Honesty Rocks! truth rules.

New Reputation Thing What do you all think?

HOME      >>       Web Hosting Support

enterthematrix

I don't really like this new reputation thing either. What's the point? I see someone has two "reputation points". So what? What does this mean? I don't have any points. Does this make that person with two points a better person than me? Do they get a better spot in some line? If so, couldn't I just have a few of my buddies make false accounts and give me some of these "goodie points"? And there are a few people on this site I don't like. Should I take away some of their points(I won't, this is just to prove a point)? And that point is: WHAT'S THE POINT?


Darren1405241470

WHAT'S THE POINT?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


The point is so that people new to the site know who makes comments that most people think are worth reading and which posts not to take any notice of.

 

couldn't I just have a few of my buddies make false accounts and give me some of these "goodie points"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


If you had've read some of the previous posts you would know that we have already discussed that at current you could make fake accounts to do this and you would also know that we have already suggested that to prevent this users should not be allowed to add points untill they have reached a to-be-determined number of posts/reputation points. Either way the admins can simply take the points away or even delete your account if they think you're cheating the system.

 

And there are a few people on this site I don't like.  Should I take away some of their points(I won't, this is just to prove a point)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


If you dislike them because you disagree on some opinionative points then no I don't think you should take their reputation points away (unless they are simply disagreing to everything that you say just sto be annoying), however if you don't like them because they have made aimless posts that are too short and lacking in decent content or have broken the rules (which you should report too) then I believe that you should lower their reputation.

 

NOTE: The above is just my opinion and at current the rules about reputation changing have not been set in place.

 

I think that the only reason you dislike the reputation mod is that it requires a little thought.


MajesticTreeFrog

I hadn't thought about the idea of only allowing people to affect others rep after getting rep themselves. I think hybrid would be best. No reping till at least 40 posts or 10/20 posts and a positive rep.(PS: pbuldoc: you still have no clue what you are talking about, so hah! :) ) (PPS: for those with no sense of humor, that was a joke!)


NilsC

I'm a firm believer in self controll. -huh- I know it sounds funny and in a way it's ment to be funny in another way it's supposed to make you think.

 

We are here on this board posting our opinions, opinions are like sand on the beach. Everyone walking barefoot in it get sand between their toes. :)

Google search on 'Opinions are like' :)

To quote an old proverb:

You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar

You can win people to your side more easily by gentle persuasion and flattery than by hostile confrontation.

A friend in need is a friend indeed

A friend who helps out when we are in trouble is a true friend—unlike others who disappear when trouble arises.

From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step

In life, things that are noble and magnificent are never far from things that are trivial and laughable. This saying has been attributed to both Napoleon Bonaparte and the French statesman Talleyrand.

 

All quotes and subtexts from http://www.bartleby.com/ Nothing original here. :)

 

The point is to criticize in private and applaud in public.

 

Why?

 

Criticism = censure! look it up!

Censure refers to open and strong expression of criticism; often it implies a formal reprimand: “No man can justly censure or condemn another, because indeed no man truly knows another” (Thomas Browne). Condemn denotes the pronouncement of harshly adverse judgment: “The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated” (Robert H. Jackson).

I will give a positive point and post a note of why when I like a post. I'll send you a PM and ask you why you posted what you did before I post a negative point. That way you can explain what happened and maybe I misunderstood you.

 

Nils


MajesticTreeFrog

The difference between censure and criticism is formality. Censure is basically criticism that is expressed in a formal manner, usually by a group. That light nitpicking out of the way, points shouldn't be taken away because of disagreement, but instead for things that are:1. Continually trite, while at the same time not posting anything of depth elsewhere.2. Outrigth demeaning, or directly insulting. Particularly if that is all a post or series of posts is.Remember, we aren't so much moderating the individual posts, but instead the overall quality of the poster, despite the fact that the control makes it look that way. Therefore, I see the rep thing as something to be used for individual posts only in extreme circumstances. Instead, when a person continually posts junk, thats when rep should come into play.


NilsC

:) point taken, but you forgot to undeline the funny part again... not sure how many will get the point without the manual.Then again, I shouldent say to much... I had a spelling error in my sig file since Sunday. :) I have seen some of the fly by posters, 10 minutes of posting in someone elses work without thought to what the subject say.Have not been here long enough to see any 'flame' wars or demeaning posts. I have seen a few pointless ones and some placed in the wrong forum bur that is to be expected.Nils

hashbang

1. Continually trite, while at the same time not posting anything of depth elsewhere.

 

2. Outrigth demeaning, or directly insulting.  Particularly if that is all a post or series of posts is.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow .. this thread has grown in a hurry!

I agree with Dendrobates Azureus on the 2 points above. This has been what I have been loosely applying when I rate posters. Nice to see the rep mod taking off.

 

cheers all,

hashbang


MajesticTreeFrog

It is true that there haven't been any demeaning posts so far, but I think that might be just a matter of time. But then again I might just be pessimistic.I don't so much care about 'fly by' posters, provided that they are just off topic. What I don't like are posts that I don't think have any worth at a more innate level, though this definition is highly subjective.On the other hand, I have a harder time deciding what should deserve a positive rep point.


r3d1405241470

ie look i got 1 :)this is sux, modz deserve a negative not positive.and since only the modz and admin can alter the warn level. the reputation thing is for members. this features is made for you guys, i think for fun or whatever. so don't take this one too seriously.


NilsC

ie look i got 1 :)

 

this is sux, modz deserve a negative not positive.

 

and since only the modz and admin can alter the warn level. the reputation thing is for members. this features is made for you guys, i think for fun or whatever. so don't take this one too seriously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On your first statement I have to disagree, because if a mod does a good job and participates in a tread in a constructive way then he/she have the same opportunity to contribute something positive. A mod receiving a positive or negative point should not be determined by his or her moderating a topic or user (it probably happens - I know that for a fact!).

 

As for alter the warn level, that is not something users on this board see (At least I have not seen anyone else’s warn levels) so that can’t be used as an indicator of a users ability to participate in a constructive way.

 

Here is some food for thought, maybe we can ask for a way of rating the moderators… If the moderator does a good job and stays active in the forum they could get bonus point up until they became Administrators. So a junior moderator can redirect a misplaced post, when upgraded to the next level they can close a post that are off topic. When closing a post that are off topic a reason should be put in that post, if it is a repeat subject a link to the original post should be placed in the post.

 

So what’s this like for an idea… am I on to something here or what? :):)

 

Nils


Darren1405241470

So what’s this like for an idea… am I on to something here or what?  :)  :)

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I think thats a great idea although I haven't seen it done before on any forums, this is probably because some people would abuse this right to choose mods/admins. I think we should implement this system but once a potential mod/admin gets to the appropriate level then instead of them being automatically upgraded a message should be sent to OpaQue so he can give his ok first. This way people could still recommend who they thought would be a good mod/admin but the final say would be OpaQue's.

 

BTW - The reason i'm the only person (that I know of) who has a warning signal on my name is because I am the only person who actually took notice of the warnings they sent me and stopped copying tutorials from other forums. Everyone else who had a warning never took any notice of it and kept spamming until they got kicked out.


NilsC

BTW - The reason i'm the only person (that I know of) who has a warning signal on my name is because I am the only person who actually took notice of the warnings they sent me and stopped copying tutorials from other forums. Everyone else who had a warning never took any notice of it and kept spamming until they got kicked out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is it Darren, you have a warning on your name, that is not an indicator of the type of posts you have. You can see the warning and mderators / Admins can see the warning. Unless you tell the forum you have a warning, there is no indicator in your user name that show it.

 

I see 3 positive reputation points, that is what counts for me not that a mod / admin warned you. There has to be a reason for the 3 positive marks and you are contributing material that are of value.

 

Nils


Darren1405241470

You can see the warning and mderators / Admins can see the warning. Unless you tell the forum you have a warning, there is no indicator in your user name that show it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I didn't know that it was only mods/admins that could see the warning. I just assumed that no-one else had warnings. Now that I think about it that was a pretty dumb assumption :) .

 

PS: where can I get a copy of Nils v 1.0.0? It looks good but I've never heard of it before.


NilsC

I didn't know that it was only mods/admins that could see the warning. I just assumed that no-one else had warnings. Now that I think about it that was a pretty dumb assumption :P .

 

PS: where can I get a copy of Nils v 1.0.0? It looks good but I've never heard of it before.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. assume nothing (what is assume but making an "*bottom* u me" :D You are the only one with warnings :) ( just kidding)

 

Nils v 1.0.0 tok 50 years to make, so if you have time I'll start one for you know. :):P

 

I hope you understand it's a spoof on © copyrighted material. Since I have no creations of my own, I give them away freely.

 

My other sig file (other forum) states: I started with nothing and I still have most of it left"

 

Nils



Pages :-

Page 1Page 2