I dunno, the old system wasn't bad (though it--and by it I mean mainly Geo :smile: --treated me well, even though I remained uncomfortable having a greater rep than people like Deano, nAo, and SA and didn't rep enough b/c much of what I considered rep-worthy was too technical for me to accurately judge). I still think rep can serve an advisory purpose, but maybe I'm just worked up by Truespeed's can't-be-anything-but-willful density
here.
If change were necessary, then my current ideal system would be:
1) No anonymous reps. Even nubs should see who judged them, good or bad.
2) Nubs still shouldn't be able to rep initially. I like the existing waiting periods.
3) Rep shows as one bubble that's either orange (bad), grey (neutral), blue (good). You can rack up as much rep as you want, but we stick with just the one bubble. Like a mood ring, but a rep bubble. This eliminates the "he's not worthy" muttering.
4) Given that, each rep should be worth the same, regardless of the giver. Two cents are two cents when the rep system represents positive forum contribution, not necessarily industry experience or insider knowledge. OK, if it's more likely ppl will complain than praise, neg rep could be worth only one cent. I'm more for responsible repping, but this may head off some complaints. But I'm pretty sure there were more + than - reps handed out, right?
5) And the crux of the system, what should compensate for "unfair" or infrequent repping: bad rep fades away with time, the assumption being that people will learn their lesson (if there is one). This will hopefully muffle bitching, as unfair reps will disappear without further action (like a concerted effort at positive contribution that may never be rewarded) required.
So, I still think the idea of a rep system is a good one, but I'll manage either way.
And if the system were still around, I'd be giving my first neg rep to Geo for neutering the poll choices. Ze Germans are not an excuse!