Reputation System Change:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightmareX

There is a rule, from what I've heard, that you have to give reputation to 50 other users before doing the same person again. This prevents spamming of reputation on a particular user. The other rule to prevent new account spam or 'unjust decisions' you have to have 50 posts on the forum.

---

I think it's 15 not 50. I've run into it a small number of times (it certainly cost Tiler a few upvotes). But on the whole it seems to work as a way of stopping someone bumping up their friend, because...

Quote:

---

I can see the flaw with the 50 people. It somewhat encourages one to run around giving random reputation points around simply to get one person up again in extreme cases.

---

there is also a daily maximum number of votes (10?). So in practice you can't upvote the same person very quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightmareX

There is a rule, from what I've heard, that you have to give reputation to 50 other users before doing the same person again. This prevents spamming of reputation on a particular user. The other rule to prevent new account spam or 'unjust decisions' you have to have 50 posts on the forum.

I can see the flaw with the 50 people. It somewhat encourages one to run around giving random reputation points around simply to get one person up again in extreme cases. Alternatively, someone could be on board with some brilliant posts for a month whilst others aren't so much and that user will only be able to get one reputation point from that user because of the lack of distribution.

I believe having a time limit is a better option for the reputation system. For example, once you have given a point to someone, a week timer is put onto them before they can receive another point from you. This prevents spam, should be easy to introduce and allows consistent good posts over time to be supported by users.

---

Whilst you cannot give rep that counts until your post count is 50+,, it's actually 15 different users that you have to give rep to before you can re-rep a person.

I think the problem ATM is that as not so much rep seems to be being given since the removal of negative rep (or it could be that the novelty wore off), people aren't passing the 15 other reps given so quickly so are noticing that they cannot re-rep someone.

There was always a time element to re-repping as, in addition to the 15 rep limitation, we only have 10 reps a day to give. I feel that a week would be way too long if such a limit were to be introduced as some people make a consistently positive contribution to the forums day in, day out, and I would want to be able to acknowledge individual instances of that contribution more frequently.

Edit: Ninja'd by Onyx

My feelings are that without down votes people dont use the system.
It would be interesting to see the numbers on how many upvotes were given since downs were removed.

i think it's a pointless system as it's easily forgotten with out the down votes, down votes keep some in check and also remind everyone that they have a reputation to uphold.
either both up and down or no is my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cleggy

My feelings are that without down votes people dont use the system.
It would be interesting to see the numbers on how many upvotes were given since downs were removed.

i think it's a pointless system as it's easily forgotten with out the down votes, down votes keep some in check and also remind everyone that they have a reputation to uphold.
either both up and down or no is my opinion.

---

i totaly agree, and wanted to give you a half rep point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OnyxDS

I think it's 15 not 50. I've run into it a small number of times (it certainly cost Tiler a few upvotes). But on the whole it seems to work as a way of stopping someone bumping up their friend

---

I understand the logic behind it, but I still think 15 is too much. I can find 30-40 good posts in clan wars to +rep, but they usually come from the same 7-8 people. With 10 I think I could manage, but 15 makes it near impossible. I wanted to +rep one of your post days ago, I just tried again, I still can't do it. I don't even remember when i gave you that fatal +rep in the first place anymore. It has to be weeks ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cleggy

i think it's a pointless system as it's easily forgotten with out the down votes, down votes keep some in check and also remind everyone that they have a reputation to uphold.
either both up and down or no is my opinion.

---

I kinda agree on this, but I am leaning more towards the no rep system at all actually.

I just hovered my mouse over my forum rep, so what does it mean that 'RAppel is showing promise'? Promise of what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

I do agree that downvoting someone just because they state an opinion you disagree with is not the correct use of the downvote. However, upvoting someone just because they state something you agree with is also not a correct use of the voting system (but upvoting someone for explaining it in a good way is a proper use of the upvote). In my opinion, those tend to equal each other out.

---

Oh then in that case forum rule about downvoting shouldn't exist because if someone is getting a downvote, there will be upvotes to compensate that. Positive and negative don't give you positive outcome. They don't cancel each other out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexheney

Will it?

Can you let me know the supplier of your Crystal Ball?

Neither I nor any of the other mods know yet whether it will be back or not, and we are the ones who will be making the decision.

At the end of the trial, there are the following possibilities, and NONE of these are yet ruled out:

1. FRS system is scrapped completely
2. Continue with it exactly as it is now
3. Revert to the situation we had for the first half of the trial (i.e. both upvotes and downvotes available in all game related forums)
4. Keep it as is for some game forums, while bringing back downvotes for others.
5. Remove it entirely for some game areas while keeping it for others (either with or without downvotes.

Which of these options are chosen will depend on reactions between now and the end of the trial, but the results of polls we will carry out, plus the personal input of te different mods.




There was such a rule while downvoting was in place.

---

I don't need source to prove that it'll be back. It looks incomplete without downvote. Spam is actually increased without it.

That forum rule is there to take action against illegitimate downvoter. But people are so good with making stories that it will be impossible for you to find out what is their initial motive. I've actually seen some downvotes with irrelevant reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by forever10

I don't need source to prove that it'll be back. It looks incomplete without downvote. Spam is actually increased without it.

That forum rule is there to take action against illegitimate downvoter. But people are so good with making stories that it will be impossible for you to find out what is their initial motive. I've actually seen some downvotes with irrelevant reasons.

---

This is off track in a three ways. First, one of the key decision makers has just told you that the decision hasn't been made and at least 5 options are under consideration. Are you suggesting you know better than he does or that he is misleading us? I rather doubt both. Second, downvotes are not connected to spam in any way - spam is a matter for reporting, not voting up or down or replying to. It's usually a bot, so it doesn't care, and we were specifically told at the outset that downvoting didn't replace reporting. Thirdly, you have a bee in your bonnet about something in particular that happened a long time ago and are carrying a grudge and keep bringing it up, despite it having been explained by all relevant participants... yet you persist in insisting that you must be right in your interpretation and they are rationalising or deceiving. If that particular downvote situation is still pushing your buttons after weeks have passed then PM a mod and explain it and see what they say... or wait, let me guess, whatever they say you will know better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cleggy

My feelings are that without down votes people dont use the system.
It would be interesting to see the numbers on how many upvotes were given since downs were removed.

i think it's a pointless system as it's easily forgotten with out the down votes, down votes keep some in check and also remind everyone that they have a reputation to uphold.
either both up and down or no is my opinion.

---

Agree. Thanks for sharing.