The advisory and totally non-binding Reputation Poll

Don't really mind either way but I don't see the benefits (of the old way) so I chose irrelevant. Skyring's suggestions are great though if possible.

 

Since its a no go anyway now, I would like to point out that a clear rule of no rep discussing in threads that are not directly related (as in, its the threads subject) could be made. Also, simply ignore all rep PMs, threads, that are not related to the feature no functioning correctly in a technical sense. If you allow it to take its course with my above suggestions then clearly those who are of questionable quality will stand out VERY quickly. Be it they receiving bad reputation or them consistently handing out bad/unjust reputation. Your last sentence is rather ironic considering "how long" removing it in the first place was apparently in discussion, now you're dismissing it as if it was a instant "the system sucks" thought. Makes little sense.

 

I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to pick the third or the fourth option. I think there should be a public rating of posts, not just private comments.

8k for Geo

 

Keep reputation as a private and post-related PM system where you can see who did it.
That's it. If it's too complicated to implement just get rid of it.

I don't post much so I don't get many reputation points except in the RPSC when it was active, and one or two from posts in other forums mostly from silence I believe. But I never ever had the chance to confirm that since I don't have enough posts.

However, from the lurker pov, I never needed it to know whether some poster was a troll or not. I mean, after a month or so of reading, it's easy to recognize the members that post good stuff. The user name changes were way more confusing than removing reputation ever will be.

 

Haha, I'm certainly with you there toy. The user name changes threw me for a crazy loop (and even still somewhat) than anything else. Besides moderators I don't think user should be allow to change a name just because they want to... but that's for a different thread and has probably been discussed already.

 

I dunno, the old system wasn't bad (though it--and by it I mean mainly Geo --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!

 

Why not just assign rep to certain people who the mods/admins feel are worthy from the get-go to the ones who deserve it but don't get it? Like Deano, nAo, etc?

Nah, then there'd be too many PMs asking to be "rep ranked" too. Sorry, you're right...rep is ebil.

 

Well, I really thought a big impetus of the rep system was to leave the policing to the users, rather than leave it up to the mods. Asking mods to give gold stars takes a bit of the community aspect out of the forum (not to mention singles pros with possibly unwanted attn). I think that's the key to the rep system, given the decent # of mods now. It's not so much to lessen a mod's load, it's an extra way for members to engage with the forum.

Plus, catharsis!

 

Yes I agree. But that wouldn't be neg-repping them for being wrong, but for being able to engage in sensible discussion. If they can't see where they're wrong, they should at least know when enough is enough and stop harping on about it!

I'd say the basic rules ought to be something like :

• You can ask questions, no matter how stupid, without getting neg rep'd
• You can post opinions, no matter how wrong, without getting neg rep'd
• If you insult people as being a fool or lunatic for having an opinion, you can get negified
• If you keep going on and on over the same logical points of an argument without changing it or stopping when the point's been made, you can be negified
• If it's clear you can't follow the priniciples of a logical debate, and so can't contribute through reason or sense to the forum's discussion, you can be negified

There's a case to be made that if someone always posts nonsense misinformation, they are a fair target for negification, as there contributions will always be reducing the average intellectual content of the board, but in theory if someone posts gibberish, it's countered with sense. The only reason to neg them would be if they badger on with their gibberish.

Of course people are incapable of following rules exactly, even a simple set! So it'd never work.

 

The promotions / demotions rules did actually used ban people with a significantly low enough rep as well.

 

I like the old system, but I think you should stick to your guns. Give no reps a try for a few months at least -- maybe I was wrong! Maybe the forum has matured to a point where we don't need it, or perhaps it never made as significant a dent as I'd thought it did.

 

The interaction can be made up with PMs, but I miss the cathartic release of zapping trolls with neg rep.

Never under estimate the power of some good cathartic releasing.

 

And the flipside is that if users feel they have no way of pointing out that a poster is worthless then you'll end up answering more calls to do something about a particular user - be that directly or through the "Report this post" mechanism.

 

Good day.
In an ideal online community everyone would strive to have a good time, to feel good about themselves. In such a scenario it's a feasible goal to steer people towards a more desired behaviour through feedback. If someone commits an offense and gets the feedback, there'll be an association between "not so good" and the action, and people that aren't entirely too thick to understand the connection will generally react by reducing that behaviour in the future. It's the fundamental principle of all didactics that people want to optimize the feedback they are getting from the outside world.

However it is a fallacy to assume that a forum community consists of just regular people who want to have a good time interacting with each other. You need to embrace the thought that there are enough people here on the boards (or at least some of the boards) who have higer-priority goals than just feeling good about themselves. A system that assumes as much will not sort itself out in any satisfactory fashion.

I'm probably expected to not name names, but there are certain persons where the question could no longer be "What kind of tool is that?", but "What kind of tool keeps repping that one back up?". IOW I'm convinced that the rep system on Beyond3D has been gamed quite extensively, in an organized fashion, which is the nature of the beast and not always an indication of third-party incentive of course. Eg some people just derive genuine pleasure from getting others riled up, and if they arrive in groups and organize themselves, there'll be one hell of a problem "for free".

In any case, centralized moderation should be more effective than the rep system. It really is a placebo. It provides the illusion that the community itself (i.e. the "normal people" portion of it) can make misbehaviour go away with peer-to-peer feedback, while in reality the well-organized trolls have enough cosy friends to never bear any marks of their deeds. It's just a distraction. It would be better to put a disturbing poster on ignore than to keep following the posts just to be able to rep, for better or worse. It would be better to report a post that is a clear violation than to hope to achieve anything with peer-to-peer feedback.

I'd personally be happy to never see that system again. It's an interesting experiment, and I believe that the idea was a good one, but it has IMO quite spectacularly failed in practice. That's what we should remember. Not the idealistic version that can't actually exist. Good riddance.

 

I chose "none", I'm for allowing positive rep only, no neg rep available.

That way the good posts will get the deserved rep, while there won't be any flames about rep abuse. No headache, no whining, no extra work for the mods - problem solved