[acebrock]

Yes, essentially as your rep gets higher, you'll get more green dots under your name. I'm simply going to guess that that happens at every 100 rep

[scout1idf]

I think I like the old Karma system better, other than you couldn't see who exalted or smote you.

[Oldschool]

When I go to user cp I see the "latest reputation received" information which lists thread, date and comment. Is the giver listed or am I overlooking it or how to display him/her?

[scout1idf]

When I go to user cp I see the "latest reputation received" information which lists thread, date and comment. Is the giver listed or am I overlooking it or how to display him/her?

Here's an example of the rep you gave me.......

Latest Reputation Received |-Thread|-Date|-Posted By|-Comment
-http://srythforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_balance.gif|-Shameless Bragging| (http://srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=83#post83)-06-29-2009 01:16 AM|-Oldschool|- (http://srythforum.com/member.php?u=24)Nicely done
As far as turning on who, I didn't change anything. Maybe an invisible user gave you the rep. That's the only thing I can think of.

[Havoc]

Here's an example of the rep you gave me.......

Latest Reputation Received |-Thread|-Date|-Posted By|-Comment
-http://srythforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_balance.gif|-Shameless Bragging| (http://srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=83#post83)-06-29-2009 01:16 AM|-Oldschool|- (http://srythforum.com/member.php?u=24)Nicely done
As far as turning on who, I didn't change anything. Maybe an invisible user gave you the rep. That's the only thing I can think of.

That was my bad. Mods and Supermods didn't have the right permissions to see who gave them reputation. That's been fixed now.

you can't see the actual rep score of someone, but below tehir number of posts is the rep amount on a vague graph.

If you want to see who's reping you and how, then click on user CP on the top bar and it will show you.

I've modified the template, so that it shows the reputation as a number too. In case any other changes need to be made, let me know, the system is very customizable.

[Oldschool]

For your rep work consider yourself rep'd - nice tweak Havoc.

[acebrock]

Consider yourself further repped (is that a word?) Havoc, for this change, and the quick laugh

[Oldschool]

Consider yourself further repped (is that a word?) Havoc, for this change, and the quick laugh

I dunno for sure, but it seems to have stuck on the forum already so I would say at least as a colloquial term on here - yes.

Also it's very nice to not have to wait for an hour as with the old forum's exalts as I was often "waiting to recharge" then sometimes having to view my old posts to make sure I didn't forget to bestow the exalt.

[Mattman20]

I'm not sure if this was just a bug or what, but when I was on the Default skin the reputation count didn't show up, just the little green bar..thingy. I switched over to the Sryth skin and then it started showing it as a number on each person's post.

[Havoc]

That's not a bug, I've just not added the code to show reputation numbers into the default template.

[spencer]

Well, I guess you rep what you sow...nice job Havoc :)

[Oldschool]

I'm sure some folks may know this but others like me that aren't familiar with this type board probably don't so....

I just got advised that I'd give out too much rep in the last 24 hours to try again. I haven't a clue as to the limit/parameters. Also, you can only give rep on a specific post one time and not to the same member consecutively - you actually have to wait till you've repped two other members before repping him/her again. Also I don't think there is a way to rep except by doing it on a post - like Scout mentioned re: the exalt the GM thread on the old forum - or if there is I'm overlooking it.

[Mattman20]

You can affect a user's reputation once per post. You can both add and subtract reputation, though the ability to subtract reputation might be withdrawn if people misuse it.

You can make upto 10 reputation clicks per day. After 'rep'ing a user, you must rep at least 2 other users before you can give reputation to the same person again.

Hope this helps.

[scout1idf]

Latest Reputation Received|Thread|Date|Posted By|Comment
http://srythforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif|New Feature: AG badge| (http://srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=452#post452)07-02-2009 11:52 PM|solitu (http://srythforum.com/member.php?u=10)|Thank you :)
http://srythforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif|Crimson-Helmed Rider... (http://srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=468#post468)|07-02-2009 11:49 PM|Oldschool (http://srythforum.com/member.php?u=24)|300+ visits to CHR plus the other three characters - IMPRESSIVE.
http://srythforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif|The Bat Cave (http://srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=433#post433)|07-02-2009 09:29 PM|psychoadept (http://srythforum.com/member.php?u=36)|
http://srythforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif|The Bat Cave (http://srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=433#post433)|07-02-2009 07:38 PM|thingirl (http://srythforum.com/member.php?u=45)|cool Idea
http://srythforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_balance.gif (http://srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=83#post83)|Shameless Bragging (http://srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=83#post83)|06-29-2009 01:16 AM|Oldschool (http://srythforum.com/member.php?u=24)|Nicely done


Can I assume that the http://srythforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_balance.gif (http://srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=83#post83) from my first rep that oldschool gave me means that I didn't get it? He didn't have 10 post's at the time. I currently have 14 rep points.

[Oldschool]

Hope this helps.

Thanks I forgot to re-check this thread and was going off the FAQs. I'd rep you but I'm still getting chastised every time I try - lol. Makes sense to put a limit on it especially for negative rep as there's potential for abuse. Not so much on here but on others.

Also I noticed that now you can disable the display of your own rep. Figure that was part of when Havoc enabled the actual display of rep, which was a very nice tweak.

[Oldschool]

Can I assume that the http://srythforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_balance.gif (http://srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=83#post83) from my first rep that oldschool gave me means that I didn't get it? He didn't have 10 post's at the time. I currently have 14 rep points.

From the way I read it that's correct. Actually you have to have 10 rep or better (which we all started with) and 10 posts before your rep hits on others actually counts.

Also another thing is your reputation power which is (cut/pasted from the FAQs),

If the administrator has enabled this, the amount of reputation that each user will give (or take away if negative) is shown in the user's posts as 'Reputation Power'. The value of the reputation power is determined by the administrator and may increase over time depending on the settings they have applied.

Which is based on,


To start off, each reputation hit affects a user's reputation by 1 point. You gain an additional point of reputation altering power for
1) Each year you have been registered.
2) Every 1000 posts
3) Every 100 points of your own reputation

So, a user who has been around for 500 days, made 2140 posts and has a reputation of 458 points will add 1(base) + 1(1 year) + 2(2000 posts) + 4(400 rep) = 8 points of reputation each time.



If I understand this correctly the above "reputation power" is different than what is displayed in our posts which is reputation which is part (#3 above) of "rep power". Also Havoc mentioned in another thread/post that he had an an administrative rep "award" that counted as ten points.

[Doolipalally]

Also I don't think there is a way to rep except by doing it on a post - like Scout mentioned re: the exalt the GM thread on the old forum - or if there is I'm overlooking it.

I've been wondering about this recently. There have been a couple of times where I've wanted to rep people back (to say thanks, and/or because their rep explanations made me laugh), and there wasn't a post of theirs in the relevant thread. The only way to do it seemed to be to find a random post of theirs to use, and then try and explain in the comments line.

Would it be possible to set it up so that you could rep people directly from their profile page?

[Oldschool]

Just noticed that we have our first member(s) that have gained reputation altering power - Badstench followed closely by Joddelle. Kudos to you both.

[Young Ned]

I assume that's because they both have over 100 reputation? I believe Thingirl has also gained rep power, because she has over 1000 posts. Conga-rats to her as well! :cool:

[thingirl]

Thx, and I do have power because of my insainly large post count.

[scout1idf]

Would it be possible to add the rep count to the member list page along with the green pips?

(see attachment)

Not a big deal. Just for curiosity (nosy) reasons.

[Elrond]

Would it be possible to add the rep count to the member list page along with the green pips?

(see attachment)

Not a big deal. Just for curiosity (nosy) reasons.

Seconded!

[thingirl]

Thirded. Although, you can just go to their profile and find any post of there's. But it's a convenience thing.

[scout1idf]

Thirded. Although, you can just go to their profile and find any post of there's. But it's a convenience thing.

I thought of that but it would be easier to be nosy this way.....

[thingirl]

I know. I like being nosy. I also like being helpful and trying to state things from a different perspective sometimes.

[wetheril]

I know. I like being nosy.

:D

...Not that that's a bad thing. ;)

[thingirl]

Hehe. Repped.

[Elrond]

:D

...Not that that's a bad thing. ;)

It is probably my screen; But I cannot see the writing before the three dots :o

[thingirl]

She said "... Not that that's a bad thing. ;)"

And you can just copy it into Word, it'll show up.

[Elrond]

She said "... Not that that's a bad thing. ;)"

And you can just copy it into Word, it'll show up.

Thanks ;) But I'll wait on Wetheril to see if I've missed any "fine" print.

[wetheril]

Thanks ;) But I'll wait on Wetheril to see if I've missed any "fine" print.

*giggles* I was going to make a comment on old age and vision, but I'll hold off on it. ;)

[Elrond]

*giggles* I was going to make a comment on old age and vision, but I'll hold off on it. ;)

Lol ... at least I haven't requested posts in Size 4 yet!

[Oldschool]

Actually Elrond said......

It is probably my screen; But I cannot see the writing before the three dots :o

Are we both missing something? 'Cause I can't see anything either - and I quoted the post and copied it just in case some of Joddelle's "invisible ink" :) was being used.

EDIT: Initially I didn't think there was anything before the ... and that Wetheril was just using small print. But after this discussion I'm curious.

I'm also reminded of one of the younger guy's at work jab at me when he caught me manipulating my glasses and my cellphone to see the screen....

He sent me an email regarding his "concern" over my "oletimer" status along with this (or a similar) link, :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHj0t25JSW0

Hey.... the bright sun was washing out the screen.

LOL....... definitely reaping what I sowed as I used to do the same stuff 20'ish years ago.

[thingirl]

I highlighted the whole thing. And he probably meant after. I like using tan, because then people might be able to see it. Like now

[wetheril]

I really love strike-through text because it deliberately looks like a slip of the tongue. ;) It's one of the things I miss about not having that in bb-code.

[Elrond]

I highlighted the whole thing. And he probably meant after. [/color]

No! I meant before. I could see what was after the dots; but dots mean that they were preceded by something. Because Wetheril didn't have to put the dots if her "thought" started with the "Not!"


.
.
.
.
.
.

Yes! I'm trying to be mischievous!

[thingirl]

I've taken the bait, but I'm not swallowing the hook, nemesis.

[Elrond]

I've taken the bait, but I'm not swallowing the hook, nemesis.

Lol .... what bait? It started out as a question to Wetheril!

[scout1idf]

I really love strike-through text because it deliberately looks like a slip of the tongue. ;) It's one of the things I miss about not having that in bb-code.

I sent a request to Havoc for the tag to be included. I haven't heard back from him yet....

[Oldschool]

Just discovered this by accident while trying to provide a link for an individual post when I clicked the reputation icon instead of the post number.

Anyways if you right-click the reputation icon in a post and open it up in a new tab it will tell you how many rep points you have and show comments related to any rep received but not the repper.

If you try it on a post by someone else it'll act as if you're trying to give rep to that post.

I don't think this is a mod only function and should work for all members.

[shadowblack]

You get the same info by a single left click on the rep icon, as long as you are the author of the post. But you see only the last 5 reps received (at least with left click).

[thingirl]

Hmm, I tried it (right click on the repp icon) on Shadowblack's post above, and the new tab gave me the "repp box" with + or - repp option and comment.

EDIT: Clicking on the repp icon on this post gives Thingirl: This post has not received any reputation.

You currently have 387 reputation point(s).

EDIT2: Clicking it on a post of Thingirl's that has been repped gives her: Your reputation on this post is Somewhat Positive.
Comments on this Post
Thanks and back atcha.
You have 387 Reputation point(s).

[Oldschool]

Thanks Shadowblack, I never thought to try left clicking one of my own posts and only right clicked one by accident.

Well now I'm gonna experiment - hopefully I won't break anything. :rolleyes::)

[psychoadept]

Just an observation... I find it interesting to compare rep to number of posts made. (I think Wetheril is the hands down leader in that area!)

[Young Ned]

She's just so nice! :D

[wetheril]

I find it very awkward to respond to this...but I thank you all humbly.

In all honesty, I believe there are a great number of members on this forum whose "reputation" is underrepresented of their contributions, both past and present. With only 10 allowed a day, it's very unfortunate when individuals get overlooked--especially if their activity on the forum drops off lately. It does not any way diminish the value of what they've done for the community.

[Oldschool]

Well stated Wetheril and seconded.

[psychoadept]

In all honesty, I believe there are a great number of members on this forum whose "reputation" is underrepresented of their contributions, both past and present. With only 10 allowed a day, it's very unfortunate when individuals get overlooked--especially if their activity on the forum drops off lately. It does not any way diminish the value of what they've done for the community.


Also very true!

[thingirl]

What Oldschool and Psycoadept said.

[Scarbrow]

In fact, and I ask for your forgiveness beforehand because I'm not a frequent forum dweller and I may not know some subtle details but:

I think the system is being blown out of proportion. As the original (Havoc's) post (http://www.srythforum.com/showpost.php?p=74&postcount=1) said:
To start off, each reputation hit affects a user's reputation by 1 point. You gain an additional point of reputation altering power for
1) Each year you have been registered.
2) Every 1000 posts
3) Every 100 points of your own reputation

The problem I see with this is that the frequent users use both systems extensively, so they repp' each other (and other people too, of course) and they repp' a lot. This has the effect of increasing the post number of the very active users AND increase their reputation (since there are more posts for them to repp' up) AND in turn give them more power to repp' up others. That is only from common users, not counting extra Admin repps that are worth more.

The bottom line is that (in my not-so-humble opinion) we're handing out excessive amounts of reputation. Even myself, I can change ratings 2 at a time, owing to my reputation over 100. But Wetheril can change them 15 points at a time (presently), Oldschool can do it 13 points at a time (I'm assuming that the 10 extra admin repp points are separated, if not we'd we talking about 23 or 24 points at a time), and hyperactive Thingirl can also do it 13 at a time. Those are only a few selected examples, of many more. It's too much already. 1500 points of reputation is too high a number. It doesn't really convey just forum respect and participation anymore, and moreover, I feel that some new users can feel too "far from the leaders" to participate. I fear they could arrive here and think of this forum as a private party among a few ones. I know that the traditional quick welcome and warmth of this community uses to put them at ease and they soon join us, but greats amounts of reputation are starting to be (once more, this is just my opinion) more an obstacle than a feature.

So, my proposal would be: reduce the number. Either put a hard limit on how much reputation can a user deliver at any one time (10 as a maximum, like admins, for senior and respected members) or reduce drastically the number. I think that could be achieved by simply removing your own reputation from affecting others. That way I would just give 1, Wetheril 1, Oldschool 2 (barring Admin ones, of course) and Thingirl 4. I don't hold an opinion over what should be done with current numbers; by default, we should keep them.

What do you think?

[wetheril]

So, my proposal would be: reduce the number. Either put a hard limit on how much reputation can a user deliver at any one time (10 as a maximum, like admins, for senior and respected members) or reduce drastically the number. I think that could be achieved by simply removing your own reputation from affecting others. That way I would just give 1, Wetheril 1, Oldschool 2 (barring Admin ones, of course) and Thingirl 4. I don't hold an opinion over what should be done with current numbers; by default, we should keep them.

What do you think?

As somebody who gives out a lot of points from repping a single post--I have to agree with you that it seems like too many points (given out) at times. An alternative to the current rep power (if something could be done to alter it) is to add half the user's reputation, divided by 100, rounded down (or 1 if it is less than 1). I have no objections to your proposal either, but I don't know how other people will feel about their reputation no longer having any bearing on rep power.

[thingirl]

and hyperactive Thingirl can also do it 13 at a time.

I'm not hyperactive. And it's 14 now. Oh, and maybe 1 repp power = 200 repp. and 1k posts = 1 repp power.

[smv1973]

The only one that has Admin Rep powers is Havoc. Yes a person that has a high post count and high Rep can give out a large Rep every time they give one. But each person is only able to give out a set number of Rep's in a 24 hour period. I think it would be much worse if the system was like the old system where you could give an Exalt every hour. Plus you are not able to Rep the same person without giving two other people Rep's first.

I like the progression of the Rep system but I would have no objections to a change in the progression. Maybe a system like this.

You gain an additional point of reputation altering power for
1) Each year you have been registered.
2) Every 1000 posts.
3) Every 250 (or 300) points of your own reputation.

[Doolipalally]

I agree that rep power does seem to climb too high. I'd be in favour of having an upper limit.

Thinking about it further, I'd prefer it if people's rep power climbed only in proportion to their own reputation rather than to their number of posts. I used to hang out at a forum where people had a tendency to post meaningless comments in order to up their post count and raise their status. It really dragged the whole thing down and was one of the reasons I stopped bothering to read that forum, so I'm a bit twitchy as a result about post counts. I'm happy with the idea of adding a point for each year people have been registered, though.

[Scarbrow]

The only one that has Admin Rep powers is Havoc.
Good news, then, and a worry less for me.

I think it would be much worse if the system was like the old system where you could give an Exalt every hour. Plus you are not able to Rep the same person without giving two other people Rep's first before you can give a Rep to a person that has just got a Rep.
I heartily agree. No limits per hour and having to spread Rep around are cool ideas. But the (perceived) problem I was talking about was the high numbers involved, not the other features. The system is cool, I just was suggesting lowering the repp'ing power a lone person can wield, in turn (probably) reducing overall Reputation rankings to be more meaningful.

Even if the system of the old forum was awkward, the fact you had to win your reputation one person at a time, one exalt at a time, made plainer how much had you earned, for you to know and for others to see. I can't personally know on a brief look if many people approve of me (yes, I know that's true :p) or just a few powerful ones support me. Ok, I can review each of my posts and see who has repp'ed me for each one, but that is not precisely brief, and other people don't even have that tool.

EDIT: You edited while I was writing. I support Dooli's idea, and would maybe lower the extra power of repp'ing to 1 for each 500 reputation one has, and another 1 for each year. With that, in a year or two, we will be seeing +6 or +7 repps again.

[thingirl]

And if you're me...

OK, maybe a cap of 10 power would be nice.

[smv1973]

I think that is a good idea of

1 for each year you have been registered and 1 for every 500 points of your own reputation.

I think each time I give a Rep out is equal to 17 points right now and I think that is too high. I think there should maybe be a total cap of 15.

In terms of new users feeling left behind I would like to point out that Wetheril has only been back for a couple of months now and has the highest Reputation.

[wetheril]

I'm throwing in my vote for 1 rep point = 500 posts, and also 1 for every year.

Some new users may find it daunting, but most of the active ones are doing alright. Some of the newest users that come to mind are texlaw and Moria, who are both doing decently on rep count. I think the people who get left behind are the people who don't post often.

[Oldschool]

I agree about the high repping power and mine is currently at 13. I support implementing a max and tweaking the system.

[Oldschool]

However, despite my previous post I want to emphatically say I am NOT in favor of increasing the rep-limiters power, scope or reach. ;)

[zmflavius]

Before we get any further into this, I would like to ask the following question?

Who makes the rep rules anyways? I'm not completely sure that's in Havoc's jurisdiction. It may be that this is the way the forum is.

[thingirl]

Well, my mom is on another V-buliton forum, and they don't have repps at all. So, that much, at least, is changeable.

[Oldschool]

I'm not sure either but I know from earlier posts in the thread that Havoc has some control over the rep system. I just don't know to what degree, and to be honest if it's even somewhat time intensive I fully understand and support leaving it "as is".

[zmflavius]

Well, my mom is on another V-buliton forum, and they don't have repps at all. So, that much, at least, is changeable.

Buliton??

[thingirl]

Well, how do you spell it?

EDIT: Duh, I mean vBulletin.

[zmflavius]

Well, how do you spell it?

Bulletin.

[jimyred]

As one who only has used forums in the past to search for tech support info, I am wondering what the purpose of reputation is in this forum. Most places it lets you know whose info is most reliable, but I don't think that's an issue here, as there is no real deeper knowledge. So is rep good for anything besides bragging rights? I personally don't take much stock in it, especially since I get repped for things I wouldn't call rep-worthy, but not repped for more notable things :).

[Young Ned]

I agree that the rep ratings have gotten pretty nuts. I'm really not clear what the point is -- uh, no pun intended -- of giving people the ability to hand out multiple rep points per rep, honestly. Why should we be able to increase someone's reputation by 10 points at a time, or 5 points at a time, or anything more than just 1 point at a time, no matter how many posts we have or how high our own reputations are? What does that accomplish besides stroking our own egos? Ooh, look, I can rep 10 points at once! :p

That was the one thing the old exalt system had right, I think. I hated not being able to do more than one exalt per hour, and wouldn't want to go back to that limitation. But one rep point per rep makes sense to me.

One possible problem with that -- some people's reputations have gotten so high under the present system that if we go to a single-point system, nobody would ever be able to catch up to them. So we might want to consider some sort of across-the-board reduction in reputations if we do go to that kind of system. Perhaps divide everyone's current reputations by 10, or 15, or something like that. Or just start everybody over at 1. (Prepares to hear screams of outrage.) :cool:

[Taleria]

I'm with Ned on this. And I agree with Scarbrow's original issue as well - that newcomers might feel left out. Indeed, no offense to Wetheril and her much-vaunted rep, but the fact she does have the highest in only a couple months says everything. Not that she doesn't deserve it, but people who've been here twice as long ought to have more rep than she does just by virtue of having had more time to post.

I think the fairest option would be to start at 10, as originally set up, and then each person has one point only to give out. Or, if one point alone is too drastic a reduction in rep power, to take out post count from the equation and keep the point of rep power per 100 total rep, if only because with a new system, the rep would be harder to come by ideally. At this time, rep points really don't mean anything because people actually rep others for just about anything that they like. Still, there is no way to control what someone is repped for, so not much we can do there. Besides, people shouldn't be discouraged from handing out rep for whatever reason.

Another idea would be to have certain forums not count toward overall number of posts, if the rep point per thousand posts is allowed to stand. But this may be unnecessary here, because either the mods do a really good job of spam irradication, or there isn't much to begin with. And yet, people can post things that are only a few words long and have it count as a post equal to someone like me, who tends to be long-winded.

I think the question is what we want rep to actually mean. If it's a measure of popularity rather than contribution, the current system doesn't need to be changed. But if rep is to be a more accurate reflection of the quality of someone's posts, then rep power must be drastically reduced. I agree with a cap at ten points, like Havoc. A cap on overall rep would be good, too. No point in making it infinite.

*prepares to have her rep reserves depleted*

[Doolipalally]

Indeed, no offense to Wetheril and her much-vaunted rep, but the fact she does have the highest in only a couple months says everything. Not that she doesn't deserve it, but people who've been here twice as long ought to have more rep than she does just by virtue of having had more time to post.

At this time, rep points really don't mean anything because people actually rep others for just about anything that they like. Still, there is no way to control what someone is repped for, so not much we can do there. Besides, people shouldn't be discouraged from handing out rep for whatever reason.

I think the question is what we want rep to actually mean. If it's a measure of popularity rather than contribution, the current system doesn't need to be changed. But if rep is to be a more accurate reflection of the quality of someone's posts, then rep power must be drastically reduced.

I've picked out these points from your post because I think they all touch on an important issue. The key factor is that reps on this forum are given out for three main reasons. It's not just about liking people's posts. A lot of reputation is given out for progress and achievements in the game, and there's also repping for contributions to the wiki. (There's also reciprocal 'thanks for the rep' repping, just to complicate things further.)

So no, we don't have a rep system that's all about the quality of what people post, we have a rep system which also reflects how much time people spend playing the game (and how often they post their achievements), as well as how much time they put into providing the resources of the wiki. Given the business of reciprocal repping, we probably also have a rep system where people who rep more get more rep. The question is, are we bothered by this?

I confess I'm much more likely to rep people for what they post than for their game progress, but that's a personal choice. I use repping as a way to show people that their posts are appreciated. I rep people for 'just about anything that I like', as you put it, because if someone's made me laugh, or made me think, or posted something that shows they're a great human being, I like having a way of letting them know.

However, I don't have a problem with reps being handed out for any other reason. I'm not keeping score, and I don't think there's a rep accumulation competition going on (though the business of repping people for having reps is making my head spin a bit at the moment).

[wetheril]

I'm with Ned on this. And I agree with Scarbrow's original issue as well - that newcomers might feel left out. Indeed, no offense to Wetheril and her much-vaunted rep, but the fact she does have the highest in only a couple months says everything. Not that she doesn't deserve it, but people who've been here twice as long ought to have more rep than she does just by virtue of having had more time to post.

I'm not offended Taleria, but I find your first post to be a contradiction.

Doolipallaly has touched upon an important issue with her post as well; well said, Dooli. The reasons people hand out reps is a different issue from the amount of points given by pressing the "rep" button. I'm not sure I want to get into restricting the reasons why people hand out reps; if we do, it will complicate things further, and not necessarily solve the issue at hand.

[Taleria]

I'd like to point out that I never said we should restrict what people rep for. Perhaps an implication could have been read in my statement about controlling people, but ultimately, it would be taking away people's freedoms that don't harm anyone. So even if it could be controlled, I wouldn't truly want restrictions.

How else is my post contradictory?

*is a tad miffed*

Edit: I have the same policy as Dooli concerning why I rep others. I don't even read the "Milestones" or Braggart's Corner, let alone repping for game achievement. In many cases, those rep points are just because someone got really lucky with the number generator. Why is that noteworthy?

I'm more apreciative of wiki editors, since the wiki is not strictly necessary. People who work on it are going above and beyond merely playing the game and are providing a service to the entire Sryth community.

If we didn't like the game, we wouldn't be here, so that in itself is something I consider default behavior.

[wetheril]

I'm sorry if my post has made you upset. I regret having said so publically.

[Havoc]

Just to chime in with my own 2 bits...

The system is actually quite easy to change. Unfortuantely there doesn't seem to be a way to have a capped repping power, but I can easily tweak the amount that reputation, posts and longevity contribute.

[shadowblack]

I see "Latest Reputation Received" now shows the last 20 reputaions we've receoved instead of the last 5. Nice change.

[wetheril]

I agree--nice change, Havoc. :)

[Taleria]

I'm sorry if my post has made you upset. I regret having said so publically.

I apologize for overreacting and taking your statement personally. It's just that Dooli seemed to imply she got the wrong impression as well, and I just sort of went, "Argh" and emotion took over after that. It was poor judgment on my part to react while still annoyed. Shall I rep you as a peace offering? :p

[wetheril]

I apologize for overreacting and taking your statement personally. It's just that Dooli seemed to imply she got the wrong impression as well, and I just sort of went, "Argh" and emotion took over after that. It was poor judgment on my part to react while still annoyed. Shall I rep you as a peace offering? :p

LOL, please don't if you don't feel like it. I am simply happy that we can reconcile, and that is enough for me. :)

[Doolipalally]

Taleria, I didn't take your post to read that you want to restrict the reasons for repping, but it did seem that you were discussing reps in relation to posts and post quality only, and I though it was worth posting a reminder that there are other reasons people rep.

Jimyred and Young Ned also both mentioned the question of what the rep system is actually for, and I don't think it's a question we can entirely ignore. At the moment, it seems to have three functions:

1. Provide a way to be nice to people and brighten up their day by saying 'well done', or 'good point'.

2. Give some idea of people's commitment to the game and to the forum.

3. 'Reward' people for their contributions to the forum by increasing their repping power.

Function 1 is great, hooray, let's all keep doing it.

Function 2 is, I think, what a lot of this debate is about: does it work, what does it actually show, etc. etc. As Jimyred points out, on many forums a rep count is meant to indicate something about the value of the poster's opinions and advice. In a situation like ours where that's not really relevant, reps are more about 'forum respect and participation', as Scarbrow put it, so what we need to achieve is a system which lets that happen in a reasonably equable way.

And I agree with Young Ned: I think function 3 is largely unnecessary, so that's another reason for scaling the rep power progression down. After all, reps themselves are supposed to be 'rewards' for forum contribution.



(About this contradiction thing: I can see there might be a potential contradiction, in that if the problem is that newcomers are feeling left out, and you're suggesting that rep should climb more in line with number of posts, then newcomers will still be a long way behind. But I think I know what you meant.

Digression: I'm woefully ignorant about screen readers - do they indicate when text is in bold?)

EDIT: OK, it took me a long time to write all that - Taleria, hope you're not too miffed (and I love that word) and Havoc, thank you!

[wetheril]

Btw, I just want to say thank you, Dooli, for taking the time to write such a well thought-out response.

I am going to agree that #3 seems unnecessary to me as well. Whether my rep count is 1600+ or 200+, I don't believe the points I reward to somebody I rep should be (that much) different than any other person's on this forum. If "giving rep" is a way of expressing one's approval, it does seem fundamentally unfair that one person's opinion should count more than another's based on their own reputation.

Since the system should be able to record every instance of rep that we received from people; I wonder how the reflection in points will be different if ever rep received was collapsed in value to 1 point each. Havoc can probably tell us if the value of past reps can be changed. Of course, I don't suggest doing such a drastic change until most people are on the same page about it.

[zmflavius]

BTW, did anyone notice the past reps list now show the past 20 reps you got?

edit: nvm, didn't see shadowblack's post

[Oldschool]

I see "Latest Reputation Received" now shows the last 20 reputaions we've receoved instead of the last 5. Nice change.

I agree.

At the moment, it seems to have three functions:

1. Provide a way to be nice to people and brighten up their day by saying 'well done', or 'good point'.

Function 1 is great, hooray, let's all keep doing it.

Agreed.


2. Give some idea of people's commitment to the game and to the forum.

Function 2 is, I think, what a lot of this debate is about: does it work, what does it actually show, etc. etc. As Jimyred points out, on many forums a rep count is meant to indicate something about the value of the poster's opinions and advice. In a situation like ours where that's not really relevant, reps are more about 'forum respect and participation', as Scarbrow put it, so what we need to achieve is a system which lets that happen in a reasonably equable way.


Excellent points, while I'm not active on any other forums I have surfed others occasionally and see the validity in this line of thinking.


3. 'Reward' people for their contributions to the forum by increasing their repping power.


I am on what seems to be the consensus in that this is unnecessary. I also think that the rep progression should be scaled down or better yet just "flat-lined" altogether - a rep is one point regardless. If you really feel a post/member is worthy of more than one rep than you can rep him/her again. Which brings up another point that I'll get to later.


Since the system should be able to record every instance of rep that we received from people; I wonder how the reflection in points will be different if ever rep received was collapsed in value to 1 point each. Havoc can probably tell us if the value of past reps can be changed. Of course, I don't suggest doing such a drastic change until most people are on the same page about it.

One "vote" for doing this as I'm on the same page. If it can't be adjusted on a one point per rep basis then I'm all for everyone being brought back to 10 (orignial starting rep now) or even zero. Like Wetheril, however, I think there should be some sort of consensus on this.

If you think about it this skewing of both reps and repping power has somewhat of a snowball effect.

Earlier I said, if you really feel a post/member is worthy of more than one rep than you can rep him/her again. Which brings up another point that I'll get to later.

There are a few things I'd like to see changed under the current system, more so if changes are implemented.

I don't like that you can only rep someone on a post and then only once. While it's easy to pull up a member's profile and go to a "virgin" post I just don't like that setup. This is further complicated when members have few posts. The GM being the prime example and while he may not be a good example a couple other members are - Scarbrow and Havoc.

Those of those that have been around awhile and especially from the old forum are well aware of both members contributions to the game, forum and wiki.

Havoc trail blazed the game with Magical - they'll never be another. He also admins this forum as well as the old one in its time. When I came on board he was the only one doing so on the old forum. While we mods here have some power all the other stuff pretty much falls squarely on Havoc's shoulders. Also his wiki (there was another wiki before our current one) and forum contributions are to be noted.

Without Scarbrow, I think it is fair to say neither wiki would exist and that isn't meant to take anything from the other wiki contributors. I should say that a small minority of folks do the majority of the wiki work and I'm appreciative of them.

Neither member posts in the forum to the degree of some of us and they definitely don't toot their own horns. As a result their rep counts are not indicative of their contributions.

Well I was gonna continue on about other aspects of the rep-limiter but I've been on the soapbox long enough so unless someone else delves into the rep-limiter I'll shelve it till later.

[Scarbrow]

Well, I'm glad my comment was so thought-provoking.

I am on what seems to be the consensus in that this is unnecessary. I also think that the rep progression should be scaled down or better yet just "flat-lined" altogether - a rep is one point regardless. If you really feel a post/member is worthy of more than one rep than you can rep him/her again.
In fact, that was my line of thought initially, but before Young Ned, and Taleria jumped in with it, I considered it may be "too rash" given I'm not always current with forum customs. Maybe reducing it to 1 seems too much at first, and it would be good having 1 extra point per year, but on the other hand, as Ned's said, "I'm really not clear what the point is [...] of giving people the ability to hand out multiple rep points per rep". After all, longstanding, active and respected members of the community tend to use the repp'ing system more extensively than anybody else. For example, I almost never expend my daily repp power allotment.

I would also support bringing back everyone to 10 rep, if at all possible, but don't mind it too much. Like Doolipalally said, I don't keep score - each repp' makes my day brighter by telling me somebody appreciates me, and that's the core of the system for me.

I don't like that you can only rep someone on a post and then only once. [...] This is further complicated when members have few posts. The GM being the prime example and while he may not be a good example a couple other members are - Scarbrow and Havoc.
[...]
Neither member posts in the forum to the degree of some of us and they definitely don't toot their own horns. As a result their rep counts are not indicative of their contributions.

Well, who needs to advertise when you have so many good friends here :D? But Oldschool has a very valid point here that has also bothered me for long.

So, to summarize my intervention,

Questions to Havoc:

Could you reduce again the reputation of users to 10, should we reach a consensus about it?
Is it possible to lift the limit of repps per post, so we can add to a post all the reputation we consider it worthy of?


Proposal to all
New System:

1 reputation point per repp
Max 10 repps per real-world day
Unlimited repps per post (if possible)

[Havoc]

I'm pretty sure that there is no way to lift the restriction of 1 rep per post.

There might be a few ways to reset all user repuation. The only way to check if they would work would be to try them out, but I wouldn't want to try them out unless there was a consensus first. Joddelle might be able to help here, as I believe that she has some experience with vBulletin. (and as a reminder, is responsible for our lovely forum skin)

[thingirl]

I'm willing to try most things.

[wetheril]

I'm on board with the idea. How many votes will we need to institute a reset?

Also, I've seen Joddelle's activity on the Wiki, but I haven't seen her on the forum lately. Does anybody know how she's doing?

[Scarbrow]

I'm also willing to try any of the reset ideas, but not before we reach a consensus about the rest of the system, so it's all done in one stroke

EDIT: And about how much consensus is needed, I bet that almost all frequent users of the forum are aware of this discussion by now. Unless you can put up a big sign that warns everyone of the discussion, I'd say let's keep shaping an agreement for, say, a week, and if you see somebody is missing it, warn him/her via PM

[Doolipalally]

If there's no way to lift the restriction of one rep per post, is there a way of repping people from their profile page instead?

[scout1idf]

Currently I am not going to voice my opinion on whether "to reset or not to reset" is a good idea, I just want to add some food for thought and to ask:

If the amount of reputation a person has or can give doesn't mean anything (make them money, play the game better, whatever), then what does it matter?

The matter of a new member seeing that someone has a reputation of 2000 and feeling that they can never catch up should be irrelevant.

If "we" reset the system and start over at 0, 1, 10 or whatever is decided, how is a "newbie" going to feel in 10 years when they join up and see someone with a reputation of 20,000?

Are we going to reset it again so they won't feel left out, never to "catch up"?

I agree that some have gained an excessive amount of rep giving power, maybe to much. But to reduce what someone has received so far is not only a slap in their face but a slap to the giver as well.

I'm going to stop now.........

[smv1973]

That is a very good point Scout. I don't like the idea of doing a reset. I don't think we should be trying to remake the wheel. Lets just try and make it better. I still like this idea.

1 for each year you have been registered and 1 for every 500 points of your own reputation.

[zmflavius]

Also, I think the 20 reps per list update does demonstrate one thing, even though you can still only see 20 of your reps, records of ALL of your reps are very likely kept somewhere. So even if everyone's power were reduced to one, records could be modified to reflect this.

[Oldschool]

Excellent post Scout on all points and worthy of consideration.

The only reason I mention resetting the rep is due to the rep giving power issue, debate, discrepancies, or whatever one wants to call it.

The fact is that if I've repped someone for a worthy post some time ago when I could ping them with 1, 2, or 3 rep points versus the same post more recently when my rep power would give them 11, 12, or 13 points is the reason I favor resetting the rep system.

Is that post more or less "worthy" just because I repped it awhile back versus now. Also is it more or less "worthy" because I ping it with my 13 rep altering potential vs another member who has less rep altering potential. We should also remember that the rep altering potential works the same if you de-rep or give negative rep to someone.

With this in mind if the repping power system is not changed there is no reason whatsoever to change the current amount of member's rep.

While there seems to be different opinions about how and whether or not to reset everyone's rep it seems that everyone that has voiced an opinion about the rep giving power agrees it needs to be changed.

So, the way I see it there needs to be consensus reached on two fronts.

First, do "we" reset everyone's rep? If so, to what amount?

Second, do "we" change the rep altering system? If so, to what amount?

I'd like to reiterate if the second is not done then there is no reason whatsoever to do the first.

On a side note, Dooli brought up an intersting notion about being able to rep someone from their profile. I'm all for that, especially since it seems that the amount of reps per post can't be changed.

My opinion is that we reset everyone's rep back to ten. If anyone takes umbrage to that I apologize in advance as I don't intend it to be an affront.

I'm also of the opinion that the rep altering power needs to be changed. I don't like the idea of never being able to give anything but one point of rep regardless of one's own rep, post count or "membership time". However, I see problems/valid arguements with adjusting it based upon any amount or combination of criteria. With this in mind I also think one rep should equal one point - period. Again, no offense intended - advance apologies if taken so. If members are allowed to increase their rep altering power there should definitely be a cap to the amount.

Or alternatively, "we" could just do away with the rep system altogether. Something I definitely do NOT favor. After all what's the fun in that?

[Doolipalally]

If it's possible to sort it out retrospectively, so that each rep previously given now counts as one point only, that would be great. But somehow I'm pessimistic about it being that easy.


I agree that some have gained an excessive amount of rep giving power, maybe to much. But to reduce what someone has received so far is not only a slap in their face but a slap to the giver as well.

That sounds a bit harsh to me. No-one's intending a slap in the face for anyone. I think the suggestion is more on the lines of 'OK, that was the old reputation system but now we're using a new one so let's start again'.

It wouldn't really be any different from switching from the old forum to this one, where the number of exalts you had didn't carry over.

Personally I don't really mind whether we reset or not.

Would it be easier if we started a poll and counted votes at this point?


EDIT: Oldschool posted while I was writing the above.

Excellent post Scout on all points and worthy of consideration.

The only reason I mention resetting the rep is due to the rep giving power issue, debate, discrepancies, or whatever one wants to call it.

The fact is that if I've repped someone for a worthy post some time ago when I could ping them with 1, 2, or 3 rep points versus the same post more recently when my rep power would give them 11, 12, or 13 points is the reason I favor resetting the rep system.

Is that post more or less "worthy" just because I repped it awhile back versus now. Also is it more or less "worthy" because I ping it with my 13 rep altering potential vs another member who has less rep altering potential. We should also remember that the rep altering potential works the same if you de-rep or give negative rep to someone..

Very good point!


So, the way I see it there needs to be consensus reached on two fronts.

First, do "we" reset everyone's rep? If so, to what amount?

Second, do "we" change the rep altering system? If so, to what amount?

I'd like to reiterate if the second is not done then there is no reason whatsoever to do the first.

Agreed: the only reason for resetting is if we're changing the points system.

[Oldschool]

Thanks Dooli as it seems I was editing my post as you were posting the above as I forgot to weigh in on my own points.

You bring up a good point regarding a poll.

I think the two above issues need to be addressed in a poll.

Do we change the rep altering power and do we reset everyones rep.

Ideas as to how can be put in as posts.

Since polls cant be edited once they're up I'll leave time for a little input before starting one.

Boy oh boy - gathering input for a poll to gather more input......

Did I miss something or is this a government job? :rolleyes:;)

[wetheril]

Did I miss something or is this a government job? :rolleyes:;)

Sorry, I could not help saying this, but it sounds like a job for a mod. ;)

[scout1idf]

More of my thoughts.......



If the rep's were reset to reflect the number of times someone was rep'd that would be great. (1 point = 1 rep instead of 13 points = 1 rep as it is/could be now).
I think no matter how many rep points, posts or years of membership you have, only 1 rep point can be given at a time by anyone except Admin or a Mod.
Being able to multi rep a single post would be a nice addition so if you think someone deserves it, you can do it. Maybe a max limit of 10 reps per post should be put in place though.
Repping someone from their page would also be great (no limit) for things like birthdays, PM's, the GM and the like.



Originally Posted by scout1idf http://srythforum.com/images_sryth/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=17249#post17249)
I agree that some have gained an excessive amount of rep giving power, maybe to much. But to reduce what someone has received so far is not only a slap in their face but a slap to the giver as well.That sounds a bit harsh to me. No-one's intending a slap in the face for anyone. I think the suggestion is more on the lines of 'OK, that was the old reputation system but now we're using a new one so let's start again'.

I only meant if all rep's were reset to 0, that would be a slap.

[scout1idf]

Sorry, I could not help saying this, but it sounds like a job for a mod. ;)

LOL!

And to think, I turned down such a position.......:D

[smv1973]

I think there should be a change to rep altering power. I don't think there should be a rest of the Rep's.

[Young Ned]

Well, there's not much point in changing the reputation system if we leave all the reputations at their current levels that were produced by the old system, when we think the old system is broken. That's why we're talking about resetting the reputations back to, say, the starting level of 10, so we can start over with a new system.

If it is possible, as Dooli ponders, to change the parameters on the reputation system and then retroactively replay all the reps that have been given so far as if they'd been given under the new parameters rather than the old ones, so that everyone ends up with the reputation they'd have if we'd had the new settings all along, that would be ideal. But if that's not possible, then I think starting over would be the fairest.

If starting over at the very beginning level of 10 seems too harsh, what about reducing everyone's rep to, say, 100 or, if they currently have less than 100, letting them keep their current level? Or, as I suggested in a previous post, dividing everyone's current level by, oh, 10 or 15?

[zmflavius]

Well, there's not much point in changing the reputation system if we leave all the reputations at their current levels that were produced by the old system, when we think the old system is broken. That's why we're talking about resetting the reputations back to, say, the starting level of 10, so we can start over with a new system.

If it is possible, as Dooli ponders, to change the parameters on the reputation system and then retroactively replay all the reps that have been given so far as if they'd been given under the new parameters rather than the old ones, so that everyone ends up with the reputation they'd have if we'd had the new settings all along, that would be ideal. But if that's not possible, then I think starting over would be the fairest.

If starting over at the very beginning level of 10 seems too harsh, what about reducing everyone's rep to, say, 100 or, if they currently have less than 100, letting them keep their current level? Or, as I suggested in a previous post, dividing everyone's current level by, oh, 10 or 15?

Also, I think the 20 reps per list update does demonstrate one thing, even though you can still only see 20 of your reps, records of ALL of your reps are very likely kept somewhere. So even if everyone's power were reduced to one, records could be modified to reflect this.

What I said before, is that if everyone's power is reduced to one, and rep count becomes "number of reps you got," then records could be modified to reflect this.

[Scarbrow]

Well, there's not much point in changing the reputation system if we leave all the reputations at their current levels that were produced by the old system, when we think the old system is broken.
[...]
If starting over at the very beginning level of 10 seems too harsh, what about reducing everyone's rep to, say, 100 or, if they currently have less than 100, letting them keep their current level? Or, as I suggested in a previous post, dividing everyone's current level by, oh, 10 or 15?

I completely agree, but if I've understood Havoc's post correctly, he can't affect a single user's reputation directly, so resetting would be a "all or nothing" measure. So we'd need a poll to decide only between "reset or not reset" and another one to decide how much are "we" going to lower the repp'ing power (options already presented include: just 1 point per repp, 1 + 1 per year, 1 + 1 per year + 1 per 500 reputation).

Optionally we could also ask ourselves if the lowering of the repping power should be tempered by a higher number of repps per day. Since I already said I rarely expend all of my power, I don't consider it necessary, but might be a way to smooth the rough parts of the trade for the intensive users.

EDIT: Hey, thanks for the custom title of "Wiki Maven", I just noticed. It's cool!

[Moria369]

I, for one, could use more reps per day; I seem to run out first thing as I am catching up on all the overnight posts. Then I can't remember (major problem there) who or what I wanted to Rep when I get back on Later so I just find new things to Rep instead: The Random Chaos Method of spreading around my few alloted reps. As for how much my opinion is worth (my repping power) I don't care. . . the senior members (<lol> could not resist grouping my aged self as a junior) should decide if they want to give-up their accumulated power.:cool:

[Havoc]

I completely agree, but if I've understood Havoc's post correctly, he can't affect a single user's reputation directly, so resetting would be a "all or nothing" measure. So we'd need a poll to decide only between "reset or not reset" and another one to decide how much are "we" going to lower the repp'ing power (options already presented include: just 1 point per repp, 1 + 1 per year, 1 + 1 per year + 1 per 500 reputation).

I can actually adjust a particular user's reputation manually, but can't quite do that for every single user. And I can't run SQL queries, so affecting them all with a rule is also out.

EDIT: Hey, thanks for the custom title of "Wiki Maven", I just noticed. It's cool!

Glad you like it. Consider it a more permenent version of the 'rep'. :P

[thingirl]

Altering the repp power is, if not necessary, a very good idea. My thoughts (and I know this has been said) are: 1 repp power = every year registered, every 1k posts, and every 500 repp.

[Oldschool]

EDIT: Hey, thanks for the custom title of "Wiki Maven", I just noticed. It's cool!


Glad you like it. Consider it a more permenent version of the 'rep'. :P


Very nice and appropriate.

[racey]

I am really not quite sure why this is even an issue. As Scout has stated the amount of reps a person has does not have any meaningful bearing on the forum or the game. This rep system is more of a brag than anything. Someone had mentioned that the amount of reps some older players/members have would intimidate newer players/members and possibly prevent them from making posts on the forum. It should not take a new player/member long to realize there are quite a few helpful/informative members of this forum and most members do their best to make new members feel at home. I do not think that a wholesale change to the existing rep system is needed to try to "appease" new or newer players/members.

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 everyones 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 everyones 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. I personally don't think that the amount of posts a member makes should be taken into consideration. Hopefully making for better quality of posts. Quality over quantity (unless referencing alcohol). Sorry for the long windedness of the post.

One more point I'd like to make however is... since I've been reading this thread over the last few days I have noticed a drop in overall posts to the forum. I don't know and I'm not saying that it is related to this thread. I'm just throwing it out there for consideration.

[scout1idf]

........One more point I'd like to make however is... since I've been reading this thread over the last few days I have noticed a drop in overall posts to the forum. I don't know and I'm not saying that it is related to this thread. I'm just throwing it out there for consideration.

It's not just the post count, lately I've found myself "alone" on the forum more than usual.

I've been wondering where everyone has been and why I wasn't invited. **nobody ever takes me anywhere**

[Scarbrow]

One more point I'd like to make however is... since I've been reading this thread over the last few days I have noticed a drop in overall posts to the forum. I don't know and I'm not saying that it is related to this thread. I'm just throwing it out there for consideration.

I suppose that's related to the overall high quality of the posts displayed here... the collective thought energy of the forum is being attracted and expended here. (:p ha ha only serious)

EDIT: BTW, how do you add a poll to this? I was trying but didn't know how to do it.

[Doolipalally]

Not sure you can - you may have to start a new thread.

[shadowblack]

Thread Tools -> Add a Poll to this Thread

[Doolipalally]

I stand corrected!

[zmflavius]

I suspect that is only for the thread maker and mods though.

[Scarbrow]

In that case, could any of the mods put up the poll, please, either on this or on a new thread? I just tried to add one on a new thread and I couldn't manage to specify the desired options.

[Oldschool]

Poll is up in a different thread under announcements. Details are explained in the opening post.

NOTE: There are multiple categories to deal with such as resetting rep and tweaking rep power so multiple votes are possible.

Here's the poll/thread, http://www.srythforum.com/showthread.php?t=602

This should not be confused with some places where the old sayin' is, "vote early vote often". :cool:

[Elrond]

Sorry people! I've been away for a couple of days; and I come back to find this thread greatly grown/inflated with intense (or so it seems) discussion about our repping system!

Now I'll try and be candid for the sake of throwing everything on the table ....

- Elendil's forum contributions at the launch of the forum were minimal;
- He hardly had time to play sporadically, rather than dedicate time to the forum;
- After a couple of months: voila! TG was a couple of thousand posts ahead; SMV was demolishing the Repp Ladder; and Wetheril was the forum's Ms. Congeniality (sorry I cannot list the accomplishments of everyone else;
- Elendil's envy moves and he thinks: why do I have to lag behind in the forum? Why not play a more active role? Why not be recognized by fellow members through the repp system?
- Elendil starts giving the forum more time; and eventually his repps start to accumulate.
- Yes; some posts were posted with "I hope they repp me!"
- It was great to be recognized.
- The heavy hitters kept growing bigger and bigger. For example: Thingirl, Wetheril, or SMV could smack a 15+/- repp on someone.
- Whereas I had to work my ass off for the first 100 repps; now all I need is for Wetheril, SMV, and a couple of others to repp me to break another 100 repps.
- But the heavy reppers were all so nice to each other that the gulf between them and others kept growing.
- All they had to do was repp each other (unintentionally) and keep climbing up through the broken Ozone Layer in the repping world.
- So, it seems hopeless if anyone wants to catch up and be as recognized as, say, SMV!
- He's earned the repps; and will continue to earn them.
- Is there anything wrong with the above sentence? No!
- Is there a problem with the repp system? Maybe as it has a pretty high inflation rate!
- Do we need to do anything about it?
- Elendil doesn't think so! Even if that means that he will admire/envy those "deplorable" repping machines ;) .

Why did I post this? I don't know!

[Oldschool]

Good points which I mostly agree with. Also while I think some changes are in order I can happily "forum on" under the current system - warts and all so to speak.

Either way an excellent post - have an inflated 13 point rep. No glibness intended, I just couldn't help myself. ;):)

[psychoadept]

My only thought on the whole issue is: I like it when someone reps me. I really don't care what the "weight" of the rep is, or even care that much what my total is.

[Taleria]

Taleria, I didn't take your post to read that you want to restrict the reasons for repping, but it did seem that you were discussing reps in relation to posts and post quality only, and I though it was worth posting a reminder that there are other reasons people rep.

*nods* I understand. I guess I'm used to rep systems reflecting forum contribution, so never considered that our situation has more variables.

1. Provide a way to be nice to people and brighten up their day by saying 'well done', or 'good point'.

3. 'Reward' people for their contributions to the forum by increasing their repping power.

Function 1 is great, hooray, let's all keep doing it.

And I agree with Young Ned: I think function 3 is largely unnecessary, so that's another reason for scaling the rep power progression down. After all, reps themselves are supposed to be 'rewards' for forum contribution.

Agreed.

(About this contradiction thing: I can see there might be a potential contradiction, in that if the problem is that newcomers are feeling left out, and you're suggesting that rep should climb more in line with number of posts, then newcomers will still be a long way behind. But I think I know what you meant.

Digression: I'm woefully ignorant about screen readers - do they indicate when text is in bold?)

No. I was suggesting to remove post count from the equation altogether, because what does that have to do with the value of opinion? I thought every hundred points of reputation could gain a point of repping power, because if repping power were scaled down, it'd be harder to accumulate rep totals so quickly. But on second thought, all reps counting as one point and one point only no matter what sounds like the best way.

Screen readers can be set to automatically tell when text is bold, italicized, struck out, etc, though I don't normally have it set that way because it can be distracting. Instead, I have a Braille display that marks when text has special attributes, and then I specifically command the reader to tell me what those are. This way, the function is on call, but not always on in normal reading environments, like browsing this forum.

Taleria, hope you're not too miffed (and I love that word)

Ha. Glad you liked it.

[Doolipalally]

Screen readers can be set to automatically tell when text is bold, italicized, struck out, etc, though I don't normally have it set that way because it can be distracting. Instead, I have a Braille display that marks when text has special attributes, and then I specifically command the reader to tell me what those are. This way, the function is on call, but not always on in normal reading environments, like browsing this forum.


Interesting - thanks!

The question occurred to me because Wetheril had used bold text in her post to indicate what it was that was striking her as a potential contradiction, and I wondered if that was coming across.

[Oldschool]

To echo Dooli, interesting and thanks.

Also found the part about text with special attributes interesting. Would that apply to links whether they are listed as the url address or modified to appear as other words or text.

[texlaw1992]

I was unaware until reading these posts that there was a "repping list" of the last 20 reps in each profile (probably because this is my first online forum). Thank you to all those who rep'd me - your comments were interesting and very well taken.

I have not paid a great deal of attention to the repping system, but I have posted before that it would be nice if the "rep" could include xp, gold or something similar for those who have large amounts accumulated to those of us with lesser amounts. Alternatively, perhaps "reps" could be converted to xps at the building with the blue door (say 10xps to one rep point). That would make the rep system have value in the game as well.

[Doolipalally]

I have not paid a great deal of attention to the repping system, but I have posted before that it would be nice if the "rep" could include xp, gold or something similar for those who have large amounts accumulated to those of us with lesser amounts. Alternatively, perhaps "reps" could be converted to xps at the building with the blue door (say 10xps to one rep point). That would make the rep system have value in the game as well.

I see where you're coming from, but I have to say that I'm really not keen on this idea, for these reasons:

1. The forum and the game are separate and the GM isn't involved in running the forum, any more than he's involved in the wiki. I'd want to keep it that way: the GM provides the game, and the players provide the community and resources. (Even supposing that it's possible to link the rep system and the game - I'm no expert but it might be a tall order.)

2. Reps can be fairly arbitrary. Whether you get repped for an in-game achievement, for example, depends on whether you decide to post it, how many people then read that post before subsequent posts get in the way (time zones affect that one), how many of those people are in the habit of repping for game achievements, what kind of mood everyone's in, etc etc. There are a lot of random elements in the game already - I wouldn't want to add further randomness about how much rep reward you might get for something.

3. Reps are given out for lots of different reasons, some to do with the game and some to do with what's posted on the forum. It would seem odd to me if my character got a reward because it happened to be my birthday, or because I got a trivia question right, or because I got a sympathy rep for appalling luck (to pick just a few examples). (And for those of us with more than one character there would be an issue about which one got rewarded.)

4. If reps translated into game rewards then I for one would feel an added pressure to rep people, and maybe feel guilty if I didn't. I'm happier with a situation where reps can be spontaneous appreciation, with no strings.

[Elrond]

As far as I know, the only OC action that can be translated into IC benefit is voting for Sryth. When I used to vote in the past, one could get up to 64 general xp for voting for Sryth on a couple of site. But I don't know what the situation with votes is at right now.

Otherwise, Dooli has some pretty strong points vis-a-vis "game-forum" relationship. A small addition that I might have (if Dooli hasn't already mentioned it and I skipped over it) is that the repps-to-xp is a very easy formula for abusing the system. We'll start having forum guilds repping each other out of the stratosphere just to get the xp. It would be very, very tempting!

[Taleria]

The question occurred to me because Wetheril had used bold text in her post to indicate what it was that was striking her as a potential contradiction, and I wondered if that was coming across.

Nope. :( I guess it was a case of me thinking I was being clear and actually not. I went back to look at the original post and the section she'd quoted. Then, I interpreted it as the two of you taking me to task for something I never said and...well...:o

Also found the part about text with special attributes interesting. Would that apply to links whether they are listed as the url address or modified to appear as other words or text.

I'm not sure I quite understand what is being asked, but my reader identifies the links by saying "Link" and then the text. For example, it'll read "Link: Sryth Forum" and the text is said to be underlined if I ask for the font. If it's just a URL, it reads it as a link as well, with the same font info.

[Oldschool]

I'm not sure I quite understand what is being asked, but my reader identifies the links by saying "Link" and then the text. For example, it'll read "Link: Sryth Forum" and the text is said to be underlined if I ask for the font. If it's just a URL, it reads it as a link as well, with the same font info.

Thanks Taleria, your answer covered my question completely.

[Elrond]

I just wanted to revive this post to note how marginal reputation has become since the "1 repp - 1 point" tweek.

[Scarbrow]

Well, just a quick post to answer Elrond, I'll elaborate a little more "later"(meaning from now to several days).

I'm not sure the new reputation system has slowed down repps. I for one receive more or less the same as before, but since I've received new powers, I can now answer your question rightly, by looking at repp's rates and such. I'll also do it "later" ;)

And another note, as previously stated, Havoc didn't have time for reprocessing previous reputations, but I have. Thus, I'll look into reprocessing reputation so each user's count will be as if we had the current system from the start. Don't worry, I'll be very very cautious, I'll test with a few test users first, and I'll notify in this thread first before I start changing things. I think that it'll be easier than expected, just time-intensive.

Keep tuned here for updates, since changes won't begin until I feel real comfortable with the admin tools, and that'll take a "while" (a measure of time slightly more blurry than "later" :D).

[scout1idf]

.........And another note, as previously stated, Havoc didn't have time for reprocessing previous reputations, but I have. Thus, I'll look into reprocessing reputation so each user's count will be as if we had the current system from the start........


I thought that this debate was closed when the 1 for 1 system was put in place.


View Poll Results: Changes to the reputation system.
Rep power should be kept the same NO changes. http://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar2-l.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar2.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar2-r.gifhttp://srythforum.com/clear.gif 4 (http://srythforum.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=9) 14.81%
Rep power should be changed. One vote is one point. http://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar3-l.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar3.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar3-r.gifhttp://srythforum.com/clear.gif 14 (http://srythforum.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=9) 51.85%
Rep power should be changed but differently from above. Please explain in a post. http://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar4-l.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar4.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar4-r.gifhttp://srythforum.com/clear.gif 2 (http://srythforum.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=9) 7.41%
Repping power should remain unlimited. Therefore NO cap should be implemented. http://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar5-l.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar5.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar5-r.gifhttp://srythforum.com/clear.gif 0 0%
Repping power should be capped. Please explain in a post. http://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar6-l.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar6.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar6-r.gifhttp://srythforum.com/clear.gif 5 (http://srythforum.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=9) 18.52%
Current reputation levels should remain the same. NO changes should be made. http://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar1-l.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar1.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar1-r.gifhttp://srythforum.com/clear.gif 3 (http://srythforum.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=9) 11.11%
Reputation levels should be reset to either 0 or 10 (original starting rep). http://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar2-l.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar2.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar2-r.gifhttp://srythforum.com/clear.gif 9 (http://srythforum.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=9) 33.33%
Reputation levels should be reset but differently from above. Please explain in a post. http://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar3-l.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar3.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar3-r.gifhttp://srythforum.com/clear.gif 1 (http://srythforum.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=9) 3.70%
The entire reputation system should be deactivated. http://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar4-l.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar4.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar4-r.gifhttp://srythforum.com/clear.gif 1 (http://srythforum.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=9) 3.70%
This doesn't interest me; and I don't have an opinion one way or another! http://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar5-l.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar5.gifhttp://srythforum.com/images/polls/bar5-r.gifhttp://srythforum.com/clear.gif 8 (http://srythforum.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=9) 29.63%Not to mention, 51.85% voted for only that change. I thought that that was why Havoc only changed the system the way he did and that the reset of individual reps idea was abandoned.

I still vote for the way it was (before the change) but settled for how it currently is.

I suppose the only thing I can do is settle again.......

[Elrond]

Thanks for the reply, Scarbrow! It is great that you took my note seriously and replied as such. But please don't take my note as a complaint. I do not seek any changes. I was only making a comment.

But since you're new admin, it is you prerogative to do what you feel is best for the forum.

[Scarbrow]

Sorry Scout1idf, maybe I wasn't clear with my post, or maybe you're misunderstanding me.

There were options on the poll (http://www.srythforum.com/showthread.php?t=602) to reset reputation levels (as I understand it, that means restoring them all to starting 10, thus losing all the comments and appreciation accumulated). That is not what I mean to do. What I intend to do is reprocess, as Young Ned originally suggested (http://www.srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=17294#post17294) and later summarized (http://www.srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=20167#post20167) better than I could (sorry Young Ned, I'm making you the scapegoat here :p), so we all keep our comments and appreciation tokens (I surely value mine), but the value of them is changed so if you've been repped 100 times you'll have "just" 110 rep.

And Elrond, you're right - I have the prerogative to do it, and the power to do it. But that doesn't mean I'll do it just because I want to (although I seriously think it's a really good idea). Enough opposition (or alternative ideas) might make me reconsider.

[smv1973]

Way can't the system just be left alone? When the subject was first brought up it became hot and very sensitive. I think by reopening the subject is just going to reopen old wounds. I don't think the system should of been changed to start with. It was and I think the system should be left as is now, and let the subject die like it seemed to have done before it was revived.

[texlaw1992]

I agree with Scout's observations. I also think that given the two admins do not agree, the system should remain as is. The forum would become unworkable if Scarbrow tweaks the system and smv keeps tweaking it back (lol).

Correction: I mistakenly thought "Thane" and "Administrator" were the same thing and mixed up smv and Shadowblack. I had to drive to Austin for a hearing and have been up since 4:00 am, so mea culpa.

[scout1idf]

Way can't the system just be left alone? When the subject was first brought up it became hot and very sensitive. I think by reopening the subject is just going to reopen old wounds. I don't think the system should of been changed to start with. It was and I think the system should be left as is now, and let the subject die like it seemed to have done before it was revived.

I agree with Scout's observations. I also think that given the two admins do not agree, the system should remain as is. The forum would become unworkable if Scarbrow tweaks the system and smv keeps tweaking it back (lol).

Correction: I mistakenly thought "Thane" and "Administrator" were the same thing and mixed up smv and Shadowblack. I had to drive to Austin for a hearing and have been up since 4:00 am, so mea culpa.

Thank you both for your support on this matter.....

[shadowblack]

Personal opinion, not as an admin but as a person with 1522 point(s) of reputation:
The current amounts of reputation are misleading. Take mine, for example: To a new forum member who knows that 1 rep = 1 point and everyone starts with 10 rep it would seem that I have received 1512 reps - which is simply not true. I received a lot less reps, but some were worth over 10 points each.

Personally I would prefer to get 10 reps, each worth 1 point, than to get 1 rep worth 100 points. I would also prefer to know that the reputation of forum member X came from 100 different reps than to wonder if it came from 100, or from 10, or even from a single one.

In short, I think we should reprocess (if possible) all current Reputation score and make it as if 1 rep was always worth 1 point.

[Doolipalally]

Personal opinion, not as an admin but as a person with 1522 point(s) of reputation:
The current amounts of reputation are misleading. Take mine, for example: To a new forum member who knows that 1 rep = 1 point and everyone starts with 10 rep it would seem that I have received 1512 reps - which is simply not true. I received a lot less reps, but some were worth over 10 points each.

Personally I would prefer to get 10 reps, each worth 1 point, than to get 1 rep worth 100 points. I would also prefer to know that the reputation of forum member X came from 100 different reps than to wonder if it came from 100, or from 10, or even from a single one.

In short, I think we should reprocess (if possible) all current Reputation score and make it as if 1 rep was always worth 1 point.

Very well put. I agree.

If Scarbrow is willing to put in the time to do this, as he says above, then I think it would straighten things out - and hopefully mean that we wouldn't have to revisit the reputation question ever again... :)

[Young Ned]

Yes, I agree that reprocessing the scores is better than leaving things as is. The current state is a compromise that didn't really make anyone happy.

[thingirl]

Yes, I agree that reprocessing the scores is better than leaving things as is. The current state is a compromise that didn't really make anyone happy.

Ditto.

[scout1idf]

Yes, I agree that reprocessing the scores is better than leaving things as is. The current state is a compromise that didn't really make anyone happy.

As it is, it is a compromise for everyone. Reprocessing the scores is a total loss to those that voted against any change.

It would be better for all to compromise than for some to win and some to loose.

There is less chance for long lasting hard feelings when all must compromise.......

[Elrond]

As it is, it is a compromise for everyone. Reprocessing the scores is a total loss to those that voted against any change.

It would be better for all to compromise than for some to win and some to loose.

There is less chance for long lasting hard feelings when all must compromise.......

Say Wetheril decides to take an extended vacation from the forum that equals her previous posting time. And say someone contributes to the forum as wonderfully as she did when she was active in the forum. Would the current system reflect the appreciation towards that new member as much as it did to Wetheril?

The way the system is right now is not fair to new players. All old forum members have an inflated reputation that is impossible to catch for new players. A new forum member would have to post 2500 top quality posts to be able to receive the same amount of recognition Wetheril has. Wetheril got her recognition in 7 months; a new player needs 7 years for that to happen (if repped daily).

[Doolipalally]

A very good point.

I think it's also worth pointing out that nothing will be lost. Every single rep that someone's earned will still be there. Every single rep that someone's given will still be there. It's just that each rep will be worth the same, no matter who gave it or when.

[smv1973]

The Reputation system was never an issue or at least it was never voiced until it was brought up by a forum member more than five months after the move to this forum. If the system that was in place when this forum was started was such a problem it should of been brought up last summer not five months after the fact.

[shadowblack]

The issue was brought up when people realized there was a problem with the way the rep system was. Since the system was different from what we had in the old forum there was no way to tell for sure what sort of issues would come up over time.

[Oldschool]

http://www.glloa.com/_/rsrc/1212162573078/be-a-ref/referee_timeout1.gif




;) Just trying to lighten the "mood" before it gets a potential head of "ill-steam".

And advance apologies if the following offends anyone.

As SMV stated this debate started after this forum had been chugging along. However, Shadowblack makes an excellent point in that it took the system a bit of time before it reached critical mass so to speak and the issue(s) to materialize. Plus some members may not have been as active in the months prior to the discussion materializing.

I'd also like to remind everyone again of the previous poll which had its own discussion. Here's the link, http://www.srythforum.com/showthread.php?t=602

However with that said I'll take full credit or blame for that poll as I can see how it could be considered flawed. And for the following reasons:

First I edited the poll after it had been up although it was very early on. The reason was because I originally did not have a "no opinon" type vote. When I added that choice I also edited some votes. Without going back through the complete thread I think it was two. I'm sure that the edited votes were from members that posted openly in the thread and I subsequently mentioned it in the thread as well.

Second from some of the discussion in the thread there seemed to be some confusion regarding the poll itself. I tried to deal with both repping power (how many rep points a click would generate) and rep levels (how many rep points each person had). Consequently multiple votes were permitted. For example one may have voted that rep power should be capped, rep power should be changed and rep levels should be changed. Taking this into consideration it may indeed have caused some confusion that affected both how folks voted and how they interpret the results.

No one has mentioned rep power which was changed and is currently one click is one point. Since no one has mentioned that and it has been changed for some time I'll assume (yes I know the rule ;)) that it is NOT an issue.

Regarding resetting rep levels seems to be the heart of the matter. My initial feelings have not changed and folks that have read both threads are probably aware of them. However for the time being I'll stay mum on the subject.

And here's why....

When this first debate first surfaced it became a source of dissent which a valued member commented on. That member went on to say (and I'm paraphrasing) that she'd rather not compromise the goodwill and happiness of the forum by engaging in the subject further. I agreed then and now except I feel the need to throw a couple things out there.

Would it be possible and if so what's members' opinions on the possibility of making a combo hybrid of current rep and resetting the system.

Some examples could be (excuse my lack of graphics) along these lines.



1. Reputation: 2000/1 [Old rep/new rep]

2. Reputation: 1/2001 [New rep/total both systems]

They could be reversed on some other variant could be used.



Might not be that easy and/or acceptable. Regardless......

Some folks absolutely do not want the current rep levels changed and have expressed so in a clear and constructive fashion. Discussions along these lines are a good thing.

Others have expressed wanting the rep levels adjusted. Again in a very positive manner. It seems (to me at least) these folks may not be as adamant in their views.

While I could be completely off in the above understanding I don't think I am.

Folks if you have an opinion one way or another state it and to what degree. Just remember to be civil. After all when (hopefully not if) this issue is put to rest let's not "beat the dead horse" anymore.

Hmmm, that and a little Necro may what it takes to get that ole mount's stubborn indifference to fluctuate - lol. :rolleyes:;)

[texlaw1992]

I'm not overly concerned about the rep system, but is there a way to tell how many reps a person has received until now? If we're considering a switch, I think most people would like to know where the new number would start.

Also, I haven't actually seen posts from any new members complaining about the rep system. If we change the number out of consideration for new members, it would be nice to hear from some of them on the subject.

[scout1idf]

Just a reminder of my original post on the subject with the important part about new members highlighted.......

Currently I am not going to voice my opinion on whether "to reset or not to reset" is a good idea, I just want to add some food for thought and to ask:

If the amount of reputation a person has or can give doesn't mean anything (make them money, play the game better, whatever), then what does it matter?

The matter of a new member seeing that someone has a reputation of 2000 and feeling that they can never catch up should be irrelevant.

If "we" reset the system and start over at 0, 1, 10 or whatever is decided, how is a "newbie" going to feel in 10 years when they join up and see someone with a reputation of 20,000?

Are we going to reset it again so they won't feel left out, never to "catch up"?

I agree that some have gained an excessive amount of rep giving power, maybe to much. But to reduce what someone has received so far is not only a slap in their face but a slap to the giver as well.

I'm going to stop now.........

Also, I remember joining the old forum with 0 karma and seeing members with high karma points. My thoughts about it was, "I hope I will catch up some day."

In just a year (because of the move), I ended up with.....

scout1idf
Grandmaster
http://s1.images.proboards.com/star.gifhttp://s1.images.proboards.com/star.gifhttp://s1.images.proboards.com/star.gifhttp://s1.images.proboards.com/star.gifhttp://s1.images.proboards.com/star.gifhttp://s1.images.proboards.com/star.gifhttp://s1.images.proboards.com/star.gifhttp://s1.images.proboards.com/star.gifhttp://s1.images.proboards.com/star.gif
member is online
Joined: Jun 2008
Gender: Male http://s1.images.proboards.com/male.gif
Posts: 2,462
Location: NW Ohio
Karma: 140.....and if any of the "old timers" remember, I went negative several times in the beginning for some unknown reason. So those 140 Karma points were hard fought.

[Young Ned]

But to reduce what someone has received so far is not only a slap in their face but a slap to the giver as well.

I really don't understand that viewpoint at all. It wouldn't be reducing the number of reps they'd received, just how many points each one was worth. If the system had been 1 rep, 1 point from the very beginning, the rep they'd have would be exactly the same as what the reduction would give them. How on earth is that a slap in the face?

As for the argument someone else posted that if someone joins ten years from now and sees someone who's been here from the beginning with 20,000 reps, are they going to feel like they can never catch up? Sorry, but that's a strawman argument. First, that would almost certainly never happen -- the chances that (a) this forum will last ten years in this particular software, and (b) that anyone would stay an active member for ten years, are next to nil.

Even if it did happen, though... yes, they would probably feel like they couldn't catch that, but they should feel that way, because catching up to anybody with a ten year head start in anything is pretty darned unlikely. Nobody would complain about that, and nobody would feel a need to reset anything.

[shadowblack]

Question: What, exactly, is Reputation anyway? Just another number, like the post count, or something more? And if so - what, exactly?

[Doolipalally]

Question: What, exactly, is Reputation anyway? Just another number, like the post count, or something more? And if so - what, exactly?

I think that's a very good question - and probably unanswerable! Reputation means different things to different people round here.

Some people view their reputation score as a sign of how much their forum contributions are valued, I know. I wouldn't disagree with that, exactly, but since people seem to get repped far more often as a congratulation on their in-game achievements than for the posts they make I think it's more complicated than that.

Oldschool raised an interesting point when he asked if those who would like to see the one-rep-one-point system made retrospective felt as strongly as those who are against it. I can't speak for for anyone else, of course, but I'd say that given Scout's posts I probably don't feel as strongly about it as he does (though I confess I don't really understand his argument). The idea that some people can give you ten or more points of rep at a time and others only one always did push my buttons: it's something I don't like and never will, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Also, I'd be interested to see how the two numbers compare, as texlaw & Oldschool have suggested, but that's intellectual curiosity, not burning passion. As I've said before, receiving a rep and feeling that a post I've made has been appreciated, and being able to show appreciation for other people's posts, are far more important to me than what the total 'score' is. The only reason that I would like the rep system changed retrospectively is that I like things to be clear, fair and straightforward, and at the moment I feel they're not.

About the issue of when the matter was raised, by the way: it was only when people started accumulating vast amounts of rep power that the problem became obvious. That took time.

[spencer]

I could care less either way.

[Scarbrow]

@textlaw1992
I'm not overly concerned about the rep system, but is there a way to tell how many reps a person has received until now? If we're considering a switch, I think most people would like to know where the new number would start.
I'll later add that information to this post, to avoid double posting.

@Oldschool
That idea is very good, but technically impossible, I'm afraid. The reputation is an integer number, and cannot show a text, two numbers or any combination. However, some time ago I made a report on the amount of reputation in the forum (http://www.srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=20040#post20040). I'll later add the amount of repps each member has now, as textlaw1992 requested.

@All
I've read again this entire thread and the poll one, and come up with the following opinions/votes for the "reprocessing reputation" option:

Scout1df - strongly against, although in the past he was in favor (http://www.srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=17269#post17269) ("If the rep's were reset to reflect the number of times someone was rep'd that would be great.")
smv1973 - against
textlaw1992 - agrees with Scout, so against
Scarbrow (proponent) - in favor, of course
Elrond - in favor
Shadowblack - in favor
Doolipalally - in favor
Young Ned - in favor
Thingirl - In favor
Wetheril - in favor (http://www.srythforum.com/showthread.php?p=17535#post17535)


If I've mistaken or misrepresented anybody's opinion, I am the only one to blame. I've tried to find evidence when possible, and I've not taken Neutral posts (like Oldschool's) into account, nor tried to guess opinions from other members (like Havoc) who had not pronounced themselves clearly on the matter. However, one of the main reasons I'm an admin now is because I volunteered to Havoc for the job of reprocessing the reputation amounts. As he's so busy now, it took a while for him to think about it, investigate the system, and finally promoting. Shadowblack was entitled to the post, it was even voted in the old forum at the time of the migration. My post is awarded because of, I think, a combination of technical knowledge and will of taking take of that job. Believe me, I also want this entire affair behind me, so we can move on and let it rest. If I knew beforehand there was going to be so much trouble, I would have thought it twice before bringing it up.

Although numbers alone are not enough, the results favor the reprocessing option, so for the moment I'll continue the tests to that end. I'm sorry for disturbing the ones who oppose this, but as Scout1df summarized:


I still vote for the way it was (before the change) but settled for how it currently is.

I suppose the only thing I can do is settle again.......



By the way, I've made two small changes, to immediate effect:

Admin repping power has been reduced to the common user value (1). Now Shadowblack and me can repp again without inflating the count. If an admin needs more power, he can properly adjust it again.
Now the user's control panel will show the last 100 comments instead of "just" the last 20 ones.


As for the "compromise" option that Scout1df suggested,


It would be better for all to compromise than for some to win and some to loose.
There is less chance for long lasting hard feelings when all must compromise.......

I have an entirely new proposal: How about increasing the repping limit from 10 to 24 per day, so it equals the old forum's capacity of 1 per hour, but without the time limitation? That way you'll be able to repp more often (I'll still not use up all my allotment) but as the other limits will be still in place I think there is not much risk of abuse.

[Scarbrow]

Forget the double post thing, this is too different from different post:

I've found a way to see all reputations given during a certain period, and how much each one was worth, so I can double-check the values (full data dump "later")

June 2009: 21 repps
July 2009: 553 repps
August 2009: 687 repps
September 2009: 1141 repps
October 2009: 1885 repps
November 2009: 1205 repps (my "provocative question" was at mid-month)
December 2009: 826 repps (Havoc's change was mid-month again)
January 2010: 518 repps
February 2010 (so far): 285 repps

EDIT: I've corrected values. In fact, it seems like we repp each other less than before. Maybe is because we've reflected a lot about this, and now we think it twice before repping?. There are many 0 rep repps, given by people who still didn't have 10 posts, but the numbers give a quite approximate idea.

To give you an idea of numbers of repps received per user:
Scarbrow: 99 repps
Badstench: 428 repps
Shadowblack: 372 repps
Thingirl: 464 repps
smv1973: 521 repps
Hastifer: 105 repps
Havoc: 132 repps
Joddelle: 325 repps
Wetheril: 447 repps
scout1idf: 356 repps

just a few samples. More data "later"

[Oldschool]

However for the time being I'll stay mum on the subject.

That didn't last long.

I've tried to find evidence when possible, and I've not taken Neutral posts (like Oldschool's) into account.......

First thanks Scarbrow for "keeping" me neutral on the subject since that was the gist of my previous post although initially I was vocal about resetting rep levels. I still am in favor of resetting them but with reservations which I'll address later.

Also couple of questions regarding possible tweaks that shouldn't arouse much controversy. Regardless if we're discussing possible tweaks lets get 'em all out there - here and now. And yes I'm sure that as the forum evolves and members come and go this probably won't be the last discussion. Still current issues should be dealt with now.

So......

During the first round of negotiations - just trying to lend some perspective to the issue via humor folks. Although humor may be a subjective term when I use it.

Back to my point. Previously a couple other issues regarding tweaking the system was raised which I'd like to discuss.

1. Dooli mentioned being able to rep someone directly from their profile page. That was something we could do on the old forum that we can't here. I'd like to have the ability to do that.

2. Also currently you can only rep each post once - which I don't like. Some members aren't prolific posters but their other contributions deserve recognition. This would be a way to do that. Also I'd like to be able to have a Rep the GM thread similar to the one we had on the old forum. Since the GM's only posted once it's currently not possible to do that. I'd like the one rep one post changed.

3. I like Scarbrow's idea of increasing the amount of reps in a server day.

If adding an option to rep someone from their profile (more than once) is possible and enacted then that would basically take care of number two.

However as I said before while I'm in favor of resetting them for the sake of argument I can continue to "forum on" and quite happily under the current system.

Irrespective of age we have a very mature and genial forum. Accordingly the following is probably redundant but I feel the need to say it so.....

Whether changes are made or not some folks are going to be unhappy to varying degrees and may feel left out or worse yet even put upon. Hopefully not, especially with the latter two. I also hope no one will take it as a personal affront. However it shakes out it's a matter of personal opinions and sometimes folks have to "agree to disagree" and move on.

[racey]

Hmmmm......

I promised myself that I wouldn't get involved... However,

From A provocative question
It doesn't really convey just forum respect and participation anymore, and moreover, I feel that some new users can feel too "far from the leaders" to participate. I fear they could arrive here and think of this forum as a private party among a few ones. I know that the traditional quick welcome and warmth of this community uses to put them at ease and they soon join us, but greats amounts of reputation are starting to be (once more, this is just my opinion) more an obstacle than a feature.



Even if it did happen, though... yes, they would probably feel like they couldn't catch that, but they should feel that way, because catching up to anybody with a ten year head start in anything is pretty darned unlikely. Nobody would complain about that, and nobody would feel a need to reset anything.

I know Young Ned was referencing a 10 year period, however it still argues in favor with myself (who I couldn't help notice was not included in Scarbrows post in regards to this (http://www.srythforum.com/showpost.php?p=25005&postcount=157)) and some others who argued against any change in the Rep system. The powers that be have spoken Although numbers alone are not enough, the results favor the reprocessing option, so for the moment I'll continue the tests to that end. I'm sorry for disturbing the ones who oppose this, but as Scout1df summarized:
Quote:
Originally Posted by scout1idf
I still vote for the way it was (before the change) but settled for how it currently is.
I suppose the only thing I can do is settle again.......
and yet more changes will be made. I for one hope that the latest change satisfies everyone who wants the change. Sorry to those who didn't. Regardless I really hope that this is the last time we look up this dead horses ass!

[Oldschool]

Hmmmm......

I promised myself that I wouldn't get involved... However,

Regardless I really hope that this is the last time we look up this dead horses ass!

A big ole ditto on both counts Racey.

I made the same promise to myself especially since I crafted the first poll which helped throw the initial debate into overdrive.

With that said and while I know some folks on both sides of the fence are aware of the what I'm about to say some may in their enthusiasm overlook the fact. And others especially those "new" to the issue may be completely unaware of it or it's relation with the first round of discussions.

I know this has been mentioned but to avoid confusion I feel it's worth repeating. When I or others say reset the system in the current context that's a misnomer.

What we are talking about now is reprocessing the votes that were made prior to the tweak that made all clicks equal one reputation point. Those clicks gave a variable number of rep points based upon various criteria. What we are NOT talking about which was discussed initially is resetting everyone's current reputation to ten, zero or some other number/level.

All votes, old and new, will be counted as one. I'm pretty confident that most folks are aware but it needed repeating.

Lastly, I suppose although it seemed a dead issue after the one click one point tweak the rep level debate was bound to come up again.

In hindsight I believe it was bound to resurface. So the sooner the better. That way as I said earlier and Racey also made reference to we can finally put the dead horse to rest.

[Scarbrow]

I know Young Ned was referencing a 10 year period, however it still argues in favor with myself (who I couldn't help notice was not included in Scarbrows post in regards to this (http://www.srythforum.com/showpost.php?p=25005&postcount=157)) and some others who argued against any change in the Rep system.

I didn't mention you, racey, not because I wasn't aware of your contributions to the discussion, but because you didn't make any clear statement (that I could identify) about the "reprocessing" part. You were in favor of the tweaks but contrary to the resets, if I recall correctly. However, as reprocessing is not any one of these two options, I had to either count you as Neutral or not count you. That's why. Sorry if I overlooked any other thing.

[wetheril]

I too, intended to leave this thread alone since the last discussion, but in hopes that we'll finally reach some resolution - I will confirm I'm still in favor of reprocessing the reps so that 1 rep point = 1 rep count.

Last time around, Havoc was the one in charge, and he didn't want to take the effort to reprocess reps for every person individually. However, now that Scarbrow and and Shadowblack are admins; if Scarbrow (and Shadowblack) are willing to take the time to do it, by all means, I'm for it.

...Of course, I'm also fine letting things stand the way they are now, if it will upset anybody who doesn't want things to change.

[Elrond]

I'll take the negative reps about re-opening this bag of worms this time around. And although discussion on reputation is contested, I will have to be honest and say that it reflects that "reputation" matters in this forum. And, we have many people that care about this since the admins (old and new) decided to have a way for people to measure themselves up against others.

Despite the differing opinions, I really hope that no hard feelings linger.

[Oldschool]

Don't sweat it Elrond. It was bound to resurface eventually.

And I agree. Whatever happens - hopefully no hard feelings will linger.

[Doolipalally]

And, we have many people that care about this since the admins (old and new) decided to have a way for people to measure themselves up against others.

That's a depressing way of looking at it. :( Is it really a competition? Couldn't we see the rep system as a way we can show our appreciation, rather than a measure of whether forum member x is more popular than forum member y?

Despite the differing opinions, I really hope that no hard feelings linger.

So do I. When all's said and done, this is an issue of tinkering with extras and mechanics. Hopefully the spirit of the forum will continue whatever happens.

[Scarbrow]

The reprocessing is complete. Below there is a big table with the changes (spoilertagged to save space), ordered by old reputation value. Feel free to smite me for this.

The only user I've come out of my way to alter is srythgm, who now bears a more appropriate Reputation of 1000 (and will be increased with time, as users reach that amount).

For all the rest, the new reputation is based on the number of repps received, minus neutral (from users with less than 10 posts at the moment) plus the 10 starting repp, and the (very very few) negatives substracted from the total.

-Name|-Posts|-Old Rep|-Num Repps|-Neutral|-Negative|-New Rep
wetheril|1013|2595|447|5|0|452
smv1973|1200|2492|521|6|0|525
racey|632|2258|391|4|0|397
Oldschool|1910|1823|495|20|1|483
thingirl|4303|1756|464|19|2|451
scout1idf|755|1550|356|6|0|360
shadowblack|1250|1525|374|12|0|372
Badstench|935|1509|433|8|1|433
Elrond|976|1329|270|3|0|277
spencer|676|1229|258|1|0|267
texlaw1992|543|1085|166|3|0|173
Doolipalally|755|1068|226|5|0|231
zmflavius|2027|1009|203|2|1|209
Young Ned|693|864|192|2|0|200
Joddelle|757|823|325|14|0|321
Moria369|140|673|94|1|0|103
psychoadept|467|610|153|0|0|163
jimyred|198|497|76|1|0|85
Scarbrow|146|490|100|3|0|107
billydakid|431|440|97|0|0|107
Taleria|146|419|44|1|0|53
MrBlack|58|415|63|0|0|73
Hastifer|196|362|105|1|0|114
Lightwielder|232|343|66|0|0|76
Havoc|167|272|135|4|0|141
mordain|44|246|21|0|0|31
taproot97|300|202|48|1|0|57
Rangerlord|106|195|33|0|0|43
Zedalion|80|184|44|0|0|54
Chareos|102|140|35|0|0|45
cddanforth|85|130|18|0|0|28
SiannaDey|73|121|44|0|0|54
Zen And Tonic|23|109|9|0|0|19
Daffanka|112|108|43|0|0|53
HairyKeysagain|19|104|6|0|0|16
paladin|317|89|40|0|0|50
Dranikos|48|85|15|0|0|25
ValothBranstrommer|23|77|9|0|0|19
Mattman20|74|75|30|0|0|40
Arik|303|73|29|0|0|39
Mordi|10|68|3|0|0|13
Ka keng|72|65|27|0|0|37
Draxas|20|64|13|0|0|23
Sub Zero|1|61|4|0|0|14
Almathea|27|55|16|0|0|26
solitu|113|55|30|3|0|37
srythadventurer|78|53|16|0|0|26
narion|18|52|5|0|0|15
kanex7|54|49|9|0|0|19
Tazar Yoot|31|48|11|0|0|21
hephaestus16|7|45|4|0|0|14
Ole1kanobe|17|41|9|0|1|17
Silk|24|41|13|0|0|23
Thassa|17|40|2|0|0|12
roggs|19|38|10|0|0|20
srythgm|1|36|15|1|0|24
TheRedFear|25|36|5|0|0|15
Ganymede|3|35|7|0|0|17
barn42|17|33|7|0|0|17
majesty|22|33|4|1|0|13
Choson One|28|32|15|0|0|25
Maskull|71|28|18|0|0|28
Sarcast67|8|28|12|0|0|22
Zeriken|43|28|16|0|0|26
RaleighTSakers|3|27|5|0|0|15
Godofpride|161|26|4|0|0|14
Glowworm|17|25|5|0|0|15
dejrfan|14|23|4|0|0|14
demojan777|30|23|13|0|0|23
Mak|26|23|8|0|0|18
Jesphulin|13|22|3|1|0|12
Beowulf|10|21|4|0|0|14
Kruck|26|21|4|0|0|14
Valiance|14|21|3|0|0|13
acebrock|28|20|7|0|0|17
Dragonscloak|11|20|1|0|0|11
Plezier|151|20|9|0|0|19
Zephyr|4|20|1|0|0|11
Ariel|2|18|8|0|0|18
Spickett|32|18|8|0|0|18
CarolinaDruid|8|17|6|0|0|16
Grymlok|4|17|7|0|0|17
Lugwy|27|17|8|1|0|17
Bowen Cranbourne|8|16|2|0|0|12
DonMoody|5|16|6|0|0|16
SemperFidelis|3|16|2|0|0|12
grimbold|3|14|4|0|0|14
Lyfebane|3|14|1|0|0|11
Maghnosius|2|14|3|0|0|13
Lhiannan|2|13|2|0|0|12
Louis Cypher|15|13|3|0|0|13
Needle|5|13|3|0|0|13
Nic|5|13|3|0|0|13
Piastol|2|13|3|0|0|13
wolfman10|12|13|1|0|0|11
Aracelis|25|12|2|0|0|12
Belladonna|3|12|2|0|0|12
carlonus|5|12|2|0|0|12
Corgrim|21|12|2|0|0|12
David123123|5|12|1|0|0|11
Delta7|38|12|2|0|0|12
Disco Soup|21|12|2|0|0|12
dman2life|1|12|1|0|0|11
Gabringel|5|12|2|0|0|12
kaffe|16|12|1|0|0|11
Aeryl Silverheels|4|11|1|0|0|11
Ayeohx|10|11|1|0|0|11
ChaunceyK|4|11|1|0|0|11
Corius|2|11|1|0|0|11
DEC100110|6|11|1|0|0|11
Dinkem|40|11|1|0|0|11
Djin|3|11|1|0|0|11
electrox|8|11|1|0|0|11
Erelas|1|11|1|0|0|11
jp123james|7|11|1|0|0|11
komannon|5|11|1|0|0|11
kschons|4|11|1|0|0|11
Meduwyn|14|11|1|0|0|11
Mongwen|7|11|1|0|0|11
Nelavallin|2|11|1|0|0|11
Nokturnal88|5|11|1|0|0|11
Olgarf|7|11|1|0|0|11
Terrenden|1|11|1|0|0|11
TimothyPine|2|11|1|0|0|11
woobsy|1|11|1|0|0|11
Zanthal|5|11|1|0|0|11


This was really a taxing effort. It's taken me more than 6 hours to collect all the information, even if the change itself took like 30 minutes.

Like Elrond, I really hope that no hard feelings linger.

Now we can center on improving things, like the suggested higher limit of per-day repps (24).

And I've been looking into the possibility of repping a user outside of a post, but it will take a long long time for me to learn enough of the vBulletin system to be able to say if it's possible or not for sure.

EDIT: I've removed the original text from Havoc's announcement at the start of the thread:


You gain an additional point of reputation altering power for
1) Each year you have been registered.
2) Every 1000 posts
3) Every 100 points of your own reputation

So, a user who has been around for 500 days, made 2140 posts and has a reputation of 458 points will add 1(base) + 1(1 year) + 2(2000 posts) + 4(400 rep) = 8 points of reputation each time.

[shadowblack]

6 hours! Your patience is amazing! Have a rep for the hard work!

[Oldschool]

Six hours - patience indeed.

Scarbrow do you play poker? If so I'd like to watch as you seem to be an "All In" type of guy that's for certain. ;)

[Scarbrow]

Six hours - patience indeed.

Scarbrow do you play poker? If so I'd like to watch as you seem to be an "All In" type of guy that's for certain. ;)

Well, for one time you got me there. I'm no betting person, and even what I believed was a moderately good grasp of English has failed me in trying to understand the all-in system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betting_(poker)). Maybe it's too American an activity for me to understand.

However, if I'm understanding correctly, "All-in" is a risky style of game, allowing yourself to bet all you have. Maybe similar to "go for broke (http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1700075)" and "to go the whole hog"? If that's what you mean, yes, that's my style. Throwing everything I have to problems until they surrender.

[texlaw1992]

I did some rough counting and get roughly 123 forum members whose reputation has been reset, of which I appear to be #15 with the new rankings. Since that's considerably higher than my character rank has ever been so far, I can live with the change (lol).

Also, I notice that smv1973 has dethroned Wetheril as the person with the top reputation, so congrats to him.

[zmflavius]

Well. I hadn't even noticed that everyone's rep had changed.

[Oldschool]

Also, I notice that smv1973 has dethroned Wetheril as the person with the top reputation, so congrats to him.

AHEM !!!!!!!

I'd hate to demand a recount. Visions of hanging, swinging, dimpled and pregnant chads - oh no! ;) And considering Texlaw's post could be considered as the catalyst I'm guessing he'd be recused so there goes that free legal advice he offered.

After all, SrythGM sits atop the "throne". :cool:

No offense Texlaw, I know what you meant. Or anyone else for that matter. Just can't help myself sometimes. :rolleyes:

And boy oh boy it's hard to concentrate and type when Ozzy's singing and then Zakk Wylde is blazing a solo in your earphones - thanks Scout. ;)

[texlaw1992]

Ah, but my reference was to the table Scarbrow posted. The GM was not on that list. Therefore, my statement was correct. Still, your point is otherwise well-taken.

[Young Ned]

I'm feeling very tempted to break out in a chorus of "Ding, dong, the witch is dead" now. :) I hope this means that we are finally done with this issue, and that we can all move on now, with no hard feelings on anyone's part.

[Oldschool]

Ah, but my reference was to the table Scarbrow posted. The GM was not on that list. Therefore, my statement was correct. Still, your point is otherwise well-taken.

Touche, have I ever said never "argue" with a lawyer or in this case take or attempt to take a smart-aleck jab at one - lol.

I'm feeling very tempted to break out in a chorus of "Ding, dong, the witch is dead" now. :) I hope this means that we are finally done with this issue, and that we can all move on now, with no hard feelings on anyone's part.

LOL........ good point Ned.

So without further ado, now that that's outta the way (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5iseJJ5ogA&feature=related) perhaps there will be no more beating the dead horse. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IU1bzZheWk)

Now back to your regular programming. :cool:

[Oldschool]

Just observed....

I tried to give a member rep on a post I'd already done so and got the a message along the lines of you have to leave a comment to give negative rep. I thought :confused: and tried it again on a different post by another member that I knew I repped previously and got the same message.

Normally in that instance it tells you right off that you can't give rep to the same post twice. Plus I've always had it default to positive rep. I tried it a third time and it worked normally. Maybe a temporary glitch or a browser issue on my end. Just thought I'd mention it just in case it shows up again.