Rep Changes

[Subject Delta]

I do once recall getting banned from the Steam forums for "advocating piracy" because I happened to point out that using a no CD patch on a game you legitimately owned was not the same thing as downloading an unlicensed copy.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

I do once recall getting banned from the Steam forums for "advocating piracy" because I happened to point out that using a no CD patch on a game you legitimately owned was not the same thing as downloading an unlicensed copy.

yeah ...... i completely understand you point of view on that one, and sadly, it doesn't surprise me that steam would go ape **** about that

[SimplySchizo]

As I said before... you want to give rep to those that are 'helpful'.

Usually those being helpful are answering within a thread in which the OP presented them with a problem. Once solved, the OP can issue the rep.

That's it. Give the OP the sole ability to issue ONE + to the person whom came in and presented them with the fix.

Is this hard to implement ?

[Hot]

really?

Yes. It was a paid moderator in one of the biggest communities on the internet at the time, no less. Luckily I knew the site creator so he sorted me out.

[Singh400]

That's it. Give the OP the sole ability to issue ONE + to the person whom came in and presented them with the fix.

Is this hard to implement?

It isn't as easy as that. More often than not, solving a problem is a team effort. So I might suggest something, it might not work. But another member might have another idea, branching off mine and that might work. or vice versa. Also, there is likely more than one way to solve a technical issue. Sometimes the end user doesn't want a complete fix but a quick dirty hack/workaround.

As well as solving issues, there is the case of advising the user as well. Surely if you give good advice that ought to be recognised? It is all good and well, helping a user get rid of malware on his/her system. But useless if you don't outline preventative measures afterwards.

It is never clear cut.

[primexx]

I always thought of the rep system as an opinion gauger, not so much a karma thing. Personally, I've noticed less "+1" posts since the rep system was introduced, since people could just +1 the post directly, and those who reply usually post something longer to elaborate on their own opinions as well. I also treated it as a nice reward for helpful or clever posts, but that's still a measure of opinion moreso than objective quality.

[ViperAFK]

One thing that members shouldn't need to be told to do is to be respectful to other members. If someone lashes out and call other members "twats" or they post insulting images then they aren't being a good member, plain and simple.

Now sometimes you'll get away with it and sometimes you won't. We can't read every thread and not every member uses the report button. If you get a warning that you think is in error then talk to a Supervisor. I know that I have reversed other mods' warnings and I know that other staff have pointed out some of my mistakes as well. Each warning gets its own thread and it isn't uncommon for there to be a discussion of the incident.

I like that you used what I got a warning for as an example :whistle:

[BoredBozirini]

I always thought of the rep system as an opinion gauger, not so much a karma thing. Personally, I've noticed less "+1" posts since the rep system was introduced, since people could just +1 the post directly, and those who reply usually post something longer to elaborate on their own opinions as well. I also treated it as a nice reward for helpful or clever posts, but that's still a measure of opinion moreso than objective quality.

Indeed. The "rep" system was mostly used for people voicing their opinions. If a person shared my opinion, they would give me a +1. At the same time if I wrote something that another person found funny, they would give me a +1. I don't understand what was wrong with that.

I like that you used what I got a warning for as an example :whistle:

I didn't know **** was an insult LOL

But I spoke about women and it got me a ban for 3 days, so I guess it shouldn't surprise me.

[petrossa]

The whole thing is pathetic. First you install a rep system so the general public can say they agree with something or not, (pretty useless as i remarked during betatesting) then you go on record that there will be no neg repping to prevent people abusing it.

After which you abuse it yourself to override public opinion with a mod's opinion.?

Come on, i know this isn't a democracy but what's the point of the whole mess if you are at the whim of some person if your reps count or not. And rest assured, mods are just like people. As such they are just as likely to abuse reps as they abuse mods.

I recently pm discussed this positive rep/warning status issue with someone. Being not to bright he didn't understand that if lot's of people rep positive but get warned anyway it's the mod who is wrong not the person.

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

The whole thing is pathetic. First you install a rep system so the general public can say they agree with something or not, (pretty useless as i remarked during betatesting) then you go on record that there will be no neg repping to prevent people abusing it.

After which you abuse it yourself to override public opinion with a mod's opinion.?

Come on, i know this isn't a democracy but what's the point of the whole mess if you are at the whim of some person if your reps count or not. And rest assured, mods are just like people. As such they are just as likely to abuse reps as they abuse mods.

I recently pm discussed this positive rep/warning status issue with someone. Being not to bright he didn't understand that if lot's of people rep positive but get warned anyway it's the mod who is wrong not the person.

The way I see it what happened was:

• Staff notice how trolls benefit the most from the old reputation system and look for a solution.
  
• The staff/MVC-only downvoting option is implemented as a means to keep the trolls at bay.
  
• Certain people keep abusing the reputation system during the discussion of the changes to it.
  
• Neobond is understandably upset and disappointed, turns off the reputation system entirely and tells staff to go back to the drawing board.
  

Or in other words: You were the witness of a failed experiment.

Personally I think we're better off without the reputation system. Neowin does have the MVC program after all to honour helpful posters. One change which could be implemented is a better scrutiny of the MVCs: If any of them starts having a negative effect on the community in any way, warn him/her; if there are repeated offences, take the MVC badge away from the member in question.

[petrossa]

The way I see it what happened was:

• Staff notice how trolls benefit the most from the old reputation system and look for a solution.
• The staff/MVC-only downvoting option is implemented as a means to keep the trolls at bay.
• Certain people keep abusing the reputation system during the discussion of the changes to it.
• Neobond is understandably upset and disappointed, turns off the reputation system entirely and tells staff to go back to the drawing board.

Or in other words: You were the witness of a failed experiment.

Personally I think we're better off without the reputation system. Neowin does have the MVC program after all to honour helpful posters. One change which could be implemented is a better scrutiny of the MVCs: If any of them starts having a negative effect on the community in any way, warn him/her; if there are repeated offences, take the MVC badge away from the member in question.

Totally agree. More than that, i completely totally agree.

Pity the testsite is gone, i posted something along these lines upon introduction of the repsystem. I'm smug enough to would've liked to link to the post and say: i told you so.

[Minifig]

What confuses me is why my idea wouldn't work...

Or why we're not even looking at my idea, or basing an idea around the concept of my idea.

It seems simple enough to allow members to earn the reputation that they get.. doesn't it?

[Colin-uk Veteran]

What confuses me is why my idea wouldn't work...

Or why we're not even looking at my idea, or basing an idea around the concept of my idea.

It seems simple enough to allow members to earn the reputation that they get.. doesn't it?

Yes, but were also trying to change how members give out that rep to other members, rather than changing how members recieve the ability to rep.

[petrossa]

The basic problem is a bit like that of communism. The premise isn't bad, it just doesn't account for peoples ingrained behavior.

What is repworthy for one isn't for another. So the whole system gets messy.

I've seen people repping other people for dissing someone else. I've even seen staff encouraging this behavior even. So you get a high rep count for being a sphincter.

So in order for it to work you'd have control each rep given if it has been given for the 'right' reasons.

But what are 'right' reasons? A floating target at best, and completely dependent on the whim of the 'repchecker'.

And in the end, what does it add? A wholly subjective evaluation of worth.

[Minifig]

Yes, but were also trying to change how members give out that rep to other members, rather than changing how members recieve the ability to rep.

So why don't you compile the idea I had with the idea that someone else had to make the Rep button's be, instead of + / - be "Did you agree with this comment or like this comment? If so, click here." or "Did you not agree with this comment or not like like this comment? If so, click here." and put them under the actual comments.. instead below and to the right..

Anyone with an IQ that's higher than their shoe size should be able to understand what those mean...

[petrossa]

Still it doesn't ADD anything of informational value. If someone writes a negative comment, and a whole lot of people agree with it, you still get repped for being negative.

The whole repsystem should just be scrapped, more trouble then it worth. (just perm post my last count however? :whistle:)

[Colin-uk Veteran]

So why don't you compile the idea I had with the idea that someone else had to make the Rep button's be, instead of + / - be "Did you agree with this comment or like this comment? If so, click here." or "Did you not agree with this comment or not like like this comment? If so, click here." and put them under the actual comments.. instead below and to the right..

Anyone with an IQ that's higher than their shoe size should be able to understand what those mean...

ideas arent set in stone yet, discussion is still ongoing.

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

I agree with you Petro. The rep system isn't really needed here on Neowin. People already come here for the helpful and insightful comments and advice from the members.

If a reply is worth it for whatever help or advice given, just reply in that thread with a 'Thank You'.

Personally I would rather have that then have a +1 rep for my name.

[Minifig]

Still it doesn't ADD anything of informational value. If someone writes a negative comment, and a whole lot of people agree with it, you still get repped for being negative.

The whole repsystem should just be scrapped, more trouble then it worth. (just perm post my last count however :whistle:)

You get ripped for being negative on the internet anyway. It's going to be a fact of life.

[petrossa]

Indeed. Only if you keep track of all your posts you'll never know what you got a rep for actually. If someone says thank you, you know what for.?

The supposed idea that it would give 'newcomers' an idea whose posts are more valuable isn't well thought out. If anything it should be limited to tech posts if you really want to use it to aid.

I got 156 reps and for the life of me i haven't got a clue what for. I have posted maybe 3 techposts and they weren't repworthy.

I guess as everywhere in life, it's caveat emptor for the reader of advice given.

You get ripped for being negative on the internet anyway. It's going to be a fact of life.

repped, not ripped.

[Subject Delta]

Before IPB 3.x, there used to be mods for 2.x that allowed or forced reasons to be given when you added rep to members, something like that would be more usable. Then you could allow members to up and downvote each other as much as they want, knowing that you would be able to punish people who abuse it more easily.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

The rep system here has always slightly confused me. Indiscriminate, anonymous, positive-only rep doesn't seem too much like "reputation" to me. In fact most times where I've wanted to rep a post it's been to rep it down.

One idea that I've seen implemented and that appeared to work well is having specific categories of rep. If a general threshold of rep is met, the category in which they obtained the most rep is displayed with the member's rep in the info next to each post, with a javascript-y breakout with the ability to drill down by type, by post and who repped them.

It's fairly easy to spot where the cliques were using this technique, gives members something to work towards (meeting the threshold, then perhaps getting rep in a specific category) and makes it easier for the community to see those who contribute to the community in different ways.

I do once recall getting banned from the Steam forums for "advocating piracy" because I happened to point out that using a no CD patch on a game you legitimately owned was not the same thing as downloading an unlicensed copy.

No-CD cracks break exactly the same law as downloading the entire game, in the UK at least. Both are classed as "dealing" with the copyrighted material under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.

[BoredBozirini]

Before IPB 3.x, there used to be mods for 2.x that allowed or forced reasons to be given when you added rep to members, something like that would be more usable. Then you could allow members to up and downvote each other as much as they want, knowing that you would be able to punish people who abuse it more easily.

But then who determines what is a good reason?

I might find an offensive post funny, and you bet your ass that I will rep up that post everyday I can.

[Subject Delta]

No-CD cracks break exactly the same law as downloading the entire game, in the UK at least. Both are classed as "dealing" with the copyrighted material under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.

I am well aware with what the law states, I was just making the point that if you apply a crack to a game you have already purchased , regardless of what the law says, it won't hurt the developer in the way that piracy does. I don't actually advocate piracy, I just don't see no CD patches being as big a deal as most people make out.

But then who determines what is a good reason?

I might find an offensive post funny, and you bet your ass that I will rep up that post everyday I can.

Which is probably why the system is best left disabled.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

I am well aware with what the law states, I was just making the point that if you apply a crack to a game you have already purchased , regardless of what the law says, it won't hurt the developer in the way that piracy does. I don't actually advocate piracy, I just don't see no CD patches being as big a deal as most people make out.

So you're saying you agree what you did was promoting copyright infringement but you disagree with being banned for promoting copyright infringement because it isn't bad as promoting copyright infringement?

</devil's advocate>

</offtopic>