Introducing: The Forum Reputation System

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tallas13

You should make it is the points can counteract the negative forum points we have. I got 2 warning and now I find myself never participating in discussions for fear of being banned. I haven't got a negative forum point in a year but they never expire so eventually everyone will be banned.

---

No, most people will never be banned.

A significant number (though still a very tiny proportion) get banned within a few weeks of joining because they never really even try to follow the rules.

And a rather larger number (still a small minority) get warnings or infractions every now and then.

It really isn't hard to post in a way which will avoid getting infractions, and the majority of members here do so all or almost all of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vikingchief

he means infractions, they never expire so you never know how close you are to a ban. I dont agree however the systems should be linked, would allow very popular people to be very toxic. Let the mods deal with infractions and bans, and the forum users the rep.

---

You always know just how close you are to a ban. I think the number of infractions required for temporary and permanent bans are reasonably well known - and I certainly tell people - the next one means a temporary/permanent ban.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoyaleV

As I suspected. The forums are full of posts where people are highlighting their negative rep they just got for xyz reasons.

---

Rather an exaggeration to say the forums are "full of" such posts. There have been a few, but not all that many.

Quote:

---

Also many folks just going around "balancing" out others rep cause they feel bad for them. An absolute joke imo and I feel bad for the mods who must be getting inundated with complaints about the negative rep they just received.

---

No, we aren't getting inundated. Again, we are getting a few, but TBH, not as many as I thought we would get.

Although you are right, people shouldn't be giving rep (either way) to "balance" rep they see as wrong.

looking good!

My feeling is those who are regularly toxic or post just to be disagreeable are not going to be swayed or concerned much about earning downvotes. They will continue their behavior, running up the negative rep score as a badge of honor. I believe what it will accomplish is many with reasonable dissent will be dissuaded from stating their opinions in fear of negative rep points being assigned by people who simply disagree with them. An upvote only option would alleviate this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterOfAllTimeAndMagic

One question. Is downvoting because an idea has been ruled out justified? I haven't downvoted, but I see people are still(in the ideas section) doing a ton of ideas that are ruled out. If somebody were to downvote them, would it be justified?

---

I dont think so. A good idea is still a good idea even if SC disagrees. Minds have been changed before and that is the place to try and do it. Some ruled out ideas are obviously poor but not all and the good ones are worthy of discussion imo. Thats the only way to achieve change. The only way i would ever give bad rep is when people get nasty and way out of line other than that i feel all is open for discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by COCFan2001

I strongly disagree. It encourages good behavior and discourages toxicity.

I will downvote your post when I find a computer

---

Hahahaha! I rest my case.

People who disagree with an opinion down vote. Well done SC, well done. Allowing people to do this just because they lack any ability to disagree with opposing views.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexheney

Rather an exaggeration to say the forums are "full of" such posts. There have been a few, but not all that many.



No, we aren't getting inundated. Again, we are getting a few, but TBH, not as many as I thought we would get.

Although you are right, people shouldn't be giving rep (either way) to "balance" rep they see as wrong.

---

Since the rep system is deployed on the full site and not the mobile site, do you think the number of requests to look into negative rep is enough data to give an accurate projection of what it would look like when and if the rep system is fully launched? My guess is the numbers would probably rise quite a bit but im not certain how many use the mobile site over full site. I use the mobile site mostly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoyaleV

Hahahaha! I rest my case.

People who disagree with an opinion down vote. Well done SC, well done. Allowing people to do this just because they lack any ability to disagree with opposing views.

---

Actually, I don't believe it does show your point, unless we know the person is purely doing it from disagreeing with your view. To me it's equally likely, at this point, to assume that the problem was with generalising excessively, hyperbole or the like. That's the problem with reading too much into the rep system without an unambiguous comment on an actual downvote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomville

Actually, I don't believe it does show your point, unless we know the person is purely doing it from disagreeing with your view. To me it's equally likely, at this point, to assume that the problem was with generalising excessively, hyperbole or the like. That's the problem with reading too much into the rep system without an unambiguous comment on an actual downvote.

---

So people using hyperbole can be down voted rep then and that is a valid reason? If that is the case can I go around down voting everyone who says they have a max TH __ base in their signature description when I find out they are not? What about all the other hyperbole on the forums where people are trying to make a point?

Just this morning with 30 minutes of cruising two forums here I have found 16 instances of people complaining about the negative rep they got, or were going to rep. I have looked at various folks accounts and seen well over 20 reps giving just for balancing out issues. So, where does the line get drawn at hyperbole and truth? Do only badge holders get to decide that? Personal between each person?

What about other topics like name change threads that get brought up once a week or so and a majority of forumers get on their case by saying they CONSTANTLY fill the forum with those threads so we should never get a second name change? Is a few threads a week really constant? Can I go back and give all them negative rep for hyperbole?

I think you understand my point by now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoyaleV

So people using hyperbole can be down voted rep then and that is a valid reason? If that is the case can I go around down voting everyone who says they have a max TH __ base in their signature description when I find out they are not? What about all the other hyperbole on the forums where people are trying to make a point?

Just this morning with 30 minutes of cruising two forums here I have found 16 instances of people complaining about the negative rep they got, or were going to rep. I have looked at various folks accounts and seen well over 20 reps giving just for balancing out issues. So, where does the line get drawn at hyperbole and truth? Do only badge holders get to decide that? Personal between each person?

What about other topics like name change threads that get brought up once a week or so and a majority of forumers get on their case by saying they CONSTANTLY fill the forum with those threads so we should never get a second name change? Is a few threads a week really constant? Can I go back and give all them negative rep for hyperbole?

I think you understand my point by now.

---

There seems to be a confusion, I never said hyperbole was worth a downvote, or that I would downvote for it myself. I was just offering possible plausible alternative interpretations in the absence of evidence. Until there's evidence, it's just not clear that a downvote is a knee jerk by a jerk, as opposed to something reasonable by way of response to a post.

Sometimes hyperbole is a useful technique, when everyone understands that is what it is. Like someone might say "why does my archer queen always walk the wrong way and shoot a wall only when everyone is watching my war attack?" and most people would get that it was exaggeration for comedic effect about something we've all sympathised with someone on, rather than a claim about what she in fact always does. And if that kicked off a funny clash commiserations thread that others were jumping on and enjoying, then I'd upvote it as a positive contribution to making the place lively and fun. To me one case where hyperbole might be a problem when it is running a generalisation that distorts things to give false support to a viewpoint that claims to be on facts. It's case by case, to me.