[Flamga]

Originally Posted by nirvAnA

yea flamga sorry, i dont mean to single you out like that. just saying maybe with a sig limit the posts wont look so big!

No im the best example :P all cool man

[TAEdgE]

pinder: im just going to let that unecessary jab at me go so the thread doesn't get derailed and so we can continue discussion on the merits/demerits of the system

That jab is just a small part of it, his post is still really good and he isn't derailing. I agree with positive rep being a way of avoiding clutter and negative rep being a way of calling someone a dickhead in 20 pixels or less.

Quick Comments

deL:

dickhead

[Flamga]

Originally Posted by EdgE

That jab is just a small part of it, his post is still really good and he isn't derailing. I agree with positive rep being a way of avoiding clutter and negative rep being a way of calling someone a dickhead in 20 pixels or less.

I suppose negative rep gives us a way to say we disagree without having this real strong opinion or explanation why, or sometimes when a heated debate is going on and we disagree but not directly involved.

But people do abuse it and they should have the ability taken away from them. Its the problem of a few ruining it for many

[Rage]

The way I see it, as much as some of the ideas in this thread are good ways to improve the rep system...

The rep system itself is like any other rep system on a forum. It simply is another way for people to measure the size of their internet penis.

It is good for nothing significant, and bad in plenty of ways. Nobody would mourn it in any significant way if the rep was just disabled. Any good forum doesn't bother with this kind of nonsense.

[TAEdgE]

Originally Posted by wTFlamga

I suppose negative rep gives us a way to say we disagree without having this real strong opinion or explanation why, or sometimes when a heated debate is going on and we disagree but not directly involved.

But people do abuse it and they should have the ability taken away from them. Its the problem of a few ruining it for many

Well in my eyes it is abused a lot, because the idea of 'counter rep' is just stupid.

A post should be judged on what it is rather than what someone else said in reputation comments. Many members use positive rep for the sake of it just to save someone some points which really don't mean anything. What I personally do is I read and judge for myself and I do not judge based off of the reputation comments...

Counter rep just frustrates me and it is bought upon by the fact negative rep existed.

Quick Comments

Bash:

< im nodding, because i agree.

[mGGDrGooSe]

Originally Posted by wTFlamga

I suppose negative rep gives us a way to say we disagree without having this real strong opinion or explanation why, or sometimes when a heated debate is going on and we disagree but not directly involved.

I disagree with this. This should not be the purpose of the neg rep. If you have a logical disagreement with an argument that is made, you MUST make a post with a clear and concise explaination. Neg rep should be reserved for people being outright dickheads, etc. It's the community's way of saying that the post does not constitute appropriate behaviour.

RE: the idea of counter rep. I think thats a perfectly good use of rep. If it's the communities poll about appropriate behaviour, then counter rep is a democratic method of gauging the communities position, rather than a mod's.

Quick Comments

TAEdgE:

An infraction with logical reasons for said infraction is the simplest way imo

[NvPinder]

Originally Posted by wTFlamga

I suppose negative rep gives us a way to say we disagree without having this real strong opinion or explanation why, or sometimes when a heated debate is going on and we disagree but not directly involved.

But this is the biggest problem, which is something Maynarde brought up early in the thread which is completely inevitable, people take offense to these small "your post sucks", which people take offense for, and rightly so if they don't give a decent reason or explanation. If i post a big 5 paragraph post and people have the option of "your posts sucks" as a response, it pisses me off, you should give a reason, this is a discussion board, this isn't ******* reddit.

But people do abuse it and they should have the ability taken away from them. Its the problem of a few ruining it for many

This is another big issue which was kind of my point singling out nirvAnA as an example in my previous post. What the **** is "abuse of the rep system" exactly, everyone has a ******* different opinion, I've seen people claim its any of:
-Using the rep system if you disagree with a posts content (ie: this guys opinion is retarded - downrep "no you're wrong")
-Using the rep system as a way of getting back at a person for downrepping you, even tho you had nothing against the post when you first read it.
-Too many of one particular group of people using the downrep system on one post (EG: the infamous "TA rep train"), even though they all might agree with the post being wrong.
-Downrepping simply because you don't like the person and it has nothing to do with their post
-Downrepping because there gramma/formatting/not enough detail in their post, despite having no argument with the post's point itself.
-Downrepping too harshly (EG: someone posts something you want to downrep for any above reasons, and you simply downrep with "You're a dickhead" or something).
-Downrepping because of a persons attitude in the post (EG: comes off arrogant/assholish, despite you not disagreeing with any facts/opinions in the post)
-Downrepping too liberally (IE: downrepping too much, even if you only slightly disagree with any of the posts content)

And probably many more I can't think of off the top of my head. People have been banned. FROM TOURNAMENTS. For doing things many would consider not even remote abuse of the system, whilst others slide completely because of everyones differing opinions on exactly what compensates a good enough reason to downvote a post.

I just can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want this system on the website. It is literally the starter of the biggest shitstorms on this entire website.

Quick Comments

	nirvAnA:
	deL:	You're a dickhead
	TCPLemminks:	Your chin looks like balls dickhead
	ProAnnn:	I was wondering why noone downreps this but realise you can't downrep

[Flamga]

Originally Posted by Drgoose

I disagree with this. This should not be the purpose of the neg rep. If you have a logical disagreement with an argument that is made, you MUST make a post with a clear and concise explaination. Neg rep should be reserved for people being outright dickheads, etc. It's the communities way of saying that the post does not constitute appropriate behaviour.

Also people have a different view on what is a bad post as well :/ of course those sorts of quotes deserve that. But as Edge said, it those that are abusing it and unfortunately thats why its come to this.

Although I do agree with you

[mGGDrGooSe]

Put it this way, if you would punch someone for having said what they did in the post to your face, then neg rep it. Otherwise leave it. (Well maybe not punch, but you get the idea :P)

[nirvAnA]

omg flamga your new signature lol!

i think this thread has produced a lot of good agruments on both sides thus far

[Flamga]

Originally Posted by NvPinder

But this is the biggest problem, which is something Maynarde brought up early in the thread which is completely inevitable, people take offense to these small "your post sucks", which people take offense for, and rightly so if they don't give a decent reason or explanation. If i post a big 5 paragraph post and people have the option of "your posts sucks" as a response, it pisses me off, you should give a reason, this is a discussion board, this isn't ******* reddit.



This is another big issue which was kind of my point singling out nirvAnA as an example in my previous post. What the **** is "abuse of the rep system" exactly, everyone has a ******* different opinion, I've seen people claim its any of:
-Using the rep system if you disagree with a posts content (ie: this guys opinion is retarded - downrep "no you're wrong")
-Using the rep system as a way of getting back at a person for downrepping you, even tho you had nothing against the post when you first read it.
-Too many of one particular group of people using the downrep system on one post (EG: the infamous "TA rep train"), even though they all might agree with the post being wrong.
-Downrepping simply because you don't like the person and it has nothing to do with their post
-Downrepping because there gramma/formatting/not enough detail in their post, despite having no argument with the post's point itself.
-Downrepping too harshly (EG: someone posts something you want to downrep for any above reasons, and you simply downrep with "You're a dickhead" or something).
-Downrepping because of a persons attitude in the post (EG: comes off arrogant/assholish, despite you not disagreeing with any facts/opinions in the post)
-Downrepping too liberally (IE: downrepping too much, even if you only slightly disagree with any of the posts content)

And probably many more I can't think of off the top of my head. People have been banned. FROM TOURNAMENTS. For doing things many would consider not even remote abuse of the system, whilst others slide completely because of everyones differing opinions on exactly what compensates a good enough reason to downvote a post.

I just can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want this system on the website. It is literally the starter of the biggest shitstorms on this entire website.

In which case the only way something of a rep system would work is if any commenting value was taken from the rep and only gave + or - , and then comments were below. Honestly either way I am not bothered, rep system or not I couldn't care less if I get neg rep as you said its opinion based and people will just neg for no reason.

However I still maintain that there are people that just rep for the sake of it instead of a good reason (I will say I have + rep sometimes, and yes most likely I was drunk or bored) Unfortunately since there are so many differences of opinion in the system there wont be conformity in what deserves +/- rep. In which case the system should just not exist.

Of course we still need to have a good idea of who the trolls are as well. Which the only way would be to see who has been banned and given infractions, of course within reason.

[Champi]

I cant even give positive rep comments

[deL]

Originally Posted by System

Also, relevant

Someone with only 568 points would say that.

[inFeZa]

Give it back

[Cute]

I like the idea of being able to +1/like a post, as others have said, it saves a ton of "I agree 10char" posts. I don't really think adding a comment is needed. Generally, if you're agreeing with a post, it's pretty obvious why. Maybe even hide who likes a post, would encourage users to actually read and decide whether or not they agree with something, as opposed to just liking cause other people have (I do it all the time lol).

I don't like the negative rep idea much. If someone disagrees, it'd be nice for them to elaborate, in a civil manner, on their reasons why in a post of their own, rather than just some dumb one liner (which a lot of people take personally).

Quick Comments

nirvAnA:

yea pinder's point spot on!

[xpaperclip]

A lot of positive rep is given to announcements and news (and articles, how could I forget!?). I think this should be the intended use of rep, expressing approval of a contribution to the community that is not limited to mod/admin discretion.

Agreement or disagreement of a post ('+1's, etc), on the other hand, I feel would be better served by being done in a more localised fashion by a like/dislike system that isn't suddenly reflected everywhere else. Then, anonymity and consequentially retaliation become less of an issue. (In fact, recall that once upon a time, the buggy rep display meant some users couldn't even see who gave rep!)

+ [Ramblings. I spent ages trying to articulate my view on the 'state of the rep' and failed. Read only if you are insanely bored and like reading bad pieces of half-finished writing.] +

I feel reputation has caused a lot of unnecessary unpleasantness on this site, and a lot of it I feel stems from what reputation is supposed to represent. The name "reputation" suggests it is a judgement by the community of an individual's value. Some therefore take neg rep very badly and it is easy to see why. The whole system has an extremely conspicuous manifestation - is next to your name on every single post you make.

It is quick and easy to give, requires very little detail, and is difficult to respond to. This is a community of gamers. There are many pros among us. We are naturally competitive. Some of us hold strong views and are not afraid to express them directly. It is therefore natural to take such a public means of saying "I disagree" with no means of rebuttal badly.

The only way to give or take away rep is through posts, and is more often than not used as a means of indicating agreement or otherwise with the contents of the post, rather than its merit as a contribution to the discussion. This is a perfectly fine goal and saves masses of '+1'-type posts (which, with the current layout of this site I agree would be insane). However, when it is aggregated and presented as a representation of your person, I feel there is a disconnect between how it is used and what the number is labelled to be.

Quick Comments

nirvAnA:

i found your "half-finished" writing really eloquent

[TCPLemminks]

For me, the rep system is something that motivates me to write more articles for this site.
It made it more obvious that the time I spent was being appreciated by the community.

That being said I agree with the point Pinder made.

Also I feel blogs deserve equal recognition, perhaps a rating system? The widget above should still show latest blogs though.

Quick Comments

EveVendetta:

Good idea about the blogs being rated

[xpaperclip]

Originally Posted by TCPLemminks

Also I feel blogs deserve equal recognition, perhaps a rating system?

Individual blog posts already have a star-based rating system in the top right corner, it's just not so visible and thus not so widely used nor (as far as I can tell) aggregated anywhere.

Quick Comments

SC2SEA StreamBot:

testing neutral rep

[crAzerk]

For me, the rep system is something that motivates me to write more articles for this site.
It made it more obvious that the time I spent was being appreciated by the community.

I had a similar view as this when I first started out writing stuff for this site - while obviously the whole 'take pride in your work' and intrinsic motivation and all is important, sometimes having that +rep just makes it more worthwhile and ... tangible.

Though personally I didn't really care much about rep once it got to several hundreds, and after nirvana removed the top 10 rep list I also stopped monitoring (or desiring) more rep.

My personal take on this issue is like what already has been mentioned - it generates conflict and/or 'abuse', but it's an interesting feature to have around for sure, and serves as a good motivator. It is a double-edged sword, and it'll come down to admins making a decision about what's best for the site, with no definite answer.

EDIT: @Lemmink's rep comment haha it's always good to see a long line of rep acknowledging the effort you put in, but after seeing a similarly long line of rep for someone just making a witty comment or posting some meme you will realize it's really nothing much, and your motivation shifts back to being intrinsic ^^

Quick Comments

TCPLemminks:

Only cause you started getting over 9000 reps per post :P

[NDG.Stitch]

I don't think that the repping system is really needed on this site. Too often I feel that some of the people that comment on threads say something positive just so you get rep. It feels like to some extent, I do that too, and sometimes I just want to compete with people on getting rep points (I know very childish of me, but I'm sure I'm not the only one out there).

Then again, also I agree that too often people downrep with very useless comments. Thing is, if you disagree, the person who posted wants to hear WHY you disagree, not just a face that frowns under their thread. I wouldn't mind thumbs up or thumbs down on a entire thread, but for each reply/post, it just doesn't seem necessary as abuse and being bias is just way too easy to fall for.