Reputation
0
I was thinking about removing negative reputation and I want everyones opinions on it. I have noticed that sometimes people get negative reputation for having a different opinion, or simply disagreeing with other people. Which is not what the system was made for.
Looking back there really is no need for negative reputation as long as positive reputation is given out accurately. The main purpose of reputation is to show if a member contributes to the site or is a good poster. It's like a nod from the users saying "Good Job".
I don't really see the need for it, and we have started to use reputation to give people access to other features (Flash Games uploads, Editing Manga, etc.) and this will only continue as we add more things.
So what is everyones opinion?
Looking back there really is no need for negative reputation as long as positive reputation is given out accurately. The main purpose of reputation is to show if a member contributes to the site or is a good poster. It's like a nod from the users saying "Good Job".
I don't really see the need for it, and we have started to use reputation to give people access to other features (Flash Games uploads, Editing Manga, etc.) and this will only continue as we add more things.
So what is everyones opinion?
0
I agree that negative rep doesn't help. Anyone who actually deserves negative rep would mainly be people who should be banned anyway. Uploading something that somebody else also uploaded, posting in the wrong section, double posting, disagreeing over an opinion ... are annoying things that happen on occasion, but it doesn't call for negative rep.
0
I agree that no one should lose or get negative reputation for voicing his opinions. Maybe removing the negative reputation points and the reputation removal from forum members bellow a certain ranking would prevent missuse of the system.
0
Hmmm. I would suggest that you keep the subtraction feature, but limit it to zero. This would allow you to remove access to the other features, and without having to ban or manually edit someone's profile.
0
expletivedeleted wrote...
Hmmm. I would suggest that you keep the subtraction feature, but limit it to zero. This would allow you to remove access to the other features, and without having to ban or manually edit someone's profile.Either that or limit it to ever "10" (10,20,30)
Scenario: You have 10 rep and wish to upload a flash game, but then get knocked down to 9 so you can't do it anymore.
Could be like checkpoints.
0
expletivedeleted wrote...
Hmmm. I would suggest that you keep the subtraction feature, but limit it to zero. This would allow you to remove access to the other features, and without having to ban or manually edit someone's profile.+1
0
Sounds good. I hate getting negative rep without knowing why. I know people like to upload stuff to the site but sometimes they can't because their rep never gets high enough.
0
Go for it. I don't see a real need for negative rep considering the worst thing that you can do is diss the site and flame other users and give new users a hard time and for all that we have the report feature.
0
Mike
Stand
I think that we should get rid of negative rep. If people don't like other people's opinions or think they don't deserve rep simply don't give it to them. If people are helpful and contribute then they deserve rep and they shouldn't be able to have their rep taken away by a spiteful person. I've heard cases of a few of our frequent posters just losing rep out of no where. And also with new users, they shouldn't be able to have their rep go into the negative because they said some thing people disagree with.
0
Mattarat wrote...
expletivedeleted wrote...
Hmmm. I would suggest that you keep the subtraction feature, but limit it to zero. This would allow you to remove access to the other features, and without having to ban or manually edit someone's profile.Either that or limit it to ever "10" (10,20,30)
Scenario: You have 10 rep and wish to upload a flash game, but then get knocked down to 9 so you can't do it anymore.
Could be like checkpoints.
That's exactly what I was going to suggest. Losing rep is fine but like I said in the topic that likely sparked this decision, losing rep doesn't matter unless it fucks you up for a certain site feature that requires it.
And if you're going to get rid of negative rep then I suggest scrapping the system in its entirety. There is absolutely no point in a system that is supposed to be a reflection of what the community thinks of you but is incapable of telling you that the community thinks you suck. Yes, lots of the negative rep is given to people that come in and beg or say stupid shit and then never come around again, but if someone that is well known on the site says something dumb or offensive you should be able to de-rep them.
If people want a system that only reflects positively on them then I suggest an award system. If the mods deem you fit for recognition, then you get a little icon to go where your rep would have been. To involve the community at large, allow people to give an invisible sort of rep that builds up but can't be seen by anyone other than mods/admins. Once it reaches a certain number (possibly under a time limit) then that person gets a certain award. That way we have a relatively accurate system that gets rids of bitching by people that are so afraid of having a slightly lower numerical value that does nothing significant.
0
So so far I think the best idea is just to restrict reputation so that it cannot go below 0? That way new users don't get negative reputation for stupid reasons, and you can still give people negative reputation that you feel deserve it and have something to lose?
0
I personally like the idea of not having a -rep system, but if it is kept, I think that we should have things set up so if someone gives -rep, they should have to {A:} give a reason for it, (maybe have a thing that notifies the admins, so they can go over the reason, I think that might get annoying after a while though) {B:} have a set amount of posts (like 45 or something, maybe more, not sure really on that one)
Well, that's my two cents worth on the subject
Well, that's my two cents worth on the subject
0
well jacob if people have been misusing negative reputation, and you really feel it is making a bad mark on other people, then we should take it off. misusing ANY tool for the wrong purpose can be bad.
0
I agree with a no - rep system, mostly because of what you said on the front page. A lot of people give rep to people simply because they agree with their opinion, or negative rep because they don't. But there is also the factor that some people just don't like others, so they just negative rep them every time they can. Maybe make it so that you can't negative rep the same person more than once in like a 3 month period or something, to prevent people from just crashing someone they don't like's rep.
0
blind_assassin wrote...
If people want a system that only reflects positively on them then I suggest an award system. If the mods deem you fit for recognition, then you get a little icon to go where your rep would have been. To involve the community at large, allow people to give an invisible sort of rep that builds up but can't be seen by anyone other than mods/admins. Once it reaches a certain number (possibly under a time limit) then that person gets a certain award. That way we have a relatively accurate system that gets rids of bitching by people that are so afraid of having a slightly lower numerical value that does nothing significant.I like this idea. If it would require too big of an overhaul then Deleta's idea ...
Deleta wrote...
Maybe also if you give -rep it take 48 hours before you can rep again?... could work well.
0
Waar
FAKKU Moderator
I've already voiced my opinions when I brought it up (probably not the first) on the suggestions board, in the rep post. I just don't see any reason to remove rep from someone, if someone were to commit an infraction I believe the admins would be far better judges than anyone who has 15+ rep. There is nothing anyone could do on these boards that would make me want to punish someone; it's the internet; odds are I won't meet any of you; so what do I care if someone acts like a jack@$$ or says something inappropriate?
edit: badengrish.
edit: badengrish.