[nirvAnA]

It has now been almost a week where the ability to give negative reputation was removed from the reputation system. This whole thing came about after Pinder's suggestion to me to have neg rep removed. I felt there were merits in his suggestion and there was mixed response in our admin chat so I decieded rather then straight away removing it, to test it out for a week and let the community give their feedback after trying it out, and then re-evaluate.

Q: Should there be negative rep in our rep system?

Reasons for removing was stated in this earlier post:
"It was brought to my attention that the negative reputation was harming the community. In an ideal world, the reputation system would have just be used as a way to express how you felt about a particular post's CONTENT. However, people were taking the neg reps the wrong way, getting angry at those who have neg repped them, blindly neg repping people back etc.

Worse of all, some people were just using the system to neg rep people they didn't like when someone else who posted the same content would not be neg repped. Basically it was making most of the community more and more angry with each other, making poor relations even worse and fueling a lot of unnecessary drama."

Reasons for having negative rep:
Its a fun to use feature and we should be able to express our dislike for something, freedom! Its an easier way to express with a simple frowny than making a long post thats far too much effort. People who abuse this can always have their rep powers taken away so others can continue using it.

The rep system is not to be taken personally, it is just an opinion after all. *unless a personal attack is embeded in the message, or u dont like the poster so u neg rep him then look for a reason in his post to justify it - thats something else and falls under abuse.

Other alternatives:
Keeping it but renaming the reputation word to something else, like "likes"
Keeping it but disallowing comments for negative rep.
Keeping it by removing the frowny face which seems to piss people off lol
Keeping it but also allowing neutral comments for neutral commenting which carries 0 weightage and has a chat box has an icon


Admins and mods will re-evalute based on the feedback given in this thread and votes collected.

[TAminimat]

I reckon you should add the neutral comments and just penalise people "abusing" the neg rep.

Quick Comments

	mGGAequitas:	neutral comments are good
	Ruski:	Agree
	Zanderax:	Here you go

[aLtShortizz]

I like this last one.

[Baldie]

I too am a fan of an ability to neutral chat respond.

It's pretty common for people to get +reped as a reply instead of the person quoting them and posting a reply.

On longer threads sometimes responses can be lost and if there is an ability to respond directly on the post it would mean it would be localised. Only potential issue is if it becomes a thread within a thread - but plenty of ways to avoid that such as limiting the amount of chat responses you can do to a post etc.

[deL]

I would like a rep system where you can only spend X per day - say double whatever your rep power is (mine would be 8) and you can choose how much rep to give to a single post so you can give +1 to 8 good posts or +8 to a really good post or something. Do the same with -ve rep but just allow 1 neg rep? That should mean the overall +ve rep is a lot more than -ve and if 5 people unfairly rep something just one +ve rep could undo it all. Also if people wanna -ve rep something they have to really want to because it means they can't -ve rep someone else.

Not sure what a good refresh time would be. I like -ve rep cos it hits people hard who make stupid posts and is a better alternative than what usually happens in forums - everyone replying with insults or sarcstic comments and derailing an entire thread for 1 shitty post.

Quick Comments

	nirvAnA:
	Rage:	I like this one the best.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by TAdeL

I would like a rep system where you can only spend X per day - say double whatever your rep power is (mine would be 8) and you can choose how much rep to give to a single post so you can give +1 to 8 good posts or +8 to a really good post or something. Do the same with -ve rep but just allow 1 neg rep? That should mean the overall +ve rep is a lot more than -ve and if 5 people unfairly rep something just one +ve rep could undo it all. Also if people wanna -ve rep something they have to really want to because it means they can't -ve rep someone else.

.

I'm not sure on the +different amounts of rep, but i like the idea of limiting how much rep you can give either way.

[Maynarde]

The major issue with the rep system isn't actually the rep system, it's the people that are sensitive to negative rep.

I liked it fine the way it was, but it became pretty glaringly apparent especially in the last couple months that neg rep was starting more than just a few arguments and it was kind of seeming like an expendable feature at the time. I'm all for giving the new system a go, but either way I won't be sad to see the rep system stay or go. That said if it does stay here is my two cents:

• Perhaps take out comments instead of taking out neg rep? Make it a bit more "reddit points" like. Certain posts in the thread get highlighted dependent on their score, or hidden if terrible. Also that way threads won't be continued after their closed via rep comments. It makes me sadface.
• Go to Internet 101 people and get used to the fact that there are people on the Internet that won't agree with you. Don't take neg rep personally, it's only points on a web forum and people are always more willing to pos rep so it's not like you can't get em back.

Quick Comments

	nirvAnA:
	Zepph:	good ides

[Peleus]

Personally I judge the posters by getting to know them and reading what they write rather than a number under their name or how many people agree / disagree, so I find it all rather redundant.

Quick Comments

	Rageboredguy:	at risk of repping in a rep thread.
	Maynarde:

[Mayo]

Originally Posted by Peleus

Personally I judge the posters by getting to know them and reading what they write rather than a number under their name or how many people agree / disagree, so I find it all rather redundant.

Definitely doesn't work that that in other communities I can say from experience.

If you run into someone with red bars under their name in Gotgames and Gametech (CSS) or 0% on CyberGamer, you know to stay away from them.

[Dox]

Originally Posted by Mayo

Definitely doesn't work that that in other communities I can say from experience.

If you run into someone with red bars under their name in Gotgames and Gametech (CSS) or 0% on CyberGamer, you know to stay away from them.

Ahahaha, you made it sound like those are the types you don't want to meet in a dark alley.


I don't think anyone should ever be banned for neg rep.

But I did enjoy it. People get so fired up over it though, probably best to please the majority!

Quick Comments

Mayo:

I wouldn't want to meet them here or there. Wouldn't meet them anywhere!

[iMSystem]

IMO overall the entire rep system is pointless.

If people have something to say, or commend on the post they can quote it and reply, thus prolonging the life of a thread (better if it is a high quality thread) if it is a shit thread, simple lock and be done with it.

As far as I can see, there is no beneficial point of having a rep system, other than denoting who the majority of people like and dislike. Which, shouldn't really be made public unless needed

Quick Comments

Maynarde:

Have some pointless points, because I agree!

[iVnStinger]

I agree with System entirely. This "rep system" is being run by people of the community, with different views. If you make a comment that has good intentions but the community does not agree with it. This can cause issues cause say player X just signed up to sc2sea. Known player, everyone loves him. But he shares his thoughts that offend people. He automatically goes red and has bad rep. But should he be marked as a bad rep guy if he only made 1 comment?

No, the rep system should be put in the hands of people who understand what is going on. For example, admins. Rep should be given based on ingame actions as well.

The most common example of misused rep is when it's given to a person who made a joke. You are saying person X, who has hacked and been rude before, gets positive rep because he made a funny joke. Is this really what rep is? And this is also causing people to make apology threads, such as mine (I made my in blog so rep couldn't be given) so that they get what we call "rep trains".

I'm sorry if I'm lacking in clarity, but to summarize :
The rep system should either be removed or only used by people who are trustworthy and are not biased.

EDIT: And I agree with the thing being neutral where you can comment on a specific post without quoting it as that would take up a lot of space.

[iMSystem]

Also, relevant

Quick Comments

	Zepph:	YES
	nirvAnA:	LOL jlo's husbands name!!!!!!!!
	ToRVenom:
	asdfSchnitzel:
	TCPLemminks:	Childhood achieved
	inFeZa:	agreeeeeed
	Mezza:	Nice!

[deL]

Originally Posted by System

Also, relevant

Someone with only 568 points would say that.

[VB_WhiplashJC]

I thought the issue was that people were using neg rep to post things without the threat of moderation?

Quick Comments

inFeZa:

i can still say you're a complete idiot and give you + rep at the same time

[Maynarde]

Originally Posted by VB_WhiplashJC

I thought the issue was that people were using neg rep to post things without the threat of moderation?

Nah people were still definitely getting moderated for neg rep comments lol

EDIT: Goddamnit Dox, beat me by like 5 seconds HE SO FAST

[UHF]

I think turning it into a 'like' system and removing the negative rep is a good idea. That way you can quickly let people know you agree/like/appreciate something with cluttering a thead with "I agree" posts.

The negative rep system is kind of pointless, because most people don't care if people disagree, and the people that do care would rather you expand on why you disagree further than a simple shaking head.

[Dox]

Rep comments can (and have been) moderated!

EDIT: I'd also like to add that I primarily appreciate the positive aspect of the rep system so that threads don't get cluttered up with shit posts like "hahahahah" "LOL" and "^", because I'm a big time offender when it comes to stuff like that.

Prime example:
http://www.sc2sea.com/showpost.php?p=84440&postcount=20

Quick Comments

Asrathiel:

Agreed. And I said it in my later post before I saw yours :P

[nirvAnA]

yea whiplash is right. people will never get banned for normal neg rep, they will get banned if they use the rep comment loophole to post something ban worthy in it to circumvent the infraction system. But as it was a third party "thank you"add on thing that i kinda tweaked into a reputation/comment thing, the functionality is lacking and mods cant remove/edit comments, u need admin privelleges for that and then have to manually infract the persons profile. so theres a huge lack of moderation whereas mods can shut down bad posts/threads fast.

come to think of it the neg rep is where a lot of the major dramas started and i wonder if it didn't exist would the drama have been avoided or just manifested itself in other ways.

also dox gives a great example on why positive rep is good!! we dont need people posting just to say "lol" and "hahaha" when they can just rep and yea i hoped the neg rep system worked the same way but people took it wayyy too personal, as frogmite suggested it might have to do with the "reputation" name - if it was called something else it might have been taken less seriouesly. like sc2sea karma. idk.

[Heady]

Is it possible to make neg rep anonymous to prevent retaliatory behaviour?