Limit the reputation given

Mr Wallstreet · Post by **Mr Wallstreet** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:12 pm

ShadowMan wrote:There should be a limit for reputation given because of the potential for abuse.

There isn't really much Rep abuse going on right now. You cited a potential for abuse. So far, none has really occured and to overhaul the entire repping system based on what may happen rather than what is happening seems a bit like chicken little crying "the sky is falling".

Right now we have the “if you rep me then I will rep you" and "let us see how high we can make ourselves” mentality which makes the reputation system a joke. We should utilize the reputation system so it means something.

I have to disagree with you.

I'm not sure there are any people here who rep each other again and again for shits and giggles. From what I've seen people rep each other whenever they make someone laugh, cry, post something insightful or weird and not just for the hell of it, ergo, the repping system does mean something and is (mostly) being utilized properly.

wolf_2099 · Post by **wolf_2099** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:36 pm

I barely rep people as is, let alone for when they rep me.

I like the rep system, with no need to tweak it. Said it before, I'll say it again.

Great way to avoid post whoring since little quick comments are used with the rep thingy.

ShadowMan · Post by **ShadowMan** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:39 pm

CBKA wrote:If you limit reputation giving power by amount of reputation wouldn't the people repping each other consistently keep doing so meaning they are the only ones with this ability?

No, it would not work that way. Everyone can rep anyone they want. After they rep someone they would have to rep five different people as well before they can rep the same person again.

CBKA wrote:This wouldjust create a massive gap meaning me, you and probably tragic (sorry man but yousuck ) would be lonely at the bottom.

and i hate being at the bottom as much as i hate tragic (sorry again man, butyou still do suck)

There would be no gap unless you are just not receiving rep. If you are not receiving rep, then that is not the fault of the restrictions. People would just not favor what you are posting.

Mr Wallstreet wrote:There isn't really much really much Rep abuse going on right now. You cited a potential for abuse. So far, none has really occured and to overhaul the entire repping system based on what may happen rather than what is happening seems a bit like chicken little crying "the sky is falling".

By placing the restrictions it would still allow people to give reputation as they normally would. They would just have to spread it around as well. This would help impede abuse while having limited interference with giving out reputation.

Mr Wallstreet wrote:I have to disagree with you.

I'm not sure there are any people here who rep each other again and again for shits and giggles. From what I've seen people rep each other whenever they make someone laugh, cry, post something insightful or weird and not just for the hell of it, ergo, the repping system does mean something and is (mostly) being utilized properly.

You are wrong with that assessment. Just check out this thread for proof.

Tragic Angelus · Post by **Tragic Angelus** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:27 pm

But.. but.. i thought we were getting along so well lately...

Tragic Angelus · Post by **Tragic Angelus** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:33 pm

And dude, that thread was just for us to have fun and dick around for a new feature. Kind of what we do here, you know, instead of bounding ourselves in rules upon rules and regulations.

If you don't like what we do here, you can always just leave.

Mr Wallstreet · Post by **Mr Wallstreet** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:53 pm

ShadowMan wrote:
By placing the restrictions it would still allow people to give reputation as they normally would. They would just have to spread it around as well. This would help impede abuse while having limited interference with giving out reputation.

Repping is purely subjective. Its based on your own personal belief of what constitues someone getting a rep from you whether it be for humor, insight or otherwise. For example, if I consisently find only 2 or 3 people funny or interesting or what have you, then I'm only going to rep them. If I don't find other peope funny or interesting then I shouldn't have to be forced to rep them before I can rep the people who I genuinely want to because they make me laugh.

You are wrong with that assessment. Just check out this thread for proof.

I knew that was going to come up. Yes there was some crazy repping going on in that thread but that thread was created when this board was new and back then there were a lot of shenanigans going on in addition to crazy repping such as postwhoring but since then we've all pretty much mellowed out. Sure there may still may be a few people (and I stress very, very few people) who rep each other relentlessly but the vast majority of us now rep those who we feel genuinely merit a rep.

Mr Wallstreet · Post by **Mr Wallstreet** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:55 pm

Tragic Angelus wrote:
If you don't like what we do here, you can always just leave.

I don't think it needs to come to that.

ShadowMan · Post by **ShadowMan** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:44 pm

Tragic Angelus wrote:But.. but.. i thought we were getting along so well lately...

We can all be in a disagreement without fighting. The only one being hostile here is you.

Tragic Angelus wrote:And dude, that thread was just for us to have fun and dick around for a new feature. Kind of what we do here, you know, instead of bounding ourselves in rules upon rules and regulations.

It is not about bounding ourselves to rules and regulations for the be all and end all. It is about keeping the reputation system fair.

Tragic Angelus wrote:If you don't like what we do here, you can always just leave.

I would not want to give you that satisfaction.

Mr Wallstreet wrote:Repping is purely subjective. Its based on your own personal belief of what constitues someone getting a rep from you whether it be for humor, insight or otherwise. For example, if I consisently find only 2 or 3 people funny or interesting or what have you, then I'm only going to rep them. If I don't find other peope funny or interesting then I shouldn't have to be forced to rep them before I can rep the people who I genuinely want to because they make me laugh.

By having those restrictions, it would make the reputation list more accurate. Instead of a person receiving the highest amount of rep based on a few select people, a person would be receiving the highest amount of rep because of the general board consensus. It is not likely that you will only find one or two people worthy of giving rep in a day. Even if that were to happen, you can always go back and give that person rep later. There is no expiration date to posts of when you can give rep to.

Mr Wallstreet wrote:I knew that was going to come up. Yes there was some crazy repping going on in that thread but that thread was created when this board was new and back then there were a lot of shenanigans going on in addition to crazy repping such as postwhoring but since then we've all pretty much mellowed out. Sure there may still may be a few people (and I stress very, very few people) who rep each other relentlessly but the vast majority of us now rep those who we feel genuinely merit a rep.

That thread is a great example of abuse. But the restrictions are not just for that either.

Again, the restrictions will not stop people from receiving rep. It will just stop people from receiving rep constantly by the same few people. With the restrictions, if you have high positive rep or high negative rep, it is because the general board consensus is that your posts are well liked or disliked, not because of a few select people who think so.

Tragic Angelus · Post by **Tragic Angelus** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:42 pm

ShadowMan wrote:We can all be in a disagreement without fighting. The only one being hostile here is you.

That wasn't directed towards you

Tragic Angelus · Post by **Tragic Angelus** » Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:43 pm

Mr Wallstreet wrote:I don't think it needs to come to that.

I said since everyone decided that was a similarly decent thing to say the last time we went through this crap

XIII · Post by **XIII** » Sat May 02, 2009 2:32 am

Who gives a shit about rep, seriously? We've known each for so long now that we know who is worth what.
Putting limits is useless and a waste of time.

wolf_2099 · Post by **wolf_2099** » Sat May 02, 2009 1:48 pm

Goddammit Arn!

I want it proven that you all like me the most! THE MOST! THE MOSTEST!

What? Not humble enough? Heh.

CBKA · Post by **CBKA** » Sun May 03, 2009 4:03 pm

ShadowMan wrote:No, it would not work that way. Everyone can rep anyone they want. After they rep someone they would have to rep five different people as well before they can rep the same person again.

so essentially someone could post deep insightful rep-worthy posts one after the other but would be unable to receive a fair amount of reps.

There would be no gap unless you are just not receiving rep. If you are not receiving rep, then that is not the fault of the restrictions. People would just not favor what you are posting.
.

surely this contradicts your previous point, what if less than 5 people post stufff on a regular that you deem rep-worthy?

you would have to hand out meaningless reps is what would happen. or meaningfuldereps:smilielol5:

CBKA · Post by **CBKA** » Sun May 03, 2009 4:04 pm

Tragic Angelus wrote: If you don't like what we do here, you can always just leave.

theonly change i recommend ischanging theone repperpost limit, so i can sit here allday and rep tragic

ShadowMan · Post by **ShadowMan** » Sun May 03, 2009 10:47 pm

Tragic Angelus wrote:
ShadowMan wrote:
Tragic Angelus wrote:But.. but.. i thought we were getting along so well lately...
We can all be in a disagreement without fighting. The only one being hostile here is you.
That wasn't directed towards you

I did not say, nor imply, your comment was towards me. I merely addressed it. Just because there is a disagreement, does not constitute "fighting".

XIII wrote:Who gives a shit about rep, seriously? We've known each for so long now that we know who is worth what.
Putting limits is useless and a waste of time.

The rep system is not fair as it stands. Also, this board has the potential to grow. Having the restrictions on the rep will make it fair to us and for future posters.

CBKA wrote:so essentially someone could post deep insightful rep-worthy posts one after the other but would be unable to receive a fair amount of reps.

surely this contradicts your previous point, what if less than 5 people post stufff on a regular that you deem rep-worthy?

you would have to hand out meaningless reps is what would happen. or meaningfuldereps:smilielol5:

I have already addressed this concern with Mr. Wallstreet here. I will restate it for you...

There are no expiration dates given to posts for when you can no longer give rep to. Thus, even if you could not find other posts to give rep to in one day, you can give rep later.

jedispyder · Post by **jedispyder** » Sun May 03, 2009 10:51 pm

Holy fuck, everyone let it drop!

CBKA · Post by **CBKA** » Mon May 04, 2009 7:06 am

ShadowMan wrote:
There are no expiration dates given to posts for when you can no longer give rep to. Thus, even if you could not find other posts to give rep to in one day, you can give rep later.

but you would in effect be limiting peoples abilityto receive reps unfairly. noone is going to trail through old threads looking for the posts they wanted to rep.

your idea is ridiculous,get over it

ShadowMan · Post by **ShadowMan** » Mon May 04, 2009 12:43 pm

CBKA wrote:but you would in effect be limiting peoples abilityto receive reps unfairly. noone is going to trail through old threads looking for the posts they wanted to rep.

your idea is ridiculous,get over it

It would not be unfair since it is highly unlikely anyone will only find less than five people they want to give rep to. The rep system is to rate posts, not to comment on them. The comment for the rep is for exactly that, for the rep. By implementing the restrictions, it makes people use the reputation system conservatively.

These rules are not my own. They are from another board which has much success with it.

MGM · Post by **MGM** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:53 pm

And we are not that board. Please, stop trying this, because it has no sense and you'll fail miserably anyway. In fact, have you seen anyone in power actually in this topic? No, because we don't care about the way of the other board.

CBKA · Post by **CBKA** » Mon May 04, 2009 7:02 pm

These rules are not my own. They are from another board which has much success with it

give me the linkand i will introduce them to the way of BX. we will see if these butt nuggets agree with your retarded pointofview