2010-03-10, 03:47 | Link #61 | |
Otaku Apprentice
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-03-10, 03:58 | Link #62 | |||
AniMexican!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Monterrey N.L. Mexico
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
|||
2010-03-10, 05:03 | Link #63 |
Disabled By Request
Join Date: Jan 2010
|
(I) Can See Who Left User Ratings - Yes
(II) Can Leave Negative Reputation - Yes. @Schneizel: Either is fine at me at this point. Remove the entire system, but have users atleast know why they 'lost' the privilege, sort to speak. Because there will be cries of "We miss rep!". True enough, still... I think it'd be better to remove neg rep, and instead focus on good rep. Though then, Good rep would be forced to be handed out sparingly. I think good rep should be deducted from an user's good rep. Kind of like spending, so they won't hand out needlessly. Thats my opinion, anyways. Don't worry about it it's probably be discarded Lol. |
2010-03-10, 08:38 | Link #64 | ||
…Nothing More
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Age: 44
|
Quote:
The user-group settings are all yes/no:Remember though, just because there is a setting, doesn't mean we will change it. While I have any power to guide/veto changes to the forum, the "See Who Left User Ratings" setting will not be changed independently. That is, not without a bigger change to the reputation system and user's current awards/points. It was disabled to prevent conflicts (I still think this was the right policy and given my, albeit privileged, view of the system, the "evidence" bears this out). Regardless of the correctness of the choice, anyone using the system did so with the presumption of anonymity. If the setting is changed now, existing reputation awards would have to be removed to preserve this. The problem with disabling "Negative Reputation" was originally thought to be the unconstrained growth of reputation, which I think was already mentioned. As it turns out, I'm not convinced the evidence supports this argument however, with some people's rep almost being off the scale. It has been noted that there is very little chance for newer users to ever catch them up. There are also other good motives for keeping it (given the current system's point-awarding inflexibility), for constructive criticism/comment. Again, however, there is scant evidence to support this actually being the way it is used (it is but not that often). The later issue may be served by other aspects of the forum (we have visitor messages now, which we didn't have before). There are various ways we've considered of countering former (unconstrained point growth), some have been mentioned in this thread. One approach raised in private was the possibility of resetting or truncating reputation if any change is made, or limiting the apparent reputation to only the last year's worth of points (i.e. you need to keep getting rep to maintain the level). I wonder, how would people feel about having their reputation wiped or drastically reduced, if there were a change to the system? No, the only changes I made were to alter the way the forum applied limitations to reputation awarding, because the original system was even more broken than the current one. Quote:
__________________ 1 - The current setting is hide not disable. Currently people can still give you rep, you just can't see it on your User CP and other people see: |
||
2010-03-10, 10:02 | Link #65 | |
Salt Levels Critical
Join Date: Oct 2007
|
The main issue I have with this system is that positive rep is given out so frequently for things like simply having a thread in the Fan Creations forum or posting in the "Rate that Signature!" thread that it's almost entirely meaningless. I'm not against people getting rep for posting their creations at all but I constantly see comments like "grats on starting your thread, here's your rep" which completely disregard any of the actual content, and I feel like that defeats the entire purpose. I've seen posters with rep through the roof who have never really contributed to any sort of intelligent discussion or worse, tend to be outright trolls.
Quote:
Kind of on the fence in regards to negative rep though. I've used it several times to successfully stop stupidity and flame wars from invading a thread but then I see topics like http://forums.animesuki.com/showthre...?t=5523&page=9 where people are constantly getting negged just for not liking a certain character. |
|
2010-03-10, 14:55 | Link #67 | ||
Salt Levels Critical
Join Date: Oct 2007
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2010-03-10, 16:06 | Link #69 | |
AniMexican!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Monterrey N.L. Mexico
|
Quote:
If it comes to that, a global announcement a week or so in advance could probably help ease the blow.
__________________
|
|
2010-03-10, 16:22 | Link #70 | |
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
|
Quote:
A new user who makes a strong impression at the right times will fly through the rep system much faster than in previous years. It's personal opinion on if that's a good thing or not though, since the reverse can be true with neg rep, although users who have rep damaged in such a manner are extremely uncommon.
__________________
|
|
2010-03-10, 16:32 | Link #71 |
sleepyhead
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
|
Negative reputation counts as half a point always if I remember correctly. So each time you are de-repped you always are substracted merely 0.5 points, making the scenario just as likely (or well, "unlikely") at any given point in time. Of course I could be wrong, given you have special settings.
__________________
|
2010-03-10, 16:34 | Link #72 | |
AniMexican!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Monterrey N.L. Mexico
|
Quote:
It is also interesting that you mention the point caps in the system, which is the one thing I always though would be the one to force an eventual change in reps.
__________________
Last edited by Daniel E.; 2010-03-10 at 16:44. |
|
2010-03-11, 01:55 | Link #73 |
Otaku Apprentice
|
You can also have the mods block the person from using the rep system if he/she abuse it... just press a certain button.... and report why (and bam).
__________________
Last edited by relentlessflame; 2010-03-11 at 10:52. Reason: Please DO NOT quote an entire long post only to make one brief comment -_-; |
2010-03-11, 07:35 | Link #74 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
As much as I like to randomly negrep anyone who stated that I became a problem as a victim of bullying (interesting hypothesis, but that is the reason why most bullied become bullies) in the Silly stories thread, it isn't ethical so I will just leave it at that. If you have the guts to negrep, at least have the same guts to put your name there. Otherwise, you would just be like those who have bad genes passed down.
__________________
|
|
2010-03-11, 09:04 | Link #75 |
sleepyhead
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
|
Moderators may view the identity of the one who de-reped you. Simply report the post(s) on which you received the inappropriate (and/or are a victim of some sort of abuse of the reputation system) and it will be dealt with if said comments violate the forum rules. Also, he is not referring to the Ignore List feature there but actually removing said users ability to use the reputation system.
__________________
|
2010-03-12, 00:24 | Link #76 |
Schwing!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Central Texas
Age: 39
|
I'm sure plenty of you ladies and gents would agree, the only real problem are people who leave rather rude, and nonsensical neg reps...I don't have a problem if I'm negged for someone disagreeing with me on at least a intelligent level, but I can honestly say that in the long run that I've been here, the vast majority of my neg reps were left by childish people, one that particularly stands out was me asking a honest question back when Gundam Seed Destiny was out, and someone left a remark that my brain needed to be upgraded. I was like "wow? really? was that really necessary?"
|
2010-03-12, 02:50 | Link #77 | |
Senior Member
Graphic Designer
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Age: 31
|
I honestly believe that at this point in time, any concerns that are dealing with reputation, whether they are positive or negative, should be eliminated for now. I'm sure that most of us have received negative rep for acting out/having difference of opinions, but my biggest concern is, is the reputation justified?
Some of us have reported to a mod regarding towards receiving reputation. Too bad most of these reports just don't seem to work. Quote:
__________________
|
|
2010-03-12, 12:05 | Link #78 |
sleepyhead
Author
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
|
The two you (DjTrizz & Death Header) are really not helping any point you are trying to make by giving yourself as a example.
__________________
|
2010-03-12, 16:36 | Link #79 |
Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2003
Age: 41
|
felix is correct about how moderators generally address rep complaints. There is no rule that says that rep needs to be justified. You can leave whatever positive or negative rep you want for whatever reason, and it's fine with these three exceptions:
1. If it represents a concerted effort to manipulate the system (either in your favour, in someone else's favour, or at someone else's expense). 2. If the rep comment contains inappropriate language that wouldn't be allowed elsewhere on the forum (see the rest of the Forum Rules). 3. If it represents a concerted effort to unfairly target someone (for example, if someone were neg-reping every single post someone makes no matter what just because they don't like them). People always want to think that they're in that third category, but that's extremely rarely the case. A few neg reps here and there doesn't mean you're being targeted. So if someone reports negative rep just because they think they "didn't deserve it", the correct moderator action is usually no action. Both positive and negative rep are equally arbitrary; that's just the way the system works. It's not surprising that we mods never get Reports/PMs complaining about unjustified positive rep. Edit: To be more clear, this is just a reflection of the way the system works now and the way moderators currently handle related issues. If we change the system, that would change the policy. In this post, I wasn't really trying to cast judgement on the proposed changes in one way or the other.
__________________
Last edited by relentlessflame; 2010-03-12 at 18:29. |
Tags |
reputation |
|
|