Reputation system

Nice...

wprager wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

shabbs wrote:SIR Montagoose?

Hmmm...

*cracks knuckles*

Time to get to work...

If you hadn't gone on that little Hiatus you might have been there by now.

I think I should change SIR back to 13,000 posts (like I had a couple of days ago ... and Shabbs *totally* missed it, even after I blatantly called his attention to it .... tsk tsk).

Back on topic. I would be completely find if negative rep points had to be justified with a post (or positive ones, for that matter). Can we talk to the developers of this feature? Surely this is not the first forum to have children with keyboards.

As far as I know it's open source so fill your boots.

asq3 wrote:

Bass Destruction wrote:Unless you make the rating system an unlockable (if at all possible). So you unlock the right to + or - someone after you've posted x number of posts. This way dummy accounts cannot be created to sway reputations.

There are of course issues with this, you get back to an elitist mentality. And this could also lend to more fluffing. But even if it does create more fluffing, you could look on the bright side and take it as more traffic on the site.

That seems a little paranoid.

I didn't even catch on that it was your asq3 account. I thought you were being a bit of a dick, and threw that extra smiley on to ease the blow.

And I really didn't understand shabbs' comment... Thought he was just kicking me while i was down or something.

Bass Destruction wrote:

asq3 wrote:

Bass Destruction wrote:Unless you make the rating system an unlockable (if at all possible). So you unlock the right to + or - someone after you've posted x number of posts. This way dummy accounts cannot be created to sway reputations.

There are of course issues with this, you get back to an elitist mentality. And this could also lend to more fluffing. But even if it does create more fluffing, you could look on the bright side and take it as more traffic on the site.

That seems a little paranoid.

I didn't even catch on that it was your asq3 account. I thought you were being a bit of a dick, and threw that extra smiley on to ease the blow.

And I really didn't understand shabbs' comment... Thought he was just kicking me while i was down or something.

HA HA! We move in mysterious ways here...

IIRC, asq3 was first registered right around the inception of the rep system, after BD joked about making a second account to + himself.

It should be pretty obvious who asq3 really is...

I vote: I\'m a little fluffer short and stout ...!!

SeawaySensFan wrote:I vote: I'm a little fluffer short and stout ...!!

... If only I had a secret way to show my disapproval with this....

Amnesia021 wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:I vote: I'm a little fluffer short and stout ...!!

... If only I had a secret way to show my disapproval with this....

The secret's out: I\'m a little fluffer short and stout ...!!

Not sure if this really is SSF or if someone has hacked his account... with SSF, you can never really tell.

shabbs wrote:Not sure if this really is SSF or if someone has hacked his account... with SSF, you can never really tell.

Genuine article? I\'m a little fluffer short and stout ...!!!

OK, I had a little fun is all. Sorry, after I made the change I had a demo and back-to-back meetings. So I see the banned word list doesn't work well if the substitution used an apostrophe.

Can someone tell me why SSF has said he's a little fluffer in every thread?

Cap'n Clutch wrote:I personally feel this system was removed prematurely and with out any evidence that there was a problem with it out side of Rooney suggesting that because he lost 13 or 14 rep points in a week that there must be a problem with it. I haven't received a single PM suggesting there's a problem with it. I haven't seen a single post other than from Rooney suggesting there's a problem with it. The only posts from other members agreeing with Rooney are premised with the fact that IF Rooney's assertion is in fact correct then that is not cool.

I actually have an issue with removing the system based on that and put it to the members. Would you like the reputation system re-instated.

I don't like to post non Hockey polls on the main board but I think this one warrants it. Please vote.

The evidence was there for everyone to see, and count and re-count, right up until the rep system was abolished and the relevant info deleted.

On July 11, I was a plus 17 -- here's the link that proves it: https://gmcentralhockey.forumotion.net/random-thoughts-non-hockey-talk-f5/the-state-of-discussions-at-gmhockey-t4744-40.htm#189906.

Then, if you counted up the pluses and minuses I received from that day until the day in question (this link -- https://gmcentralhockey.forumotion.net/random-thoughts-non-hockey-talk-f5/the-state-of-discussions-at-gmhockey-t4744-280.htm#190854), I was actually a +1, but had lost 13 or 14 points on the week. Those minuses had to come on older posts.

There is absolutely no doubt about it. Someone was abusing the system. That is 100% fact.

In addition, N4L found the rat on the site who was in all probability responsible for this stuff, and nothing's being done about it right now. I'm going to talk to SD more about this, tho', so 'nuff said on that for the moment.

Anyway, I think bringing back the rep system will be possible 1) once we get rid of this rat, and 2) once we move to a 'sponsored membership' system or something like that. More needs to be done to protect the system from being abused, that's all. I know that it's not possible, but what's needed is a way in which every + or - a person leaves behind is accompanied by a name or otherwise leaves a trail. That would end all debate.

strachattack wrote:I'm more an avid reader of this fine site. Only on rare occasion I feel I have something worthy to contribute. My post count can attest to that. Having mentioned that, my opinion on this matter may not be as worthy as some of your regular posters. Despite that I will have to agree with Rooney. The system as is I don't like. There's got to be accountability. If there's going to be ratings, at the very least a negative rating should be accompanied with a post as to why you gave one. It should be mandatory on the part of the poster who gives the negative rating. I have no idea if that's technically possible but if it isn't I vote to abolish rep points.

Thanks, strach.

wprager wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

shabbs wrote:SIR Montagoose?

Hmmm...

*cracks knuckles*

Time to get to work...

If you hadn't gone on that little Hiatus you might have been there by now.

I think I should change SIR back to 13,000 posts (like I had a couple of days ago ... and Shabbs *totally* missed it, even after I blatantly called his attention to it .... tsk tsk).

Back on topic. I would be completely find if negative rep points had to be justified with a post (or positive ones, for that matter). Can we talk to the developers of this feature? Surely this is not the first forum to have children with keyboards.

Me, too. That, or a name attached to every plus/minus -- just something that would allow us to track systematic abuse, and the name(s) of any abuser(s).

asq2 wrote:It's not just that Rooney lost 13 or 14 in a week, it's that some poster was going back to posts from ages ago and minus-ing them. I doubt it's because he or she was taking a trip down memory lane and then found disagreeable posts.

Until the mods can figure out some way to remedy this -- figuring out a way to see who's giving the minuses, or maybe only having a + option -- I'm going with "no" on this poll. Because if what happened to Rooney isn't a problem, I don't see what the point or value of rep is.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, ASQ. It's appreciated.

asq3 wrote:

Bass Destruction wrote:Unless you make the rating system an unlockable (if at all possible). So you unlock the right to + or - someone after you've posted x number of posts. This way dummy accounts cannot be created to sway reputations.

There are of course issues with this, you get back to an elitist mentality. And this could also lend to more fluffing. But even if it does create more fluffing, you could look on the bright side and take it as more traffic on the site.

That seems a little paranoid.

I'll show you some stuff that will make you re-think how paranoid that assertion is.

I agree that you should have to add a comment if you give rep, but I don't agree with making it public who gave you each rep point. It should be comment, but still anonymous.