Vote: Reorganized Reputation System.

[morph4me]

I voted to leave it as it is, but zeroing out and starting from scratch has it's appeal too. I think that adjusting the award levels would so that it doesn't take forever between levels, but one person couldn't 'rep' you and send you up or down 4 levels in 1 shot is probably the only real change that I'd like to see. It isn't a perfect system, but what system is, and it does have it's value to new members. I liked the fact that when I first became a member I could see who had the respect of the other members. I didn't always agree, but it was a good benchmark.

 

[donna]

What KenpoTalk works for them. I would rather keep MartialTalk's system different. I like the ability to leave comments. Threads do not need simple public posts of merely "I agree" or "I disagree", when a rep comment will do just fine for that purpose. Let the threads keep the meat for discussion. The rep comments are just the hidden frosting that the ones who made the posts can enjoy.

The buttons and stars aren't really that necessary. The values of these need to be modified. Maybe one point value for each rep made rather than having them multiply in power.

- Ceicei

I agree with Ceicei here. The one point value for each rep seem a good idea. Most definately keep the comments.

 

[bluemtn]

Bob, I'd like to suggest another possibility for the new rules: staff don't participate in the rep system, as was suggested to me by another member whose views I have a high regard for. My own view of rep is that its biggest advantage is rewarding people early in their posting history on MT to contribute and get into the conversation at the most thoughtful and insightful level they can. By the time you get to staff, there seems little point in further rep accumulation; by that point, we are who we are, and pretty much known quantities.

Just another wrinkle....

I've also seen other boards that don't have stars, the comments that you get when you hold your mouse on the rep bars just change. It eliminates the constellations.

There could also be a purple star to equal 5 or red to equal 10 or something to that effect.

Like some others, I would like to keep the comments if nothing else.

I like the idea of the staff not participating in the rep system, myself... We're staff for a reason. If we do something "wrong", we'll know about it, right? So, what's the point in mod's with rep. points, other than showing we're positive contributors? Well, duh! That's one of the reasons we are where we are...

I also vote (yeah, I changed my mind on what I said several months ago) to reset the reps. Now, I don't mean everyone should get reset, but perhaps once you get (lets say) 1,500 rep. points, then reset, but keeping the star. I also think that the rep power should be really decreased, either everyone at the same level, or only increasing slightly... Or, I also like the different star colors. Instead of getting multiple stars, just the star changes color. Another idea is (I'm full of them ) to a person can only get a certain amount of stars, and that's as far as you can go.

I like the rep system. It's not important, but it's nice... Also, I like the idea of not having anonymous rep.

 

[jks9199]

I voted to leave it alone...

But I've thought of one idea, along the lines of several others.

I see two generic ways to address the ability of some folks to have more influence with a single rep... The first is easy. Set a max rep power; I don't care if you have twelve hundred stars; your rep power never grows beyond 999 points (or whatever level seems reasonable). You still can tell who's getting more rep (and presumably making more powerful contributions), but nobody can use a single rep to blow someone stratospherically high, either.

Or... A flip side. As your rep power increases, the impact of rep given you decreases. Maybe each star divides rep rep received by 10... So, Bob still reps me with 1200 points, but, since I've got 5 stars... I only get 600 points credit.

I don't know how feasible either approach is; I expect the first is simplest.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

I voted to restart it under new rules, but I dont think that starting from zero is all that great either. And I do agree with exile too. Admins, staff etc. shouldnt participate. Their unlimited power in regards to repping just casts a shadow of favoritism over the whole thing. Either dont play or play by the EXACT SAME rules as everybody else.

 

[Andrew Green]

I voted to restart it under new rules, but I dont think that starting from zero is all that great either. And I do agree with exile too. Admins, staff etc. shouldnt participate. Their unlimited power in regards to repping just casts a shadow of favoritism over the whole thing. Either dont play or play by the EXACT SAME rules as everybody else.

Moderators follow the exact same rules as everyone else.

Admins can break the rules, we could change scores directly if we wanted. But we don't. We are not unable to break the rules, that doesn't mean we do though.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I voted to restart.

I like to enter the floor from time to time with an empty cup.

I think the expansion rate is growing and will become an issue.

I do like the idea of limits.

I do like the idea and support the use of negative rep. I always signed mine anyways.

If it is left the same I can live with it.

If it is turned off I can live with that.

I was asked to vote, and so I also expressed my point, so if there is a tie the powers to be can review and get a feel of how people are leaning.

Good Luck

 

[exile]

I like the idea of the staff not participating in the rep system, myself... We're staff for a reason. If we do something "wrong", we'll know about it, right? So, what's the point in mod's with rep. points, other than showing we're positive contributors? Well, duh! That's one of the reasons we are where we are...

I agree, and I also think that the staff's main responsibility may well be to bring others into the everlasting discussion and encourage them to stay there and contribute without fear of being bullied or intimidated. We know of other MA boards where the most aggessive and hostile voices dominate the discussion, and we also know how voices like that are dealt with on MT. That role is I think the staff's main contribution, and it's a crucial one if the board is to continue as it is. But I see it as something outside of, and complementary to, the point/counterpoint that the rep system was set up to encourage.

So, what does it matter if someone has a gazillion stars? Other than display difficulties that is? It's merely a visual indication for those who don't 'know' us that, on the whole that member speaks sense, as the general caucaus of the board sees it.

So the yield of the rep system is really a kind of snapshot summary of the `mind of the board' in some abstract sense?... cool idea! That's a very useful way to view it, I think.

My general opinion is that it 'ain't broke' so don't try and 'fix' it but there is the provsio to this that Exile mentioned - the multi-star-multiplier effect. Remove that and all would be well I feel.

Yes—that's gotta be fixed, if we don't want Andrew's 100+ star scenario.

Tho' as a small counter-balance, I have just used my moderate rep-muscle to undo what I perceived as malicious negative repping to another member. Perhaps the ability to remove unwarranted blemishes could be a priviledge of the Moderating staff?

I've done the same, of a time, Mark. It's one of the best uses of rep-power I can think of. A lot of times neg rep is justified, but not always. I'm actually with those who would prefer to see it eliminated from any revised system...

 

[Carol]

The engineer in me says "this is just a board feature".

However, the timbre of the complaints seem to indicate that this isn't really about a board feature, its about perceptions of favoritism...whether those perceptions are justified or not.

Given that some of the more recent discussions have been very heated...I'm concerned that these perceptions will continue to grow as the rep system grows.

I don't mind that someone may not see eye-to-eye with me, or that someone has criticism of me. Because....its me.

But for someone to think my rep score was acheived through favoritism or whatever...then that is a criticism that by default extends to all of the kind folks that pushed the button and shared their thoughts with me. It hurts me to see their kindness obscured by these ill feelings.

The rep system It's something that overwhelmingly is used to share props. Its supposed to be fun.

If its not fun anymore, then IMO it is time to drop it.

 

[shesulsa]

The engineer in me says "this is just a board feature".

However, the timbre of the complaints seem to indicate that this isn't really about a board feature, its about perceptions of favoritism...whether those perceptions are justified or not.

Given that some of the more recent discussions have been very heated...I'm concerned that these perceptions will continue to grow as the rep system grows.

I don't mind that someone may not see eye-to-eye with me, or that someone has criticism of me. Because....its me.

But for someone to think my rep score was acheived through favoritism or whatever...then that is a criticism that by default extends to all of the kind folks that pushed the button and shared their thoughts with me. It hurts me to see their kindness obscured by these ill feelings.

The rep system It's something that overwhelmingly is used to share props. Its supposed to be fun.

If its not fun anymore, then IMO it is time to drop it.

artyon:

 

[exile]

But for someone to think my rep score was acheived through favoritism or whatever...then that is a criticism that by default extends to all of the kind folks that pushed the button and shared their thoughts with me. It hurts me to see their kindness obscured by these ill feelings.

artyon:

I'm with Shesulsa here. Especially so far as the bolded part is concerned.

 

[Ella]

One problem I see here;

It said basic "majority wins" poll. however, what if there are more people who vote for 2 and 3 when added than for 1, but 1 still singularly had the most votes?

That would imply more people voted for some sort of change, but weren't in agreement as to what kind. I would like to see it gone completely, but if I realized that wasn't going to happen, I would prefer to vote for a change as opposed to keeping it the same.

Could we possibly vote for keeping it the same vs change? And if change wins, THEN vote on how its changed?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Could we possibly vote for keeping it the same vs change? And if change wins, THEN vote on how its changed?

Anyone against?

 

[Carol]

Anyone against?

I'm not against it at all. That sounds like a GREAT idea. Thanks for sharing it Ella! :asian:

 

[exile]

Anyone against?

Not me!—I've been kind of assuming that if the vote against the status quo added up to more than the vote for, then the system would change, one way or another.

 

[Ella]

Not me!—I've been kind of assuming that if the vote against the status quo added up to more than the vote for, then the system would change, one way or another.

I've learned from experience to never assume things, if it can at all be avoided. Often times I assume things without even realizing I'm doing it, though.

 

[exile]

I've learned from experience to never assume things, if it can at all be avoided. Often times I assume things without even realizing I'm doing it, though.

That's a good rule of thumb, for sure. But my own experience on this board has been that decision-making at the top level is fair. If most people showed they were unhappy with the current setup, I'd have been willing to bet high that management would accept that decision as the will of the board, no matter how it further broke down exactly.

A trickier issue might be exactly what changes to make should things fall that way. I guess we'll just have to burn that bridge when and if we come to it...

 

[Sukerkin]

Just make sure we're not standing on the bridge when we set fire to it :lol:.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

in the event of a tie, I'm going to make a decision, not that I know what it is yet as I haven't told myself. Something about a 'need to know' basis, and I don't need to know yet I guess.

 

[KempoGuy06]

Anyone against?

I too think that sounds like a great idea.

in the event of a tie, I'm going to make a decision, not that I know what it is yet as I haven't told myself. Something about a 'need to know' basis, and I don't need to know yet I guess.

This gave me a headache the first time I read it

B