Rep Changes

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

I'll buy a sub 2 and Neobond some beer. Will that work?

It might. Give it a try.

[Minifig]

Here's a thought;

What about:

Age of poster (like.. how long they've been a member of site in years) = ability to rep up or rep down.

EG: Since I've been a member of site since 07, I'd get 4 votes up OR down every day. May 31st of 2011, I'll get 5.

A member since 2001 gets 9 up OR down every day, and so on and so forth.

If you just joined the site, you don't get any. If you're a contributing member of the site and well respected, next year, on your one year anniversary with the site, you're awarded a rep point to do with what you choose, every day.

You'd get the number of votes of the number of years you've been on site.. so you'd have to use them wisely.

MVC's, Mods, and owners, of course would have no limit as they're ultra respected members of the community.

[Steven P. Administrators]

EG: wat?

[Raa]

EG : The rep system is disabled now, and TBH, I think that was an excellent move. Leave it that way. (Y)

Neobond, you've got my +1 :)

[Minifig]

Ok Neobond.. I'll try to explain that a bit clearer.

I've been a member of site since 31-May 07.

Because (I think) I'm a respected member of Neowin.. I get 3 reputation points because it's 2010. Each year you're a respected member of the site, you get a reputation point. Every day your reputation point "stock" refreshes to a new stock of points.

Next year on May 31st 2011, I will get 4 reputation points per day.

If I vote a comment up, I have 3 left. If I vote another comment down. I have 2 left.

You need to use your points that you're allotted per day wisely, because otherwise you waste them. You can't save reputation points because they don't roll over to the next day.

MVCs, Mods, and Staff, will have no limit.

If I'm a brand new member to the site, I won't get any reputation points until my one year of being with the site and being a valuable member of the site.

Make sense?

[Steven P. Administrators]

Ok Neobond.. I'll try to explain that a bit clearer.

I've been a member of site since 31-May 07.

Because (I think) I'm a respected member of Neowin.. I get 3 reputation points because it's 2010. Each year you're a respected member of the site, you get a reputation point. Every day your reputation point "stock" refreshes to a new stock of points.

Next year on May 31st 2011, I will get 4 reputation points per day.

If I vote a comment up, I have 3 left. If I vote another comment down. I have 2 left.

You need to use your points that you're allotted per day wisely, because otherwise you waste them. You can't save reputation points because they don't roll over to the next day.

MVCs, Mods, and Staff, will have no limit.

If I'm a brand new member to the site, I won't get any reputation points until my one year of being with the site and being a valuable member of the site.

Make sense?

[Sethos]

Hahaha

[Minifig]

Excuse me for thinking of some way to make it innovative, unique and interesting. :p

[Brandon H Supervisor]

@ minifig - i like your idea, any chance of this being a possibility

[Sethos]

It's a pretty rubbish system mini, it does nothing to solve the problem at hand - They aren't looking for a way to juggle around the number of reps the members are allowed to hand out, they are looking for

a system to make the reputation system a proper representation of the member and giving or taking available reps per day does nothing to help that. The system needs to be changed from the ground up.

[Subject Delta]

It has been enabled for Staff & MVC's only ;)

When a person is derailing a post or is being warned, staff will have the ability to negative vote the offending post.

This ensures (over time) that we don't have members on 80% warn with a load of positive rep points.

PS: We are going to trial it, and see how it goes too..

The fact that people can make some bad posts should not distract from the good ones they can make? To me this just sounds like another system to beat up on and make outcasts of people with high warning levels (especially problematic seeing as this is pretty much the easiest site on the Internet on which to achieve high warn levels quickly)

People can make unhelpful and pointless posts without breaking the rules, so why do you have to specifically induce a system that punishes people with warnings only :/

[Fred Derf Veteran]

We don't have a problem of new members abusing the rep system.

Dave Legg explained it best. The staff want reputation to be an indication of how helpful a member is to others.

Members, however, tend to vote up members that agree with them even if that includes bullying an unpopular member or attacking Apple/Sony/Microsoft.

In other words, members are using the rep system to reward members who aren't, from our perspective, helpful.

We certainly don't want a system that rewards trolls with rep points.

[08993]

Take away the ability to rep for those with warnings, cancel out all accumulated rep for those warned. Make rep worth something, like perks for those with high rep. Since a warning will wipe your rep and there are perks involved it might make somebody thing twice about flaming because they actually have something to lose.

EDIT/ Or maybe just "fine" those with warnings a certain quantity of their rep points.

[Minifig]

It's a pretty rubbish system mini, it does nothing to solve the problem at hand - They aren't looking for a way to juggle around the number of reps the members are allowed to hand out, they are looking for

a system to make the reputation system a proper representation of the member and giving or taking available reps per day does nothing to help that. The system needs to be changed from the ground up.

We don't have a problem of new members abusing the rep system.

Dave Legg explained it best. The staff want reputation to be an indication of how helpful a member is to others.

Again, your ability to give reputation points is based upon your loyalty and your reputation (determined by Neobond, MVCs and Mods.. who watch reported posts for ALL content!) during your years on the site.

If you did badly during your year.. you don't earn a reputation point for that year.

You have to EARN what you what you want to give out via the respect of your other, more senior posters.

The more points you have to give out, the more helpful the person is to other members.

The more reputation you have on your personal profile (I think I had 28 before it was disabled..) is how much your peers think you are worthy of earning your next years point.

If it's positive, you're earning a point.

If it's negative, forget about that point this year.

Make sense?

Earn your points, earn respect.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

The fact that people can make some bad posts should not distract from the good ones they can make? To me this just sounds like another system to beat up on and make outcasts of people with high warning levels (especially problematic seeing as this is pretty much the easiest site on the Internet on which to achieve high warn levels quickly)

People can make unhelpful and pointless posts without breaking the rules, so why do you have to specifically induce a system that punishes people with warnings only :/

When it comes right down to it, we don't want the high warning level members. Sure, we give them plenty of chances because there is always a small percentage that grow up a bit and learn our system and suddenly start to become productive members. There are a few that I can think of that have gone from 100% down to 0%. It happens.

What other forums do is instaban people who the owners don't like, who don't seem "cool" or just like to speak their mind about how things are run. We're far more tolerant than other sites from that perspective.

The only thing we really want is for members to be respectful to other members because that makes a nice friendly community. We also don't want members using Neowin to share information about illegal activities. Now, that isn't too much to ask, is it?

[Subject Delta]

We don't have a problem of new members abusing the rep system.

Dave Legg explained it best. The staff want reputation to be an indication of how helpful a member is to others.

Members, however, tend to vote up members that agree with them even if that includes bullying an unpopular member or attacking Apple/Sony/Microsoft.

In other words, members are using the rep system to reward members who aren't, from our perspective, helpful.

We certainly don't want a system that rewards trolls with rep points.

Then why bother introducing the system in the first place? The whole point of a reputation system should be that the members award posts that they like. It seems to me that in no uncertain terms the staff simply don't want to see people they dislike personally getting voted up.

[Steven P. Administrators]

[Minifig]

Surely you can see the appeal in what I said in post #294 Neobond..

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Then why bother introducing the system in the first place? The whole point of a reputation system should be that the members award posts that they like. It seems to me that in no uncertain terms the staff simply don't want to see people they dislike personally getting voted up.

We can see which posts get voted up and they do not tend to be the types of posts that we should be encouraging. It doesn't matter who said what, it matters what was said.

I posted a little while ago with tips on the best way to get high reputation on Neowin. It was also the best way to ruin Neowin.

As you know, we didn't allow negative votes. If we had then I suspect those posts would have had a net negative reputation but because only positive votes were allowed they ended up being the best way to gain reputation.

The posts with the most reputation votes shouldn't be the posts that end up in the trash. That's why our system was broken.

[Subject Delta]

The only thing we really want is for members to be respectful to other members because that makes a nice friendly community. We also don't want members using Neowin to share information about illegal activities. Now, that isn't too much to ask, is it?

The problem though, is not lack of respect in some cases, but the fact that far too many of the staff here are uptight and prone to handing out warns for really stupid things.

[Darth Laidher]

When it comes right down to it, we don't want the high warning level members. Sure, we give them plenty of chances because there is always a small percentage that grow up a bit and learn our system and suddenly start to become productive members. There are a few that I can think of that have gone from 100% down to 0%. It happens.

What other forums do is instaban people who the owners don't like, who don't seem "cool" or just like to speak their mind about how things are run. We're far more tolerant than other sites from that perspective.

The only thing we really want is for members to be respectful to other members because that makes a nice friendly community. We also don't want members using Neowin to share information about illegal activities. Now, that isn't too much to ask, is it?

You'll never have people being respectful to one another on neowin,especially in the politics/real world news/back page and so on section if they don't agree with your opinion then they'll pretty much wright you off as a second class citizen sometimes, also I see a lot of American hate on the forums, but I don't complain because the forum seems to be dominated by European's and it seems useless.It's like the other day i was in a thread about the shooting in the UK someone kept saying I was slagging their country just because I disagree'd with their law's and so on.But yet at the same time I see people criticizing the U.S for it's ways.Its like a double standard or something.Button line is, people will never be respectful towards one another, sure you can stop them to a certain extent but underlying disrespect will aways be around.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Surely you can see the appeal in what I said in post #294 Neobond..

You are attempting to play musical chairs without bothering to identify the problem. It doesn't matter how you aware reputation votes if they are going to be used to reward people who post about "the Apple tax", "the red ring of death" or "Obama's socialist agenda". The most extreme viewpoints were getting the votes.

[Steven P. Administrators]

Surely you can see the appeal in what I said in post #294 Neobond..

And now I'm going to bed. See you in the morning :D

[Minifig]

You are attempting to play musical chairs without bothering to identify the problem. It doesn't matter how you aware reputation votes if they are going to be used to reward people who post about "the Apple tax", "the red ring of death" or "Obama's socialist agenda". The most extreme viewpoints were getting the votes.

For every person who agrees with one thing there will always be a person who disagrees with it. Always. Without question.

So voting on posts becomes an integral part of the reputation system..

It is any way..

No matter how you solve the reputation issue, you'll have people who will think that "the Apple tax", "the red ring of death" or "Obama's socialist agenda" are awesome posts and deserve to be +1ed.

It's just the way things work in the world, and it's just the way things will always work in this world.

Hate to say it, but, bias, and extremism do exist.. and you can't say the world is all hunky-dory and pretty colors.

It's a muted grey and there are lines that can't be drawn to satisfy everyone.

[Subject Delta]

Very mature of you Steven, way to prove your point :/

We can see which posts get voted up and they do not tend to be the types of posts that we should be encouraging. It doesn't matter who said what, it matters what was said.

I posted a little while ago with tips on the best way to get high reputation on Neowin. It was also the best way to ruin Neowin.

As you know, we didn't allow negative votes. If we had then I suspect those posts would have had a net negative reputation but because only positive votes were allowed they ended up being the best way to gain reputation.

The posts with the most reputation votes shouldn't be the posts that end up in the trash. That's why our system was broken.

Whatever light you try and shine on it, that is bias in no uncertain terms. You are practically admitting that you only want posts being voted up that you approve of, which pretty much destroys the idea of the rep system being an open and democratic system. You may as well just abolish it if you want to induce that level of bias. Or allow members a limited amount of vote down options as well, which will reflect a bit more on how good a post really is.