rep

[cephalopod]

Dude rep meant nothing before you got to GTM.
And the reason yours went down was explained by Trov, all the stupid reps were removed. Also mine went down by twice what yours did. Do I care? No, it's a largely irrelevant number. Chill yo, it's not the end of the world.

[Jonzu95]

Dude rep meant nothing before you got to GTM.
And the reason yours went down was explained by Trov, all the stupid reps were removed. Also mine went down by twice what yours did. Do I care? No, it's a largely irrelevant number. Chill yo, it's not the end of the world.

Yeah but we could still do something about that instead of just say there's nothing to worry about it. I feel like I'm one of the worst members around here with this reputation.

[cephalopod]

What do we do then?
Resetting rep isn't an answer if your argument for rep being important is that new guys make judgements based on it as then anyone new will see literally everyone on equal footing.

[Badger]

Let everyone above a certain no. of posts rep, hand out warnings/bans for abuse of the system. This makes it actually useful.

[Thyrus]

Let everyone above a certain no. of posts rep, hand out warnings/bans for abuse of the system. This makes it actually useful.

then banish people for things the staff sees as abusing but the person didn't make others complain about the staff attacking the staff making the staff banish them makes people complain about the staff attacking the staff...

[Fracture]

What do we do then?
Resetting rep isn't an answer if your argument for rep being important is that new guys make judgements based on it as then anyone new will see literally everyone on equal footing.

Well, that's only temporary unless by resetting you mean removing.

I don't think the rep system is flawed, IF the people who can do it follow the guidelines. Like Mr. AS mentioned, ranks do a better job of measuring lifetime contributions, but I like being able to see how appreciated some of the regular members are and I'm sure new people would too. Yes it is somewhat of a popularity contest because that's the basis of the system, you will get rep if those who can rep like you (which I think is fine, I value being able to see who is liked) but also for legitimate contributions or achievements. It especially shines in the case of underappreciated users without a rank (Geice) who would be otherwise indistinguishable from others like them. Sure, Sage wouldn't receive rep for posting a typical bot while a new user might get +3 instant rep for a Sage-level bot, but Sage is already an established builder with recognition as a Veteran and from the GTM Awards (he also gets rep every now and then anyway). Rep should be a (more subjective) complement to ranks, not a replacement.

[yugitom]

Right, this is why rep was a thing, in the first place:

Its just a system to reward good/helpful/nice members, and help new members know who the people they can trust are.

I think the first point is enough to keep the system.

Also, why isn't this a thing? (Obviously, the boundaries would have to be lowered because no one has anything near 150 rep.)

right now only Admins can give out and remove reputation. However if you reach a "rep" level of 150, you will be able to give people positive rep.  When you reach 300 you will be able to give both positive and negative.

[Badger]

right now only Admins can give out and remove reputation. However if you reach a "rep" level of 150, you will be able to give people positive rep.  When you reach 300 you will be able to give both positive and negative.

That is actually perfect. +5 for +rep, +10 or 15 for both?

[Naryar]

I think it is a good idea, but what about titles and rep ? Do we use this rep system just for non-colored usernames or do we use it for everyone ?

However, what I can see is rep wars being more frequent with this system, since now rep actually means something (the power to rep or not).

[Philippa]

I kinda like the idea of the Fear/Respect thing from the Wiki. Something like that but more forum-y or advice-y ratings would be pretty cool.

[Naryar]

I kinda like the idea of the Fear/Respect thing from the Wiki. Something like that but more forum-y or advice-y ratings would be pretty cool.

It didn't worked, because nobody cared enough in the long term.

[Mr. AS]

new guys make judgements based on it

Again, I feel like AU titles already accomplish the "who's who" game. Maybe instead of getting rid of reputation entirely, it could be reworked to have a different enough purpose from titles to make it non-redundant. Here's a 5-minute MS paint mockup of what would be a good solution IMO:


(craaig's post in the pic is really cheesy, but you get the point)
It's basically an upvote/downvote system for individual posts rather than permanently marking someone's profile for something they posted. Similar systems are used on Facepunch and Reddit. People can upvote exemplary posts that new guys should be modeling thier own posts around and downvote bad posts. Voting should be fairly anonymous though, so people don't start flame wars over "HEY SO-N-SO WHY DID YOU DOWNVOTE MY POST? FITE ME IRL" or whatever. Although moderators/admins should be able to see who's doing what.

It should also be as available as possible to people so you don't have the same few people giving out all of the rep. Maybe you get voting privileges after being a member for a year? Feedback is appreciated.

[kill343gs]

My biggest problem with the whole rep thing going back is that it has no relation to the post or posts that you are being repped up or down on, so there's no visible correlation with what's going on. For that reason, the rep doesn't amount to anything whatsoever for the individual getting repped or the people who view the rep stats. If the system is supposed to show other members what a quality post looks like, then it is falling short in this aspect. And if you are getting repped down off of a single post, you would never know it. There is nothing telling you what specific behavior is causing the rep drop.

[yugitom]

Isn't that what 'Reason' is for?

[kill343gs]

To an extent yes, but it's not like 'reason' has ever been used appropriately. And even if it was, it can still be pretty vague and users may fail to make the connection. I'm talking about having a real, solid correlation that can be seen with minimal chance for discrepancy.

[The Red Blur]

To an extent yes, but it's not like 'reason' has ever been used appropriately. And even if it was, it can still be pretty vague and users may fail to make the connection. I'm talking about having a real, solid correlation that can be seen with minimal chance for discrepancy.

Then, maybe we could have a system where someone could dispute a rep change, so the reason for the rep change could be shown to a moderator/admin, and it can be up to their discretion whether or not it is valid. (Obviously, if a moderator or admin DID that rep change, it'd have to be directed towards other mods/admins)

[Reier]

Every change we make to the system suggested so far will just make mountains of drama and/or be tons of work to manage

The system doesn't do anything helpful despite what some people are saying, just ditch it already

[Avalanche]

Every change we make to the system suggested so far will just make mountains of drama and/or be tons of work to manage

The system doesn't do anything helpful despite what some people are saying, just ditch it already

Then make a person specifically rep mod if they are responsible, as its a small role, meaning they can dispute any dodgy rep themselves.

[yugitom]

There's no reason to change or abolish the current rep system. There are no outstanding problems that I can see. However, perhaps more moderation of rep 'reasons' is needed but that isn't a tough or tasking job. I'd prove it by doing it myself, if I have to. I'll report all reps that do not have a sufficient reason and they'll be dealt with, simple as. Other than that, I cannot see anything wrong with rep.

[Mr. AS]

There's no reason to change or abolish the current rep system. There are no outstanding problems that I can see.

The "outstanding problems" with rep is whole point of the thread though, innit?