Reputation system

wprager wrote:See what you get when there is no fear of de-repping?

wprager wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:Let's stop the 'source' and 'confirmed' posts please. It is getting annoying.

This!

Any Habs rumors?

wprager wrote:See what you get when there is no fear of de-repping?

Hoags wrote:Well the negatives of a rep system are certainly well known.

What does a rep system actually add to this site ? I can't think of anything

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

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: http://www.gmhockey.com/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 -- http://www.gmhockey.com/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.

I disagree. Nothing you've said here makes me think abuse of the system was 100% fact.

You present this as fact when that absolutely is not. He suspects someone based on very poor quality evidence. I certainly can't say he's wrong but there's nothing to prove him right.

wprager wrote:Umm, guys, what Rooney did was fairly simple. The only thing I did not have is his starting points, but there is no reason to suggest he'd be exaggerating them.

From that starting point(s), he went over all of his posts for a week, checking the pluses and minuses on each post -- that's fairly simple to do, actually. And over that time period he was either a +1 or a -1. However his reputation dropped 13-14 points. If the rep points were not taken away from the posts he did over that time period, then they must have been taken away from older posts. That much is 100%.

And, honestly, it's a little difficult to believe that he could lose 14 points from someone catching up reading old stuff. So, maybe not 100%, but I believe the evidence does indicate something not-quite-kosher going on. And, really, is that so difficult to believe? Like Neely, Rooney is making some enemies here but they are not content with just putting him on their foes list. It's immature, to be sure, but very believable that someone could go on a personal crusade to bring his points down, even if they have to wait 25 minutes between minuses and hunt down old posts to do so.

Now, picking up a second account just to do it faster? Maybe a bit less believable, but still possible.

shabbs wrote:Yes, it does indicate something is going on... that is true. Problem is, unless someone comes forth and owns up to the activities, or logs can be obtained to prove Rooney's suggestion, we're left making educated guesses.

At any rate, the important thing is that the owners/mods are attempting to address this issue and ensure it's kept at bay.

rooneypoo wrote:

shabbs wrote:Yes, it does indicate something is going on... that is true. Problem is, unless someone comes forth and owns up to the activities, or logs can be obtained to prove Rooney's suggestion, we're left making educated guesses.

At any rate, the important thing is that the owners/mods are attempting to address this issue and ensure it's kept at bay.

The evidence was deleted when the mods/owners deleted the rep system, about an hour after I pointed out the issue. It was as plain as day for anyone to see who looked at it. I'm pretty sure Prager saw it, and I'm guessing whoever hit the 'delete' button on the rep system must have seen it as well.

shabbs wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

shabbs wrote:Yes, it does indicate something is going on... that is true. Problem is, unless someone comes forth and owns up to the activities, or logs can be obtained to prove Rooney's suggestion, we're left making educated guesses.

At any rate, the important thing is that the owners/mods are attempting to address this issue and ensure it's kept at bay.

The evidence was deleted when the mods/owners deleted the rep system, about an hour after I pointed out the issue. It was as plain as day for anyone to see who looked at it. I'm pretty sure Prager saw it, and I'm guessing whoever hit the 'delete' button on the rep system must have seen it as well.

You still don't know if it was one person abusing the system or a whole slew of people who minused you. And those people may have never posted here in the first place and just been lurkers.

Yes, the pattern is INDICATIVE of someone who was going back and minus'ing you... but to declare it as 100% fact is 100% false. That was my only issue with that statement.

shabbs wrote:Probability != fact. That was my point.

For the record, I do beleive it was one person with multiple accounts going back and minusing you.

rooneypoo wrote:

shabbs wrote:Probability != fact. That was my point.

For the record, I do beleive it was one person with multiple accounts going back and minusing you.

I appreciate that.

For the record, tho': it is 100% fact that I lost 13 or 14 points in 7 days; it is 100% fact that if you add up the pluses and minuses I got on the week for the week's posts, I was actually a +1; and therefore it is 100% fact that some person / some people, working in concert or not, went back to minus my old posts 13 or 14 times -- there is no other way I could have lost those point. None of that is disputable.

If you mean to say, "it was probable, but not fact, that one person did all that," then, yes, I agree. But to me, that suggestion makes a lot more sense than the suggestion that 5 or 6 people, unbeknownst to each other and without consultation, each acted separately to bring about the end result of a -13 or -14 on the week. That strikes me as highly improbably, though admittedly possible.

rooneypoo wrote:
The evidence was deleted when the mods/owners deleted the rep system, about an hour after I pointed out the issue. It was as plain as day for anyone to see who looked at it. I'm pretty sure Prager saw it, and I'm guessing whoever hit the 'delete' button on the rep system must have seen it as well.

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
The evidence was deleted when the mods/owners deleted the rep system, about an hour after I pointed out the issue. It was as plain as day for anyone to see who looked at it. I'm pretty sure Prager saw it, and I'm guessing whoever hit the 'delete' button on the rep system must have seen it as well.

I guess I should have thought about that. I don't think there was a way to track +s and -s, but I could be wrong.

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:
The evidence was deleted when the mods/owners deleted the rep system, about an hour after I pointed out the issue. It was as plain as day for anyone to see who looked at it. I'm pretty sure Prager saw it, and I'm guessing whoever hit the 'delete' button on the rep system must have seen it as well.

I guess I should have thought about that. I don't think there was a way to track +s and -s, but I could be wrong.

I'm not blaming anyone. But since you presumably deleted the rep system after you saw my post, then you must have looked at what I was talking about, first, no?

rooneypoo wrote:

shabbs wrote:Probability != fact. That was my point.

For the record, I do beleive it was one person with multiple accounts going back and minusing you.

I appreciate that.

For the record, tho': it is 100% fact that I lost 13 or 14 points in 7 days; it is 100% fact that if you add up the pluses and minuses I got on the week for the week's posts, I was actually a +1; and therefore it is 100% fact that some person / some people, working in concert or not, went back to minus my old posts 13 or 14 times -- there is no other way I could have lost those point. None of that is disputable.

If you mean to say, "it was probable, but not fact, that one person did all that," then, yes, I agree. But to me, that suggestion makes a lot more sense than the suggestion that 5 or 6 people, unbeknownst to each other and without consultation, each acted separately to bring about the end result of a -13 or -14 on the week. That strikes me as highly improbably, though admittedly possible.