[Dave Baumann]

I’ve implemented a user group structure and promotion scheme. The order of the groups are as follows (names subject to change):

1. Registered
2. Junior Member
3. Member
4. Senior Member
5. Regular

The promotion goes:
Registered -> Junior Member: 10 reputation points (the default) and 5 days registered and 10 Posts
Junior Member -> Member: 10 reputation points and 100 days registered and 100 Posts
Member -> Senior Member: 10 reputation points and 365 days registered and 1000 Posts
Senior Member -> Regular: 20 reputation points and 730 days registered and 5000 Posts

Each group has more forum capabilities / privileges (assume cumulative capabilities from each group):

Registered: Basic forum viewing, posting, search capabilities. Cannot edit posts. Cannot use reputation, cannot rate threads, cannot use Private Messaging, cannot create polls, cannot see RPSC sub-forum of General Discussion.

Junior Member: Cannot use reputation, can rate threads, can create polls, can create signature, can view and post in RPSC sub-forum of General Discussion after signing up to the RPSC usergroup in the Control Panel. Can use Private messages – up to 50 PM’s stored.

Member: Can leave reputation, cannot leave negative reputation, cannot see who left reputation. Can use Invisible mode. Up to 100 stored PM’s, up to 5 recipients, with tracking

Senior Member: Can create custom title, can upload message attachments, can post calendar events (only events relevant to the site, please). Can leave negative reputation, can hide reputation. Up to 200 stored PM’s, can deny message receipts.

Regular: Can delete own posts, can move own threads. Up to 500 stored PM’s, up to 10 recipients.

Yes, this scheme does have some reliance on reputation, but it is reliant on “Senior Members� and “Regulars� using it responsibly – members of these groups found to be abusing it will be dropped down from their group to a lesser one. For most promotions, staying at the default reputation level is enough to move to the next group once you have met the time and post criteria.

“Registered� users have very low privileges as we have noticed an increased trend in people registering to the forums and spamming or phishing forum members, so to get PM capabilities you have to have at least contributed.

The site staff can choose to place people of their choosing outside of the usergroup / promotion scheme.

Update:

We've instigatged a Demotion scheme whereby users in the Regular, Senior Member and Member usergroups will be moved into the Junior member group should their reputation sink below -100 points.

We have also disabled post counts on non-core forums, including the "Religion, Politics & Socioeconomic Climate", "General Discussion" and "Site Feedback" forums.

Update:

Edited group descriptions to include impact on access to the Religion, Politics & Socioeconomic Climate sub-forum of the General Discussion forum.

Update:

Positive rep power capped at +15. Negative rep power set to 1/3rd of positive rep power, capping it at -5. Reputation cannot be given to posts in the non-core forums General Discussion, RP&SC, and Site Feedback.

[Druga Runda]

interesting overall. The addition of days is very good as people will not therefore spam just to get to higher level

--- edit -- just checking it out --- as why am I still a member and not senior?

more than 10 rep points, more than 1k posts and longer than a year registered... and I can still see who gave me rep points... + looks like I can give negative rep, but I never tried so don't know if it works.

are you sure everything is working as intended?

-- double edit - I get it, the default "title" is member, but I do have senior member privileges( I guess ), as I can customize it it seems...

[digitalwanderer]

Thanks for the explanation, seems like a good system and I'll try like hell not to abuse it.

Does this mean the forum is all finished now?

[Zaphod]

Originally Posted by Dave Baumann

but it is reliant on “Senior Members� and “Regulars� using it responsibly

I'd think the fact that more than half the Senior Members have already disabled reputation altogether is avid proof that the system is flawed. Those who, by this ranking system, are considered the most valuable use their privilege not to take part. You now get a large group of people who can influence each other positively, but in minute amounts, and a small group of about 40-someting members (as of now) that will have any real influence, and can virtually 'demote' anyone they please (even without abusing the system), furthering the incentive to disable reputation altogether by more of the Senior Members. Also: Will those that have disabled reputation at a level lower than 20 even be able to reach the status of Regular?

I'll quote myself from another thread:

Seriously: Do people really need bars of small red and green dots to tell them whether another member's posts are worth reading or not?

When did independent thought go so drastically out of style?

With most seniors opting out I don't see how reputation can give anything other than a distorted image of who's posts contribute to the quality of the forum. Just sort the member list by reputation and look for Zaphod to prove my point.

I know for sure that I've learned a lot from reading posts by many members well below the privileged limit of 1000, and fear that this implementation of the system will only lead to more post-count-padding noise by the kind that crave the coveted 'custom titles' or whatnot.

Edit: Spelling.

[Dave Baumann]

Also: Will those that have disabled reputation at a level lower than 20 even be able to reach the status of Regular?

Reputation is never disabled, merely the indicators are hidden from other members.

fear that this implementation of the system will only lead to more post-count-padding noise by the kind that crave the coveted 'custom titles' or whatnot.

Promotoion is based on length of time as well, and the spans are fairly balanced. It is, of course, also in the hands of the more senior members to spot the worthless posts and adjudge them accordingly – if those worthless post continue they receive more negative reps thus preventing themselves from getting any higher.

[Zaphod]

Originally Posted by Dave Baumann

It is, of course, also in the hands of the more senior members to spot the worthless posts and adjudge them accordingly – if those worthless post continue they receive more negative reps thus preventing themselves from getting any higher.

No. Not as it's now. The senior members who have disabeled reputation (i.e. most of them) have, unless you mod vBulletin, effectively zero 'reputation power', and thus won't judge anything for anyone but themselves. You could make retroactive changes to this, but as of now the group effectively participating in the reputation system here is minute. Those who can choose - largely choose not to - and those who can't largely doesn't matter (when it comes to affecting reputation scores in a maginude that'll serve as effective user moderation).

[Dave Baumann]

Again: hidden != disabled.

[bloodbob]

Umm senior members can delete their owns posts. I hope this is intended and was left out in the description since I find it useful deleting my owns posts at times.

*bloodbob starts spamming in the console forum to get up to his 5,000 posts

[Zaphod]

Originally Posted by Dave Baumann

Again: hidden != disabled.

I know. Thus: "You could make retroactive changes to this". This doesn't change the fact that, as it is now, every senior member of this board that have reputation disabeled could give me negative reputation on this very post, and my user CP would still read 88 points total. You would know, of course, but I fail to see how that would help the other users of the board directly. It would still appear as if I was the third most reputable person around (according to the somewhat flawed current memberlist).

[digitalwanderer]

I think the big difference 'tween "Senior Member" and "Regular" is that they made regular to accomodate off-the-curve-posting-morons like me and LB without making the system too whacked.

[bloodbob]

Regulars don't show up member list is this intended?

This doesn't change the fact that, as it is now, every senior member of this board that have reputation disabeled could give me negative reputation on this very post, and my user CP would still read 88 points total.

Umm are you sure when someone hides their rep that when they leave a neagtive rep comment you don't loose rep???

If so what happens if they hide it then leave a comment and then unhide it?

[Geo]

I'm not so sure that all those senior members disabled reputation on their own. Mine was disabled without my intervention. . .and after I noticed I turned it back on. So it might be a bit premature to conclude what the "opt out" percentage is just yet.

[AlphaWolf]

Originally Posted by geo

I'm not so sure that all those senior members disabled reputation on their own. Mine was disabled without my intervention. . .and after I noticed I turned it back on. So it might be a bit premature to conclude what the "opt out" percentage is just yet.

My rep was also turned off without my intervention. My first reaction was that reputation would cause abuses, but these changes should curb that. However, I am leaving my reputation off for now.

[epicstruggle]

Originally Posted by Zaphod

I'd think the fact that more than half the Senior Members have already disabled reputation altogether is avid proof that the system is flawed.

I think im going to jump back in and try this out. Now that there is more info on the system, ill give it my best shot.

epic

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by epicstruggle

I think im going to jump back in and try this out. Now that there is more info on the system, ill give it my best shot.

/me laughs maniacally as I bomb his rep immediately upon him reactivating it!!!!






















I keed, I keed!

[Saem]

Too bad after a while time can't trump post count factor entirely, plenty of folks have been here a long time, such as myself and even longer, but hardly have a post count worth speaking of.

[silence]

from what i have seen, those with disabled rep cant influence others.
epic gave rep, but its grey, which is impossible for Senior member, unless he has rep turned off....

which makes Zaphod right. i just PMed epic to see what he gave me, but my guess is neg (i gave him neg a day or two ago without explanantion.... ya, i was being an ass).

[Shifty Geezer]

This is a very interesting approach to political/socialogical management. Members of society are ranked by their peers and benefit when society deems them to have done well. I'm curious as to how effectively it separates the wheat from the chaff. How often will someone give +ve reputation to someone they disagree with but who presents themself well? And how will different personal takes on giving reputation affect rankings? eg. I've given I think two reputation points to date, whereas someone else may be very keen to make themselves heard and give out reputation all over the shop. If their opinion is different to mine the frequency of their rep'ing can shape the fora in a way I might not like. I guess that puts the onus on oneself to be more activate rather than let other forces shape one's environment, much as is the case with politics. But, as with politics, do we really care?

[BEGIN Philisophical pondering...]

[Phil]

Thanks Dave, the ranking seems to be very reasonable. I think if us seniors use it reasonably, objectively and respectful, this could very well be a very good indicator of a members contribution to the site.

I guess it will be interesting to see how spammers, newbies with little quality contribution handle this kind of ranking. Will they care? Will they continue to post rubbish?

IMO (and this is really in my humble opinion), I think members with a trend to spamming, trolling regardless of the duration of their membership or their postcount should be warned or even banned if they don't try to contribute in a useful way. It's in the interest of everyone to get this site growing in a positive way and for that, each and every member is required to contribute objectively, helpful and respectful towards others.

I think if everyone tries hard, this could very well get beyond3d back to being one of the most fun, enjoyable and informative technical discussion boards around.

Thanks Dave!

[Guden Oden]

My personal jury is still out on this system, but on the whole I think I approve of this scheme...! Particulary where the lowest ranks can't leave negative rep, that would correct most of the problems with rep in one fell swoop IMO. I've had enough red dots awarded me purely out of spite because I somehow slighted his object of worship by some new member to appreciate this change.

I will now also work harder at premiering good posts by everybody. Not so much in RSPC though because of the volatile nature of that place, but rather in the more technical forums (*cough*console talk*ahem*)...

[bloodbob]

Yeah without nuke the low level users power to negatively rep its a nightmare when ATI and NV have two closely competiting products. On another forum I've had people say they will quit using a companies service on principle if they improved it by adding X feature seriously whats wrong with fanbois.

I think if you have 5000 posts you probably already know the rules and should have a good reasonable reputation. Theres what 3 people? who have 5k posts and don't have 20? rep points. If anything its the senior members who need 20? rep points.

[Phil]

bloodbob

quote: "I think if you have 5000 posts you probably already know the rules and should have a good reasonable reputation."

(Sorry, but can't bother with disabling scripts, so I'm not going to use QUOTE tags)

IMO there are quite a few members around that post count that spam quite a lot. IMO spamming should not be a substitute to achieve high rankings (or rankings that stand for quality posters). I personally think reputations without post counts can be far more effective. Better to be nominated democratically of being a good poster than to spam your way through to the top to get all the goodies.

As an example, there are a lot of developers that don't post often here but contribute A LOT to the general knowledge of the forum and quality of discussions. Members like these (Fafalada, ERP, CrazyA.., MrWib.., Archie, DeanoC to name a few...) deserve a high ranking simply on the grounds of their contribution. I think given the nature of many senior members (with the necessary reputation) they should be able to receive reputations and gain a higher reputation level themselves without having to reach post counts they probably never will (or not in the next few months/years).

[silence]

here is something interesting that just came to me....

person that has disabled rep cant influence others, but still has his rep points in DB...true?
person who has enabled rep can give that person negs and that changes rep points in DB...true?

so acctually all those that got their rep disabled can get shitload of negs and be sunk and cant do anything about it?
this isnt fair... (as much as i would love to sunk some people, its obvious abuse and really dirty trick if you do it).

or i got it wrong?

[bloodbob]

Originally Posted by Phil

IMO there are quite a few members around that post count that spam quite a lot. IMO spamming should not be a substitute to achieve high rankings (or rankings that stand for quality posters).

DemoCoder
John Reynolds
cthellis42
are the only members above 4k and under 5k I hope your not suggesting John spams

I personally think reputations without post counts can be far more effective. Better to be nominated democratically of being a good poster than to spam your way through to the top to get all the goodies.

Which is why I said it should more be dealt with sooner rather then later which is why I suggested it should be requirement to get to senior member.

As far as the devs go well Dave clearly stated earlier its at the staff descrition to raise members above there normal levels so I don't think they really come into the picture.

Hiding rep appears to be disabling rep and I don't think thats quite apprioate.

[Geo]

Originally Posted by Guden Oden

My personal jury is still out on this system, but on the whole I think I approve of this scheme...! Particulary where the lowest ranks can't leave negative rep, that would correct most of the problems with rep in one fell swoop IMO. I've had enough red dots awarded me purely out of spite because I somehow slighted his object of worship by some new member to appreciate this change.

I will now also work harder at premiering good posts by everybody. Not so much in RSPC though because of the volatile nature of that place, but rather in the more technical forums (*cough*console talk*ahem*)...

Guden, did you turn off your rep, or did it happen automagically? Just curious.

It seems to me what has happened here, is that the site staff has decided to experiment with making the Senior Members and Regulars "mini-mods", as we're the only ones who can give negative reputation. Senior Members and Regulars who are perceived to be abusing that privelige in wanton ways, you will note, can be knocked down by the mods to a lower level (where they wouldn't be able to leave negative reputation).

I would imagine that the intent is to take the resulting ratings into account in decisions about showing chronic pains-in-the-but (or, at least, perceived to be) that do not quite cross one of those bright-lines for being the shown the door, to show them the door anyway based on their poor reputation.

It does rely on the Senior Members and Regulars not getting into petty relationships amongst themselves, and I guess time will tell on that one, tho the system does allow for retribution by site staff for those who do (you can find yourself no longer a Senior Member).

It really should be an interesting experiment, and I do hope that all Senior Members and Regulars will participate by turning Reputation on (and, given my own experience, checking to see that theirs is on even if they haven't turned it off themselves). This really is an effort by site staff to turn to us for help in keeping this place livable, based largely on the fact that this is the group that has shown a desire to live here long term (a very practical metric, in my view), and I think we all have a responsibility to do so (and, personally, I appreciate the implied compliment).

Gosh, I wonder how long it will be before we start having Council of Senior Members & Regulars meetings in IRC or something.