The AnimeSuki Forum Reputation System has been retired

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by sayde

So my immediate wish list would be 3 things with an optional 4th request to consider:

1.) Keep neutral rep in place just so we can at least retain a way of replying to a post without having to clutter up a thread

2.) With netrual rep being the only rep we can give, remove the rep restriction (so we can comment on multiple posts from a user). Because lets face it--with only neutral rep, we won't have to worry about people abusing the system since there would no longer be any incentive for doing so.

3.) As others have already stated, reveal usernames of those who leave rep for the sake of drastically reducing the likelihood of those seeking to troll fellow forum members in private.

I skimmed over your post, so the suggestion didn't register earlier in my mind. This idea I can wholeheartedly support, since it allows for unobtrusive feedback without any of the emo drama over getting posrep or negrep.

I disagree with the karma suggestion, though. It puts too much power in the hands of the moderators and lacks transparency. The potential for abuse is very much stronger than in the retired reputation system.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I've heard this assertion made a few times now. Am I really unique in not using someone's rep meter to judge whether a post should be read or not? I can tell you that I've had plenty of my own posts skipped over in discussions (usually because they were too lengthy), so I certainly don't think that having more green blocks resulted in people giving extra attention to someone's posts.

Indeed, by that token, I fail to see the point of having a "like" system similar to YouTube or Facebook's. Judge the post for what it is worth, and not for how well "liked" it is. I don't see why we need to mark out a post for special attention with a separate "like" meter, because a majority will indiscriminately "like" posts that reflect what they like to see, rather than on whether the content was well-written, meaningful or helpful.

Sure, it works for lighthearted posts. But when I visit, say, Yahoo! Singapore's news pages and browse the comments, I invariably find people overwhelmingly "liking" anyone who takes an anti-government, anti-mainstream stance, no matter how thin on substance the comments are. Let's not forget that, in the end, we are all effectively anonymous so long as we use log-in IDs instead of our real names and identities. This has long been both the boon and bane of the Internet, in that anonymity brings out the worst in people even as it gives others an outlet to express themselves. The reputation system reflected this dichotomy. Hobbling it to the point where it reflects only the good creates an illusion I'd rather people do without. There is another word for it: propaganda.

So, sad to say, I strongly disagree with Triple_R on the effectiveness of "likes" as a means of registering approval. In the end, it will become a popularity contest that is only slightly different from what we had. Let's just grow up already and dispense with the need for such artificial means of measuring our "approval rating". If one is looking for such approval, visit a social media site instead, rather than a discussion forum where we're supposed to share opinions, not our adulation for each other.

[monster]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I don't really understand why so many people claiming dislike for the system have reputation enabled. You're all aware that it was a feature that you could opt out of, right? And you know that you could "hide" the reputation comments in your user control panel, right? If it bothered you so much, why did you engage in it?

Maybe it's because of the idea that if you're hiding something, then you must be hiding something bad. Thus, a disabled reputation might as well have been a negative reputation.

You might asked why they would care. They might not care about the rep itself, but some might care if it affects how some other people view them.

In essence, the idea that you can not "play the game" of reputation is false since that black box may still affect you in how some others view you.

Originally Posted by sayde

I guess the only thing I'll personally miss about the rep system is how it allowed us to express a brief statement without having to make a separate post just to do it.

Actually, that's the only thing I didn't like about the reputation system. It allows people to "reply" to your post without letting you have the chance to respond. And the problem is worse given the fact that you apparently can't take it public (as I have learned personally).

Now, I realize that the moderators do not want people to have a little "rep war" going on, but if they restrict the responses to the public threads, then people might be more civil with each other.


Yes, I understand about the one-liner thank you posts. I try to find ways around that myself whenever I feel I may need to thank someone. But overall, I think that's a small price to pay compared to the recently retired system.

[sayde]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

I disagree with the karma suggestion, though. It puts too much power in the hands of the moderators and lacks transparency. The potential for abuse is very much stronger than in the retired reputation system.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by monster

Actually, that's the only thing I didn't like about the reputation system. It allows people to "reply" to your post without letting you have the chance to respond. And the problem is worse given the fact that you apparently can't take it public (as I have learned personally).

I acknowledge that--which is why I suggested one of the modifications to the neutral rep system in my previous post. If people's usernames weren't hidden, you wouldn't have to worry about not having your chance to respond or recieving troll messages nearly as much. If you genuinely didn't like what they had to say you'd be able to just PM them back or whatever.

I mean the anonymous aspect of the whole thing was certainly a cause for all the drama. So logically speaking, if you cut out the anonymous aspect to it, you shouldn't have to worry about all the inappropriateness nearly as much.

[Daniel E.]

In reply to Irenicus' request:

When dealing with reputation abuse cases, I pretty much never saw a person that was annoyed by the neg-rep points per see. What angered most was the comments (or lack there of) left behind. As we tried to deal with such cases, we realized that some people would always try to find a way to go around moderation and still try to insult others by rep.

Positive reps with a sarcastic near insulting remarks, naming your neg-rep after someone else, fake reps*, duplicate accounts created exclusively to rep others, rep messages in other languages, etc. This were all used as a way to abuse the system and as a way to avoid moderation; something that we often discussed and things that often changed the way we dealt with some cases.

It takes two to tango of course, and it is simply not fair to blame the "trolls" of everything. Because, yes, even the victims had found ways to abuse the system as well:

Ah my gawd, I just got neg-repped!!

When neg-repped, some people would quickly try to gather the simpathy of others and of course, they would also try to get some positive reps along the way. Problem? these claims were not always true and sometimes were simple baits to collect easy reps from others. In other cases, the rep in question was very old or was received in a different thread from the one the post was made.

This are, by the way, only some of the things that were discussed among the staff while dealing with reputation, but hopefully, enough to give you a better idea of the problems we have to dealt with in this matter.

*A threat of neg-rep without actually doing it.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Indeed, by that token, I fail to see the point of having a "like" system similar to YouTube or Facebook's. Judge the post for what it is worth,

Many people will give out "likes" based on their assessment of the worth of the post.

I think that you're being overly cynical in some of your assessments. I think some people will give out likes because they found the content of a post to be well-written, meaningful, or helpful.

Sure, it works for lighthearted posts. But when I visit, say, Yahoo! Singapore's news pages and browse the comments, I invariably find people overwhelmingly "liking" anyone who takes an anti-government, anti-mainstream stance, no matter how thin on substance the comments are.

You know, there is arguably value even in this.

Suppose someone's a newcomer to Yahoo! Singapore's news pages, and don't yet know what the predominant political opinions of its commentators are. Well, seeing all the anti-government, anti-mainstream posts get lots of likes will be very telling right away of what most of the people who read and comment on those news pages think.

I don't see how having such information ("Well, they clearly like anti-government, anti-mainstream opinions here") can be harmful. Isn't it good to have as clear an idea as possible of what you're getting into before you post?


If "liking" posts reveals the popular anime taste preferences of Anime Suki's userbase, then I think that can be similarly informative.

Let's not forget that, in the end, we are all effectively anonymous so long as we use log-in IDs instead of our real names and identities. This has long been both the boon and bane of the Internet, in that anonymity brings out the worst in people even as it gives others an outlet to express themselves. The reputation system reflected this dichotomy. Hobbling it to the point where it reflects only the good creates an illusion I'd rather people do without.

I don't think that Anime Suki alone will create such an illusion. I think that most heavy internet users are well-aware of exactly what you're referring to here. Knowing what's popular on Anime Suki won't change that.

However, while popularity would be rewarded by "likes" so would well-written, meaningful, and helpful posts I think. I definitely could see likes being a nice way to thank artists, avatar-makers, and sig-makers for their contributions, for example.

Let's just grow up already and dispense with the need for such artificial means of measuring our "approval rating".

What does this have to do with growing up?

People of all ages use social media sites. And liking is obviously extremely popular there. Clearly plenty of grown-ups engage in liking, and enjoy the feature.


People aren't robots, and I think we shouldn't pretend that we are.

[KholdStare]

I feel sad that some of the arguments here depend on the assumption that the reader doesn't have the ability to judge the quality of posts and have to rely on some bar. What I feel is that the rep system was for each individual member, and by that I mean not just the ability to receive but to give. So I don't really care how other people view it. It was so convenient for me to pos rep a good post, or in fact several good posts in a row in the same thread without quoting them all and then type out..."I agree"?

Every member can view rep differently, and what's wrong with that? If someone feels the need to pre-judge posts by rep, then that's good for them! If someone disables rep, then others may think they have something to hide. But the one who disables rep ARE those who wouldn't care what others think why they hide their rep. I'm with Ledgem on this one. We're just having a huge "what ifs" debate and making some broad generalizations about how people view rep.

That also means for those who circlejerk good rep up, like Klash said, most normal members won't notice. So that would mean...pretty much what it means, the normal members won't notice and won't be affected. And if they are affected somehow, then we go back to the original retarded assumption that people can't judge the quality of posts for themselves and have to rely on a bar. This means I don't like this argument at all, why should a very small, unnoticeable portion of the community be one of the reasons to wipe out rep? It shouldn't.

EDIT: What I mean is this. When I found out that there are pos rep circlejerk groups, my reaction was...okay? Did it affect me in some way? No. Did I feel like it's stupid? Yes. But was I angry or anything? No. So it's not such a big deal like some make it to be.

Originally Posted by Daniel E.

This are, by the way, only some of the things that were discussed among the staff while dealing with reputation, but hopefully, enough to give you a better idea of the problems we have to dealt with in this matter.

What does this even mean? If anything, we want to know ALL of the things that were discussed so we can make more informed suggestions. It doesn't give me a better idea at all; instead, it makes me want to know more so I can have a better idea.

As I posted this before, I know that the moderation side of this sucks. And I'm saying it shouldn't have to suck that much by removing neg rep. There, half of the problem. The other half, artificial pos rep boosting, is summarized above. It doesn't matter to other people outside of the circlejerking group and at the end of they day they just wasted their time boosting up a bar that is meaningless, but fun for many of us have around.

[monster]

Originally Posted by sayde

I acknowledge that--which is why I suggested one of the modifications to the neutral rep system in my previous post. If people's usernames weren't hidden, you wouldn't have to worry about not having your chance to respond or recieving troll messages nearly as much. If you genuinely didn't like what they had to say you'd be able to just PM them back or whatever.

I mean the anonymous aspect of the whole thing was certainly a cause for all the drama. So logically speaking, if you cut out the anonymous aspect to it, you shouldn't have to worry about all the inappropriateness nearly as much.

Well, for me at least, it's not just about responding, but responding as part of a thread. PM and VM are suitable enough when the comments may not be on topic anymore. But if the comment still pertains to the topic, even if it's a one-liner agreement/disagreement, then it should stay in the thread.

I guess what I'm saying is, if we're going to have some kind of reputation system, at least remove the comment option altogether. If someone wants to comment on a post, then do it in the thread (except for rule-breaking posts, of course, which should just be reported). If someone wants to comment more generally about a poster regarding his/her post(s), then use PM/VM.

[KholdStare]

And that's where I disagree. One-liners are stupid. It's distracting to see someone just giving an e-peen comment to someone else and not contribute.

[sayde]

Originally Posted by monster

Well, for me at least, it's not just about responding, but responding as part of a thread. PM and VM are suitable enough when the comments may not be on topic anymore. But if the comment still pertains to the topic, even if it's a one-liner agreement/disagreement, then it should stay in the thread.

Honestly, if I thought the powers that be weren't likely to take action against such statements, I wouldn't even bother making the suggestion. But all too often, whether it be on this forum, or any other forum, moderators typically don't approve of people making separate posts just to say "I agree" or something just as brief and simple. And to a large extent, I can certainly understand why they might feel that way. Afterall, if we condone extremely brief posts just to say 2 or 3 words, we increase the likelihood of spamming while making the thread that much harder to navigate through. It also discourages productive post behavior. Still, sometimes a 2 or 3 word reply is all I *really* want to say. And yet, it sucks feeling pressured to have to come up with a few words to add to my post when I find out I can't rep that person again at the moment.

On a slightly unrelated note, could a moderator tell me if I'm allowed to create a new thread to voice this suggestion? I'd certainly like to get more feedback regarding it. But its not exactly going to get as much attention in a thread as active as this where its easy to look over.

[monster]

Originally Posted by KholdStare

And that's where I disagree. One-liners are stupid. It's distracting to see someone just giving an e-peen comment to someone else and not contribute.

Well, you can still have some kind of reputation/like system if the moderators feel there is a need to let people express their simple likes/dislikes. You don't need a comment for that.

Originally Posted by sayde

Honestly, if I thought the powers that be weren't likely to take action against such statements, I wouldn't even bother making the suggestion. But all too often, whether it be on this forum, or any other forum, moderators typically don't approve of people making separate posts just to say "I agree" or something just as brief and simple. And to a large extent, I can certainly understand why they might feel that way. Afterall, if we condone extremely brief posts just to say 2 or 3 words, we increase the likelihood of spamming while making the thread that much harder to navigate through.

I don't really have a problem with a reputation/like system on its own. I just don't think we need to add a comment option to it.

[Eragon]

It seems, like system - with likes being only visible to the said poster - is the most efficient system that will appease most(if not all) of the people here. If, I'm not mistaken, most here who want the rep system want it because it was a convienient method to show appreciation, right? And not because they were pissed that their green bars are being stripped.
As long as that's the reason, the like system or the neutral rep suggested by Sayde seems adequate enough.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I don't really understand why so many people claiming dislike for the system have reputation enabled. You're all aware that it was a feature that you could opt out of, right? And you know that you could "hide" the reputation comments in your user control panel, right? If it bothered you so much, why did you engage in it?

Oh, for me it's like the system was frivolous fun. I just liked seeing all the absurd comments people would give me. However, I do not think the system is beneficial to the forum by any stretch.

Basically, the system did not affect me personally, but I could see how it would affect others and that is why I support it being abolished.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I also wonder about the statements regarding judging of users. I used it as a way to gauge forum activity and forum perception of a user. If someone had black blocks or red blocks I wasn't hostile toward them over that. Clearly I can only speak for myself in that regard, but were people really so easily swayed by the reputation? I wonder if people are scapegoating it for people being judgmental on their own.

Personally I never really used blocks as much of a measure of anything.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Eragon

It seems, like system - with likes being only visible to the said poster - is the most efficient system that will appease most(if not all) of the people here.

I'd be supportive of this. I'm not sure if it's technically feasible or not, but I like the idea.

My one issue with the neutral rep system is that I honestly think it could create these little secret flamewars between two or more members. Eventually, I could see that spilling over to the main public threads in ways we probably don't want.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by sayde

Honestly, if I thought the powers that be weren't likely to take action against such statements, I wouldn't even bother making the suggestion. But all too often, whether it be on this forum, or any other forum, moderators typically don't approve of people making separate posts just to say "I agree" or something just as brief and simple.

Indeed, as was mentioned in the opening announcement, these sorts of posts are against the rules. We do not want "I agree" posts, and these will not be tolerated even with rep being gone.

As for making a separate thread about your suggestion... I don't want to increase your expectation at the moment that any specific solution would be considered. We would like to go at least for a time without a rep/feedback system. If you get too many people too invested into building a solution, I'm just telling you right now: we may very well say no, even if you consider it well-considered. So please be advised about that.

(This also applies to the currently-being-floated "like" system idea. There is no guarantee that we will adopt any system, particularly right now while we're still on vBulletin 3.8, because nobody wants to add any more plugins or do any custom programming to this vBulletin install unless absolutely necessary.)

[sayde]

Originally Posted by relentlessflame

As for making a separate thread about your suggestion... I don't want to increase your expectation at the moment that any specific solution would be considered. We would like to go at least for a time without a rep/feedback system. If you get too many people too invested into building a solution, I'm just telling you right now: we may very well say no, even if you consider it well-considered. So please be advised about that.

In that case, I won't make the thread. Perhaps it can be something we can bring up much later on down the road after the site staff has had time to evaluate the new conditions of things. Thanks for the quick and informative response.

Originally Posted by Triple_R

My one issue with the neutral rep system is that I honestly think it could create these little secret flamewars between two or more members. Eventually, I could see that spilling over to the main public threads in ways we probably don't want.

I've mixed feelings about that opinion. On one hand, I can certainly see where you're coming from. On the other hand, I feel like if people are going to engage in a private flame war, this site already has methods of conversation in tact to facilitate such behavior.

With regards to a like/dislike system vs the issue of simply leaving neutral rep, I'm not generally a big advocate of the like/dislike system only because I prefer to know a little more. For instance, why did you like my post? Or why did you dislike it? Leaving neutral rep as a way to express such feedback seems like it would fall in line better with the intended goal of making this site the most "engaging, and insightful community for Anime and related discussion" as even quick comments can still provide some level of engagement and insightfulness (or at least more so in comparison to a thumbs up or down.)

[Daniel E.]

Originally Posted by KholdStare

So I don't really care how other people view it. It was so convenient for me to pos rep a good post, or in fact several good posts in a row in the same thread without quoting them all and then type out..."I agree"?

More power to you then. It does not change the fact however, that the system was constantly generating problems among other users and among the staff.

EDIT: What I mean is this. When I found out that there are pos rep circlejerk groups, my reaction was...okay? Did it affect me in some way? No. Did I feel like it's stupid? Yes. But was I angry or anything? No. So it's not such a big deal like some make it to be.

It is. When people farm rep, they often do it because they want the power that high rep gives them, wich in this case, is to give a huge boost or drop to someone to their reputation.

This is something that may not always affect you, but it is something that always affects someone else.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I've heard this assertion made a few times now. Am I really unique in not using someone's rep meter to judge whether a post should be read or not? I can tell you that I've had plenty of my own posts skipped over in discussions (usually because they were too lengthy), so I certainly don't think that having more green blocks resulted in people giving extra attention to someone's posts.

I never judged by rep myself (having been here before the days of the uber-rep, I found the burgeoning rep-dom bizarre when I first noticed it ), but I can all too easily envision others doing so. It's not a 'scientific' assertion by any means, but it seems like a probable outcome for at least some people out there (subconciously steering one's attention towards super-repped members).

You were here before rep was a big factor, too, so I'm sure you know that there will be no precipitous decline in post quality upon its removal. I can't envision anything but more rounded discussions, though I admit I can't *factually* back that up. If I've read your concerns correctly, you want a way of awarding seniority/loyalty over the years. I think the join date accomplishes that just fine. If you're still active and have an early join date, people will recognize you as a longtime member. No guarantees that anybody will care, however

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by sayde

I've mixed feelings about that opinion. On one hand, I can certainly see where you're coming from. On the other hand, I feel like if people are going to engage in a private flame war, this site already has methods of conversation in tact to facilitate such behavior.

With regards to a like/dislike system vs the issue of simply leaving neutral rep, I'm not generally a big advocate of the like/dislike system only because I prefer to know a little more. For instance, why did you like my post? Or why did you dislike it? Leaving neutral rep as a way to express such feedback seems like it would fall in line better with the intended goal of making this site the most "engaging, and insightful community for Anime and related discussion" as even quick comments can still provide some level of engagement and insightfulness.

I see your point. "Neutral Rep" is an interesting idea to be sure. On the whole, it would probably be more helpful than harmful, imo.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

You were here before rep was a big factor, too, so I'm sure you know that there will be no precipitous decline in post quality upon its removal. I can't envision anything but more rounded discussions,

Why do you think it'll cause more rounded discussions?

Honestly, I really don't see where the rep system was causing "less rounded" discussions.

Personally, I think that the caliber of discourse here on Anime Suki is a solid notch or two above most other message boards I've come across.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Why do you think it'll cause more rounded discussions?

Honestly, I really don't see where the rep system was causing "less rounded" discussions.

Personally, I think that the caliber of discourse here on Anime Suki is a solid notch or two above most other message boards I've come across.

It's based on my (unprovable) belief that some people will give more weight or focus more on the posts of high-rep members. I can't and don't feel like trying to prove this to be the case and I don't think it's that hard to understand (even if you or I don't do it... can't you picture some members doing it?). I find it inevitable that some will do this, purposefully or otherwise. I agree Anime Suki has great discussions with or without reputation, which is why I stay here despite being far less of an anime fan than in the past.

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

It's based on my (unprovable) belief that some people will give more weight or focus more on the posts of high-rep members. I can't and don't feel like trying to prove this to be the case and I don't think it's that hard to understand (even if you or I don't do it... can't you picture some members doing it?). I find it inevitable that some will do this, purposefully or otherwise.

I think I would also consider the position of new users as part of this equation. As was already raised, with the rep power some people had, a single rep given by a member could sway someone new well into the red or the green, and it would take many, many times this from regular members to balance things out. This didn't really make a difference to the core members who have been around for a while and built up enough rep that it doesn't really matter. But the whole thing may feel more daunting for new members who feel they have an almost-insurmountable wall to climb before their opinions are "noticed".

It should be said: the whole reason rep was visible as part of the profile information next to each post is that you were "supposed to" use it to infer information about the poster's identity. What reaction you had to the information conveyed could obviously vary, but it was placed there to be noticed. It would be odd if people saw it there and didn't use it to inform any judgements whatsoever (because otherwise, why even have it there in the first place?).