Rep Changes

[Brandon H Supervisor]

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.

sadly this is true, but it gives me a thought about the rep system

first just answer me this question, is it possible to enable rep points in some areas but not others?

[Subject Delta]

sadly this is true, but it gives me a thought about the rep system

first just answer me this question, is it possible to enable rep points in some areas but not others?

No, IPB doesn't allow that level of fine grained control.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

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.

Yeah, yeah, the old "All I did was call an ******* an *******" reply. I don't know your personal warning history but members who are warned often think they did something minor when it goes against the whole principle of a friendly community.

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.

We want a friendly community where new members are not afraid to join and post. If that's bias then I'm guilty. If you want a forum that is a survival-of-the-fittest no-holds-barred type of trolling insult fest then this isn't the forum for you. We ask that members respect other members. If members don't then we try to educate them, through the use of warnings, how to behave in our system.

[Brandon H Supervisor]

No, IPB doesn't allow that level of fine grained control.

that's too bad, oh well

[Steven P. Administrators]

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

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.

Open and democratic system?

You are a guest here.. Did you vote for me to run this site? I think not, if it isn't to your liking, there are hundreds of other sites out there.

Your choice.

[Subject Delta]

Yeah, yeah, the old "All I did was call an ******* an *******" reply. I don't know your personal warning history but members who are warned often think they did something minor when it goes against the whole principle of a friendly community.

Generalisation... And a wrong one as well. I have moderated and administrated forums, I have helped people run websites, and this is the only website where I have run into these kind of problems, and this doesn't just come from my own experience either, I have friends who have been warned for stupid things as well.

Open and democratic system?

You are a guest here.. Did you vote for me to run this site? I think not, if it isn't to your liking, there are hundreds of other sites out there.

I was referring to the rep system, not the site in general. Please read the actual content of my posts, not just the points you want to nitpick at.

[Osiris]

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.

Going to have to disagree with you on that one.

Alot of points have come out of this discussion, im not sure a rep system aloneis the way to achieve all the goals various people, staff included have outlined. Seems theres a couple of issues at work here. In any case I think you need to accept the fact that good people dont need rules to tell them how to behave and troublemakers will always find away around them. If the troublemakers are causing this much grief and time for mods then maybe its time to rethink more than a rep system.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Giving members the ability to vote down other posts might solve some problems with extremist viewpoints as those posts would likely end up with a net negative score but it introduces other potential problems that we'd like to avoid. We don't want posts that say? "Who down voted my post?" and we don't want members who follow other members around just to down vote them. It could create unneeded animosity.

[Steven P. Administrators]

Generalisation... And a wrong one as well. I have moderated and administrated forums, I have helped people run websites, and this is the only website where I have run into these kind of problems, and this doesn't just come from my own experience either, I have friends who have been warned for stupid things as well.

Well you learned a valuable lesson then, not all forums are the same. ;)

[Minifig]

Giving members the ability to vote down other posts might solve some problems with extremist viewpoints as those posts would likely end up with a net negative score but it introduces other potential problems that we'd like to avoid. We don't want posts that say? "Who down voted my post?" and we don't want members who follow other members around just to down vote them. It could create unneeded animosity.

And voting up is any different?

You're creating favoritism there.

You have to have both sides of the coin if you're going to have it at all.

It's much akin to giving a one four year old a toy and then ignoring the five year old next to the four year old who just got a brand new toy.

If you know anything about the way kids work, BOTH will want the toy, and both will fight over it if one has it.

Voting up and Voting down anonymously is just that.

ANONYMOUS.

Who cares who did what.

You can't tell.. it shouldn't bother you.

[Subject Delta]

Giving members the ability to vote down other posts might solve some problems with extremist viewpoints as those posts would likely end up with a net negative score but it introduces other potential problems that we'd like to avoid. We don't want posts that say? "Who down voted my post?" and we don't want members who follow other members around just to down vote them. It could create unneeded animosity.

In that case, why not just completely disable the system? Staff and MVC's can still be biased as well, they may be considered to be a bit more trustworthy than normal members but downvoting of posts will be subject to their personal whims.

Rep systems always have and always will be the same way, members will rep each other when they like their posts, and when they agree with what someone else has posted, that is the way of the Internet. If you don't want the system to be abused, surely the fairest option is just to disable it?

Well you learned a valuable lesson then, not all forums are the same. ;)

By gum, I would never have figured that one out on my own. Again, you simply seem to be missing the point.

[Steven P. Administrators]

And voting up is any different?

You're creating favoritism there.

You have to have both sides of the coin if you're going to have it at all.

It's much akin to giving a one four year old a toy and then ignoring the five year old next to the four year old who just got a brand new toy.

If you know anything about the way kids work, BOTH will want the toy, and both will fight over it if one has it.

Voting up and Voting down anonymously is just that.

ANONYMOUS.

Who cares who did what.

You can't tell.. it shouldn't bother you.

THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!

[Brandon H Supervisor]

Giving members the ability to vote down other posts might solve some problems with extremist viewpoints as those posts would likely end up with a net negative score but it introduces other potential problems that we'd like to avoid. We don't want posts that say? "Who down voted my post?" and we don't want members who follow other members around just to down vote them. It could create unneeded animosity.

the "who down'd my post" thing can be easily avoided

if i remember correctly from other forums that have used IPB you can have it so you can see who reped you

(not that that would nessesarily solve it either, it might just cause other problems, but that's where a rule bulleten would come in, and a few warning if people disobayed the bulleten)

[Steven P. Administrators]

In that case, why not just completely disable the system? Staff and MVC's can still be biased as well, they may be considered to be a bit more trustworthy than normal members but downvoting of posts will be subject to their personal whims.

Rep systems always have and always will be the same way, members will rep each other when they like their posts, and when they agree with what someone else has posted, that is the way of the Internet. If you don't want the system to be abused, surely the fairest option is just to disable it?

Oh thanks for agreeing with the current policy then.

[Subject Delta]

Oh thanks for agreeing with the current policy then.

Do what now? That doesn't really make sense either. Did you disable the rep system, or are you trying to be funny?

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Generalisation... And a wrong one as well. I have moderated and administrated forums, I have helped people run websites, and this is the only website where I have run into these kind of problems, and this doesn't just come from my own experience either, I have friends who have been warned for stupid things as well.

At least with respect to the last point, members will always say they were warned for stupid things. If I have the time I sometimes wade through their history and what they claim to be minor is often quite a clear violation of the rules. You don't have the full information when you hear things from friends.

Now if something really is unfair then they should bring it to the attention of a Supervisor because mistakes can happen. A lot of times I find that the moderator didn't provide enough details to clarify what the warning was for exactly (and how to prevent another warning in the future).

Also, I tend to laugh when members tell me what their friends were banned for. They completely miss the point that someone gets banned for the sum of all their actions rather than just the last item that they did. Whatever incident got them to 80% may have been more severe than what got them to 100% but at some point we have to say that enough is enough. If anything, our biggest flaw is keeping people at 100% for too long. As I said before though, some have come back from the brink.

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

With all this bickering, I say just keep the rep system gone.

Its like watching a bunch of 5 year olds fight over a new toy.

[Steven P. Administrators]

Do what now? That doesn't really make sense either. Did you disable the rep system, or are you trying to be funny?

Yes, I disabled the rep system. I mentioned this like 100 posts ago I think.

[Minifig]

Yes it does Neobond..

You can't tell people they can vote people up without allowing them to vote down.

You're telling me I can like what you say, but you're not allowing me to not like what you say?

Excuse me, but that's just plain silly.

I want the ability to say what I want about your post.. no matter if I like it or not..

Which goes back to earning your keep, if you earn enough reputation from other members and the senior members of the site, Staff, MVC and yourself (Neobond) agree that there's enough of a positive reputation on the persons personal site, then they could get another reputation point for the next year to share with someone else.

If people disagree with you enough times, you won't get reputation points to share with people you agree with. If people agree with you enough times, you will get reputation points to share with people you agree with.

I hope that breaks some light into why I thought of what I thought of.

[Darth Laidher]

Just give up, even if the majority of people wanted the rep system the way it was they aren't going to change their minds and bring it back.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Do what now? That doesn't really make sense either. Did you disable the rep system, or are you trying to be funny?

Yes, instead of allowing Staff and MVCs to negative vote, we have instead disabled the whole rep system. That's why the rep buttons are gone.

[Osiris]

With all this bickering, I say just keep the rep system gone.

Its like watching a bunch of 5 year olds fight over a new toy.

/Free hugs :p

[+Anarkii Subscriber²]

/Free hugs :p

+1 rep :rofl:

[Steven P. Administrators]

Just give up, even if the majority of people wanted the rep system the way it was they aren't going to change their minds and bring it back.

You're wrong about that, despite what you think I am FOR the community, but when a portion of that is being abused it is my job as site owner to discuss that with the staff moderators and sort it so that it works.

If you think differently, then thats your opinion.

[Subject Delta]

At least with respect to the last point, members will always say they were warned for stupid things. If I have the time I sometimes wade through their history and what they claim to be minor is often quite a clear violation of the rules. You don't have the full information when you hear things from friends.

Now if something really is unfair then they should bring it to the attention of a Supervisor because mistakes can happen. A lot of times I find that the moderator didn't provide enough details to clarify what the warning was for exactly (and how to prevent another warning in the future).

Also, I tend to laugh when members tell me what their friends were banned for. They completely miss the point that someone gets banned for the sum of all their actions rather than just the last item that they did. Whatever incident got them to 80% may have been more severe than what got them to 100% but at some point we have to say that enough is enough. If anything, our biggest flaw is keeping people at 100% for too long. As I said before though, some have come back from the brink.

Well just to quote one example I knew someone who got warned here just for using the term "clever dick". In this day and age, most people don't even consider a term like that to be an insult. I can understand that some things are worthy of warnings, but surely there are occasions where discretion can just be used, and you can give a person a verbal warning. Besides it feels like the staff here (particularly Neobond) go out of their way to isolate members with high warn levels, and in some senses even talk about them as if they are a lower class of person. I am not trying to claim people should never be banned, just that a little more tact and decorum could maybe be exercised.

Yes, I disabled the rep system. I mentioned this like 100 posts ago I think.

Didn't notice, sorry. The decision to disable it does make a bit more sense, as far as I am concerned the MVC program is enough to tell people who are and aren't trustworthy members.