[Cordance]

A few thoughts.
It is Human nature to take a negative worse than a positive. Negative rep has no set value or price. Bad rep is spent at the value of the spender but received at the value of the receive. Causing people to have issues on the receiving end.
Negative rep is "working" now because of moderation the larger the site becomes the harder it is to moderate the bigger differences you get between moderates etc. Better to remove it now before it becomes a bigger issue later.

To me negative rep is the kind of thing that works as a bunch of mates but as the site grows there are more and more people coming to the site that arnt mates yet. In Australia it is common place for a greeting or getting attention of a friend to be an insulting term "Hey dickhead" for example. However if you use the same language in a larger social group people are going to take offense. You dont get your bosses attention by calling out dickhead across the office at least if you want a job the next day.

As far as positive rep I feel its more like "brownie points". Its a nod to say something is good no matter how significant the good is of the post. A positive unlike a negative is not often an issue if someone takes it too positive.

Quick Comments

nirvAnA:

[TABottles]

I feel sc2sea had started develop it's own online culture with the old rep system. I don't mind what happens just don't make me ''like'' things.. too much facebook as it is

[Xeen]

You don't need a coded number to tell you who makes posts worth reading, reading the forum will do that.

Rep systems are pretty much always silly, exploitable, and give people a way to respond unconstructively to posts. They also collapse into 'agree/disagree' systems more than a way to determine quality posters.

[crAzerk]

You don't need a coded number to tell you who makes posts worth reading, reading the forum will do that.

I don't think anyone actually relies on the rep points/rep on the post to determine if the post is worth reading. If anyone actually does please correct me here.

As Bottles says, the rep system is part of the sc2sea online culture that I'd hate for to change (esp become LIKES zomg wtf!! noo!!)

I never looked as the rep system as a way to 'determine quality posters', but more of a way to motivate (or discourage) good posts (bad posts). And consequently the Rep Points adds to e-peen as everyone knows.

[Xeen]

The rep system IS 'liking' posts, so why you're adamantly against that is confusing to me. 'Likes' are somewhat better because they're only tied to individual messages and thus there is no incentive to try to game the system or grind up points to show off - and yes, newer people do look to reputation scores.

Furthermore, it's a lot easier to chime into a discussion with a 'like' or 'dislike' without actually contributing and with no way for the poster to reply. This is not a good thing, because forums should encourage people to actually make points and encourage discussion. Why have a char limit on replies if there's a way to entirely circumvent that?

[nGenLight]

^ A Guy like this only having 110 points whilst an individual who only posts garbage like BENJI SUX!!! has 600 points should show you just how accurate the rep system is in determinging useful posts.

[TABottles]

If the ''like'' system is what takes it's place nothing is going to change. It's not even the systems fault honestly. It shouldn't be about competing for reputation or likes at all. People getting pissy over the numbers under their name need to take their e-peen to the na server. LIKE IF YOU AGREE

Also - as light said what we have now isn't accurate. I know i'm not ''A name known to all'' - perhaps making these ''ranks'' reflective of post number rather than rep would help the flaming. But then again it means shit all and the sooner this is accepted the better.

[Cyanide]

Kinda skimmed through this thread, have always been lurking in these forums too and have seen how rep has been used and abused. Del mentioned limiting the number of reps per day, which seems like a good idea. Here's my tweaked idea.

1) Total reps are limited.
2) You can +rep X (X being your total amount) at one go if you wish
3) -rep is worth -1 but removes all your rep

Liking something is and always will be something silly and frivolous. Just look at facebook, the silliest of things get likes, even stupid things. I'm not taking anything away from well written posts though. I'm sure people can tell the difference between liking quality content and LOLs.
This makes +rep pretty much unchanged from before.

Negative rep being a 1 time thing only makes it such that you must really disagree to want to do it. And most of the time, you'd end up making a reply post if you really bothered about topic at hand, as someone else pointed out already.
I think this way, negative rep will not be used so frivolously, less open to abuse by the same person or groups of people engaging in negative repping and counter repping.

p.s. sleepy and not really very coherent, but i think you get the gist of it.

[raycey]

Option 1) Get rid of it completely, including accumulated 'Likes' as it just looks like a popularity contest. People get to know who's who by spending time on the site.
Option 2) Do what Gamespot has done: make it anonymous with just a tally of +'s and -'s, and if people really want to address the post and say something about it then make a new post.

Example:


P.S. Forgot to mention - rep is added by pressing on the thumbs up or thumbs down.
P.P.S. A little red number is less painful than a frowny face.

[ToRFutureBoy]

I say remove it and only have posivite reps. Admins can remove and/or ban members of the community if they post something that is offensive or abusive to another member of the community.
Positives all the way!

[IcedTea]

I agree with Raycey.

In my opinion it should just be anonymous.
Less dramas that way.

[Nemo]

Very interesting thread.

By principle I don't like rep systems. As raycey says it's often a popularity contest and the "cool guys" usually have more likes than the "constructive" or "useful" guys. And when you attack the cool guys you're sure to be rep-lynched even if they are bullies.

But first I discovered that it was not like that on sc2sea. Of course the above behaviour was present but largely minority. When you see the top rep guys, it's the builders mainly.

The second point as have pointed great writers of the site crAzerk and Lemminks, is that it's a good way to show interest and feedback on your posts. At the beginning on this site I helped some bronzies on the replay thread. And Nirvana came and +rep every single post I made there (that's why I have a ridiculous amount of points lol). I thought "Wow this guy is and thinks my posts are worth reading for low-leaguers. If it's useful and appreciated, let's go on then."

So I think +reps (or likes) is a great feature on this site and should be maintained.

In case of someone who is not doing something well, I prefer to tell him "you can do this better by doing like that" than telling him "What you say sucks" if the guy has good intentions. So usually I will not negrep anypost. And even more if someone opinion is legit but I don't agree. I respect other opinions when they are repectable.

The very rare cases where I negreped is when people were purposely mean and had no good intentions like that post : http://www.sc2sea.com/showpost.php?p=81762&postcount=77. It doesn't deserve a ban but definitely some negrep train.

I don't talk about forbidden posts that just need to be moderated.

So neg rep is useful if used in very limited intent. If used too largely to express contrary opinions for example, it's more harmful I think.

Last point I think that we should keep the small texts so we can explain why we like (or dislike) the post in question. And keep the identity showned, no anonymity so people can know who have appreciated their posts and why.

[Trusty]

Yeah I think renaming it to likes/dislikes is best.

[|Erasmus|]

Originally Posted by Dox

deth would like a word with you

I just said there's nothing to show on the rep comment that says the moderator has given an infraction or w/e, unlike a post. I'm well aware that they have been moderated at times, just saying the perception may be different because noone really knows whether they have been (non mods at least) unless it's publicly discussed.

[Bloodmyst]

Do we really need this whole reputation system? I don't know about anyone else, but my e-pen*s doesn't get any larger when my reputation points go up......

There are many other sites out there that don't even have it at all and they get along fine without it.

@ Nemo, this is kinda true. I remember something I posted up a few weeks ago and I got neg repped by like 6 TA members lol. I guess there was something TA didn't like about about my post? No hard feelings boys, I just think it's a great example.

[inFeZa]

Originally Posted by raycey

Option 2) Do what Gamespot has done: make it anonymous with just a tally of +'s and -'s, and if people really want to address the post and say something about it then make a new post.

TBH This is the best and easy fix.

[|Erasmus|]

Anonymous rep just seems pointless to me. If people are willing to 'abuse' it when it's not anonymous, that will be unlikely to get better if you make it so you can't see who is disliking your posts and address them.

Just my 2c.

Quick Comments

nirvAnA:

[Cute]

The more I think about it, the more I just kinda wish it wasn't there at all. People come to discussion boards to talk about things, a good post should be rewarded by a good response, not some imaginary points.

I guess I'm just a bit bitter cause I wish that there were more actual posts on this site hahah (that's why I'm not huge on the chatbox, but let's not go there)

[mGGDrGooSe]

I really think this entire thing has come from a lack of communication as to the idea behind the rep system. It was left up to the individual as to what the rep system meant and its purpose. I think it is a very good way of community moderation. After all, a community site should be modded by the community, not by the admins. My motorcycle forum has no moderation. The community moderates and when somebody does something annoying, the community acts. There is no reason why this shouldn't also be the case here. Let the rep system represent what the community believes to be a positive influence/contribution to the community as a whole and to also show what it believes to be a negative contribution to the community.
I also believe that re-naming the system to likes/dislikes will run counter to the above policy, as it implies a like or dislike of the post's content, rather than an assesment of its contribution to the community.

Quick Comments

nirvAnA:

[InteGrand]

We should allow people to neg rep other people' neg rep comments which nullifies the effect of the neg rep. Inception action right here