Vote: Reorganized Reputation System.

[MBuzzy]

ok.

Now that is something we've been considering. We're trying to decide what to do with the folks who are past whatever cutoff point we establish. Obviously, they lose power, but is that fair? etc.

Just food for thought.

I have a great deal of respect for those who have the very high reps. I feel that they have all earned them. Though the occassional rep gets given for signing up for something or "cute posts." Those get averaged out in the end, especially for those with constellations.

With that said, if I was the one that had the highest rep altering power or the highest number....I wouldn't care if you took away some to get me down to the cap. I can't speak for everyone, but people here are very understanding.


Especially if it is in the interest of settling this and solving the problem.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The high point now is I think about 900 points.

 

[arnisador]

what would you change to fix it? Seriously. No, scrapping it is not what most folks here want. So, what should we do to fix it?

Ah, a math. question! Excellent. Personally, I favor the suggestion to keep the comments but without keeping score. A thumbs up/thumbs down symbol to clearly indicate how the comment is meant, similar to what you've described on KenpoTalk, could be useful. I would keep the anonymity option.

As to what would make most people happy, of course no one can say with certainty (and I might add that the 50 votes thus far don't seem likely to be representative of 'most' people on a site of this size), but I think a reasonable fix of the current system that honors what has been posted here and in related discussions on this site might run as follows. First, reset the system. Not everyone will like this, but the current numbers are too far out-of-whack to be salvageable. Then:

1. Every user, save possibly the very newest (say, number of posts less than 10), gets 1 point of rep.-changing power per use, with up to 10 uses per day, with a spread-it-around rule allowing no one to rep. the same person more than once per calendar day (or similar time period).
2. Rep. may be positive or negative but is not anonymous. If a neutral option can be implemented--allowing a person to make a comment but choose not to alter rep.--that would be desirable.
3. Rep. may be given for whatever reason a person desires.
4. Inappropriate comments will be deleted along with their quantitative effect.
5. At every power of 10, a new rep. title is displayed.

This addresses concerns of mismatched repping power, ceilings, anonymity, oversized displays, and, if a zero rep. change option can be implemented, the ability to never give negative rep. but still make a comment. It eliminates the conflict with the rule that states that rep. should only be given for a good post, not just to friends. It retains the IM-like nature of the feature, the fun of helping build up the stature of someone one admires, the ability to encourage new users, the ability to me-too in a friendly but non-distracting way, and a display that guides new users to respected posters.

For the displays, I imagine a small banner placed under the name/title or anywhere else that is prominent that begins at a rep. of 1, changes at 10, then at 100, then at 1000, and so on. People will quickly tire of using 1-point increments to go from 1,000 to 10,000, but will easily be able to get those they respect to the 10 and 100 point levels. Clearly, 100,000 rep. points is a goal unlikely to be reached. Hence, I would imagine titles like:

1: New MartialTalk Poster
10: Notable MartialTalk Poster
100: Senior MartialTalk Poster
1000: Distinguished MartialTalk Poster

For zero rep., display nothing; that first rep. will be a nice bit of encouragement as a new If these levels are too few, I understand that it's easy to add extra ones.banner pops up. For neg. rep., display nothing. If you have nothing good to say about someone, why say anything at all? A stigmatizing banner is not consistent with a friendly site.

As for staff participation, it seems clear that this is a sensitive subject for the staff. Subject to the same limitations, staff should be allowed to participate.

Enough to make it worthwhile to participate in the system, but an exponentially increasing goal that imposes effective limits...the same basic idea as the exponential back-off approach to controlling junk e-mail.

Well, now you know both what I personally prefer and what I am sensing coming from this discussion.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Staff's already under the same limitations as members with these exceptions:

-Members can't disable rep.
-Supporting members can.
-Staff can't.

-Admins can multi-rep (coded in) but are not allowed to do so by policy. Abuse of that rule isn't tolerated.

-Staff can see who repped them.


We had hard-limited staff previously but we were told that wasn't fair, so we removed the 20 point staff limitation as a result of that particular debate a few years back.

 

[Kreth]

No, I don't. You are, of course, welcome to your own opinion - but if your surmise was the truth, then Bob Hubbard - who owns and operates this forum - would have considerably more rep than anyone else, as would the admins and super mods, who are farther up the chain than the mods and senior mods... and they don't, no matter how much they may deserve it (and they do deserve it), because they spend more time maintaining the board than posting on it.

Kacey, quit denying it. It's obvious that all of the staff are rep whores, and if Sa-- er, Ella wants to question that, well she's entirely within her rights. After all, it's a cookbook, a cookbook!



:uhyeah:

 

[Mr. E]

There are some other systems we can add that will do away with the "yup" replies. One we've had great luck with on KenpoTalk is the "Thanks" system. You just click a little "Thank you" button, and it shows your support in a non-annoying way. The "No Thanks" system works the same way.

That might be a good system here. Maybe if people could see how many votes for and against what they wrote they could get feedback. You might even have a system like at Amazon that shows how many people thought the post was a good one. That would let people make a judgement about the post that is not based on what the person did in other threads. Some people do have bad days and have later apologized for their actions. And you might even have a system where the posts with the highest ratings could be accessed much like the threads that have been read the most appear at the bottom of the index.

That might let people go straight to the posts that contribute the most to martialtalk.

The problem is that sometimes people get more thanks for squashing cockroaches than mending the fence. To date, the most responses I have gotten for a post was six with this post. I have posted things a lot more constructive and positive. But this seems to be the post that everyone who read it had to rep me for and thank me.

I am not saying it is good or bad. I am just pointing out the problems if you impliment what I am thinking about. I find it a rather interesting look into human nature that the posts I try to help people with have not gotten as much response as the one where I squashed a very loathsome troll. I tend to also give more support to people who stand up to trolls than those who post informative things, so if there is something wrong with this, I am just as guilty.

 

[jks9199]

Broke College student.

(is there some other kind?)

I've been a broke college student. I've been a broke adult with obligations, too.

But I know, even at my brokest, I managed to spend $20 a year on silly things here and there. (It's what, a week or two worth of Starbucks, for example.)

Bob has a great board here; it's clearly been a lot of work, and it has a fantastic atmosphere. I think it's worth skipping a few lattes... But that's my decision. Yours is up to you.

 

[morph4me]

Consider some advice from a professional troublemaker twice your age:

You're going to lose on this one..... or, then again, are you?

On the vote, it will be a major loss. Maybe it should be - this actually, on the whole, is a pretty decent and honest collection of folks.

But you stirred this whole issue up - and that's a win for you. Institutions need troublemakers, somebody who'll break a little glass and question sacred practices.

Mad as some people may get at you, you made them think and express why this part of the system is so important to them. A lot of folks now know just how important, how valued their praise for others is. Everyone wins when they look at themselves closely, and can then say," Yeah, this is what I do... and here's why... and I'm proud of it."

Don't ever leave a fight with a plaintive promise not to post anymore. You are better than that - and so are your opponents here. Leave when you're done shooting, not before. If that angers people, well sometimes they need to be riled. And if after you are done, you realize the other guys are right - then post that and thank them for educating you. That'll bring you what the Gold Stars stand for - respect.

What he said, we need troublemakers and people who question authority, look at how lively this thread is

People who fear the "wrath" of a mod either have something to hide, are consciously aware they do not post near to the quality of other posters ... that or they're just plain shy.

"Wrath of Mod" I can't decide if that sounds very biblical, or very Star Trek

Although this may be oversimplifying things....seems to me that it is easy to solve.

Put a limit on the amount of stars you can get. Put a limit on the amount of rep altering power you can have. Put a limit on the numerical amount of rep that you can get (but still get comments and such, they just wouldn't alter your rep #).

No scrapping, no resetting....just inserting a ceiling.

Great suggestion, and actually on topic and to the point.

 

[Brian King]

Bob Hubbard wrote:

“Obviously, they lose power”

Bob,
Power corrupts, it is human nature and the rep system is obviously broken. It reminds me of the old classic pinball machines Vs the newer machines debates. The old machines gave you 10 points for a good bump the new machines gave you 100,000 and a free ball for the same skill.

Perhaps we do not need to fix the system, although I voted to fix it, perhaps we just have to recognize that somebody with a bunch of stars doesn’t really mean anything other than they learned how to bump the game and can influence the direction of a thread by quieting and dampening discussion. You can now get multiple stars in just a hundred posts and if people are disinclined to use negative rep, the number of stars will just keep multiplying reinforcing their (the stars)meaninglessness and limit any kind of reasonable measure of recognition.

I would think that everybody gets to add one point only and neg one point only, no matter how long you have been here or how many posts or how popular or unpopular you are. Big numbers do not add to the value but rather distort it IMHO.

Arnisador wrote:

“Ah, a math. question! Excellent. Personally, I favor the suggestion to keep the comments but without keeping score. A thumbs up/thumbs down symbol to clearly indicate how the comment is meant, similar to what you've described on KenpoTalk, could be useful. I would keep the anonymity option.

As to what would make most people happy, of course no one can say with certainty (and I might add that the 50 votes thus far don't seem likely to be representative of 'most' people on a site of this size), but I think a reasonable fix of the current system that honors what has been posted here and in related discussions on this site might run as follows. First, reset the system. Not everyone will like this, but the current numbers are too far out-of-whack to be salvageable. Then:

1. Every user, save possibly the very newest (say, number of posts less than 10), gets 1 point of rep.-changing power per use, with up to 10 uses per day, with a spread-it-around rule allowing no one to rep. the same person more than once per calendar day (or similar time period).
2. Rep. may be positive or negative but is not anonymous. If a neutral option can be implemented--allowing a person to make a comment but choose not to alter rep.--that would be desirable.
3. Rep. may be given for whatever reason a person desires.
4. Inappropriate comments will be deleted along with their quantitative effect.
5. At every power of 10, a new rep. title is displayed.

This addresses concerns of mismatched repping power, ceilings, anonymity, oversized displays, and, if a zero rep. change option can be implemented, the ability to never give negative rep. but still make a comment. It eliminates the conflict with the rule that states that rep. should only be given for a good post, not just to friends. It retains the IM-like nature of the feature, the fun of helping build up the stature of someone one admires, the ability to encourage new users, the ability to me-too in a friendly but non-distracting way, and a display that guides new users to respected posters.

For the displays, I imagine a small banner placed under the name/title or anywhere else that is prominent that begins at a rep. of 1, changes at 10, then at 100, then at 1000, and so on. People will quickly tire of using 1-point increments to go from 1,000 to 10,000, but will easily be able to get those they respect to the 10 and 100 point levels. Clearly, 100,000 rep. points is a goal unlikely to be reached. Hence, I would imagine titles like:

1: New MartialTalk Poster
10: Notable MartialTalk Poster
100: Senior MartialTalk Poster
1000: Distinguished MartialTalk Poster

For zero rep., display nothing; that first rep. will be a nice bit of encouragement as a new If these levels are too few, I understand that it's easy to add extra ones.banner pops up. For neg. rep., display nothing. If you have nothing good to say about someone, why say anything at all? A stigmatizing banner is not consistent with a friendly site.”

Well thought out and matches my opinion and thoughts FWIW

Brian King

 

[Sapper6]

the system isn't broke; it shouldn't even be an issue.

if people are here/not here because the rep system, then they are here/not here for the wrong ****ing reasons. this fact alone is not because of the system, but rather people with issues larger than these.

people get complexes about stupid ****. lets change everything a few don't care for. imagine if the world ran this way.

back to penguin bashing.

 

[arnisador]

if people are here/not here because the rep system, then they are here/not here for the wrong ****ing reasons.

Once more, in slow motion (if your browser supports this feature):

No one has said anything remotely like that.

This is, I suppose, a version of the Ad Populum logical fallacy (substitute rep. in example #2 at that page), but I find it more a Straw Man approach.

 

[Sukerkin]

Well said Sapper.

This thread is wallowing on far too long for it's original purpose. Extreme opinions are being expressed that have no bearing really on the actuality of the situation.

It would be uncharitable to ascribe motives to some of the naysayers, so I shall not do so (tho' I do confess that horrid connotations lurk within that very phrase itself; my apologies ).

Chaps, with all that is going wildly wrong with the world today, don't get too hung up on a rep system that has served this board well for many years just because some do not profit by it.

If you are argumentative, abusive, hold opinions divergent from consensus et al, then you won't accrue rep. It's as simple as that. That doesn't mean your opinions are irrelevant. In fact, to contradict myself a little, I've repped people who disagree with me because they argued their point very well, sometimes in the face of quite overwhelming pressure.

To state, for a third time :blush:, the only thing wrong with the system is the escalting rep power as good people climb the 'ladder'. Because they are good people, the 'higher beings' tend not to get involved in the rep system because they perceive how unbalancing their throw-weight is. That's unfair to them as they don't get to enjoy the small frisson of fellow feeling that clicking rep can bring.

To finish, the rep system should stay. I like it and get a deal of joy from it.

If people don't like it, then ignore it. Your words carry the same weight with me whatever the 'star count' ... until I've actually read them. I might pay more attention to seeing what some people have said than others but that's dictated by the fact that either they are my friends (in the Net sense of the term because I've met none of you yet ) or because I know from experience that it'll be worth reading. How many 'stars' do they have? If it's more than 'some' I don't notice.

EDIT: ROLF - could you get more of a contrast than the last post of Arnie and mine :lol:.

 

[Sapper6]

Once more, in slow motion (if your browser supports this feature):

No one has said anything remotely like that.

This is, I suppose, a version of the Ad Populum logical fallacy (substitute rep. in example #2 at that page), but I find it more a Straw Man approach.

no need to yell dude.

no one has to say it, it's simply implied. why the hell make a big deal over such a minor issue? my statement has weight here Mr. Arnisador, whether you recognize it or not. most people are here for martial arts talk. actually, everyone should be here for martial arts talk. not to give two ***** about reputation.

ya know, i got an idea. i'd like Mr. Hubbard to reset every score in the arcade to 0 cause i can't seem to win at anything cause i'm a ****ing loser.

you know rediculous that sounds? same same.

btw, take a valium.

 

[Sapper6]

Well said Sapper.

This thread is wallowing on far too long for it's original purpose. Extreme opinions are being expressed that have no bearing really on the actuality of the situation.

It would be uncharitable to ascribe motives to some of the naysayers, so I shall not do so (tho' I do confess that horrid connotations lurk within that very phrase itself; my apologies ).

Chaps, with all that is going wildly wrong with the world today, don't get too hung up on a rep system that has served this board well for many years just because some do not profit by it.

If you are argumentative, abusive, hold opinions divergent from consensus et al, then you won't accrue rep. It's as simple as that. That doesn't mean your opinions are irrelevant. In fact, to contradict myself a little, I've repped people who disagree with me because they argued their point very well, sometimes in the face of quite overwhelming pressure.

To state, for a third time :blush:, the only thing wrong with the system is the escalting rep power as good people climb the 'ladder'. Because they are good people, the 'higher beings' tend not to get involved in the rep system because they perceive how unbalancing their throw-weight is. That's unfair to them as they don't get to enjoy the small frisson of fellow feeling that clicking rep can bring.

To finish, the rep system should stay. I like it and get a deal of joy from it.

If people don't like it, then ignore it. Your words carry the same weight with me whatever the 'star count' ... until I've actually read them. I might pay more attention to seeing what some people have said than others but that's dictated by the fact that either they are my friends (in the Net sense of the term because I've met none of you yet ) or because I know from experience that it'll be worth reading. How many 'stars' do they have? If it's more than 'some' I don't notice.

EDIT: ROLF - could you get more of a contrast than the last post of Arnie and mine :lol:.

very well said my tea-sipping friend.

 

[Sukerkin]

very well said my tea-sipping friend.

Not tonight, I'm embarassed to admit that I'm deep 'in my cups' courtesy of Rosemount Estates - normal tea imbibing service will be resumed after the week-end :lol:.

 

[Drac]

This thread is wallowing on far too long for it's original purpose. Extreme opinions are being expressed that have no bearing really on the actuality of the situation.

Well said Sukerkin..Look at the poll..With the exception of a few whiners no one else sees the need to change it......Nuff said already...

 

[Brian King]

Sapper6 wrote:

“the system isn't broke; it shouldn't even be an issue.”

“If people are here/not here because the rep system, then they are here/not here for the wrong ****ing reasons. this fact alone is not because of the system, but rather people with issues larger than these.”

people get complexes about stupid ****.

“why the hell make a big deal over such a minor issue?”

“not to give two ***** about reputation.”

“ya know, i got an idea. i'd like Mr. Hubbard to reset every score in the arcade to 0 cause i can't seem to win at anything cause i'm a ****ing loser.

you know rediculous that sounds? same same.”

“btw, take a valium.”

Sir, an opinion was asked for by Mr. Hubbard in the OP. I find it amusing that it offends so many when the asked for opinion is thus given. I notice for an issue that in your opinion shouldn’t be an issue you have posted five times and counting, don't get wrong, I think that overall that is a good thing; discussion is usually a good thing in my opinion. The fact that your opinion of those with differing opinions than your own deserves your derision and cursing is a reflection of you and your style and your upbringing. To say that people who think a system could be improved upon as having large issues, having complexes and calling the (insert one of you many curse words here) losers is all good and well I suppose, trading insults veiled or otherwise is a forum skill that is admired and practiced by many. To have to use cursing to try to make your points on a public forum demonstrates that more work and time could have been given to the posts so that they could be readable by all of the audience adult and child.

I do not ever advocate the taking of Valium but sometimes do advocate that others should perhaps follow their own advice.

Drac wrote:

Well said Sukerkin..Look at the poll..With the exception of a few whiners no one else sees the need to change it......Nuff said already...

Hey Drac, I remind you that we have met in the past and will likely meet sometime in the future…exactly who are you calling whiners and why do you feel such a need to try to influence the poll?

Bob, Perhaps the next poll should be a read only poll with no comments allowed until after the poll closes? And yes I am sure that this subject will return yet again in the future.
Brian King

 

[Bob Hubbard]

We have 53 total votes.

We have had 337 members visit in the last 24 hours.

That's 284 "No Opinion's"

Interesting eh?

 

[grydth]

No, depressing. That is how we get the "elected" officials we suffer under...

 

[grydth]

Well said Sukerkin..Look at the poll..With the exception of a few whiners no one else sees the need to change it......Nuff said already...

You think this has been whining?

You couldn't handle my real whining.

Keep it up and when I'm done, I'll make your mothers-in-law sound good by comparison.

:soapbox: