You've got a reputation to maintain.

[Drew Dowdell]

I have enabled the reputation system. Your posts can now be voted up or down by the site membership at large. You can also vote on other people's posts.

The amount of reputation points you can spend per day depends on your membership level.

Admin - 100 positive, 100 negative

Editor - 50 positive, 50 negative

Moderator - 50 positive, 50 negative

Premium subscriber - 20 positive, 20 negative

Standard member - 8 positive, 8 negative

Once everyone has an established reputation, you will be able to filter posts by rep points.

The reputation scale is as follows:

Bad

-20

Poor

-10

Neutral

0

Good

10

Excellent

20

[Z-06]

Olds,

I personally think it is a good system - something which will lead to the increased accountability and credibility to the site. There are a couple of issues that I think we should elaborately address.

1. There are members who post trolls regardless of the warn levels issued by the administrators. What do you recommend for such posters? I personally think such members will not heed to the ratings they receive. Do you think continual posting of trolls when the rating is "Poor" should effect in increase in the warn level?

2. What if there is a personal rivalry between some members resulting in degradation of the other member's post? How can such an issue be addressed? Do you think we should restrict the ratings given by one member to the other particular member per day to like 2 or 3? I mean if the post is real bad it will show by votes received by multiple members. I just think it should be reasonable to reduce the personal bias by some members to other particular members with whom they do not see eye to eye.

[Drew Dowdell]

People who troll and have their posts voted down accordingly will stop showing up in peoples lists of posts. They can then troll all they want and not bother anyone.

The forum is going to have a slightly self moderated feel to it. It's set up in such a way that one person can't obliterate a person's reputation... and other people can come along and restore it.

[the_yellow_dart]

On Xbox Live, this is a great system and I support it. In a message board, however, I have some concerns. I'm worried about missing pieces of the conversation. Just because a large portion of the community at C+G dislikes somebody doesn't mean that they won't have something valid to say in a given conversation.

[Croc]

On Xbox Live, this is a great system and I support it. In a message board, however, I have some concerns. I'm worried about missing pieces of the conversation. Just because a large portion of the community at C+G dislikes somebody doesn't mean that they won't have something valid to say in a given conversation.

Well, I've blocked a few users in the past who just annoyed me to no end. In the conversation, there is a small bar where the blocked post would be, and if I want to read it because it's referenced below, I can click on the link and restore the post for that viewing session. Otherwise, the user and their caustic attitude is blocked. I love it.

[the_yellow_dart]

Well, I've blocked a few users in the past who just annoyed me to no end. In the conversation, there is a small bar where the blocked post would be, and if I want to read it because it's referenced below, I can click on the link and restore the post for that viewing session. Otherwise, the user and their caustic attitude is blocked. I love it.

I can see how that would be nice. I've never hated anyone badly enough on this site to resort to that.

[Drew Dowdell]

I can see how that would be nice. I've never hated anyone badly enough on this site to resort to that.

At the bottom of the thread you can adjust your post view threshold. If you want to see every post regardless of reputation, you can set it to not filter.

[Croc]

I can see how that would be nice. I've never hated anyone badly enough on this site to resort to that.

I don't hate anyone. There are two posters who seem to have an active vendetta against me; since any response whatsoever to their posts just seems to provoke them, I have them on ignore and don't read their posts unless the discussion downthread indicates they were unusually insightful that day. Helps with the civility.

[Croc]

At the bottom of the thread you can adjust your post view threshold. If you want to see every post regardless of reputation, you can set it to not filter.

It says I don't have permission to view your attachment, and I see no view threshold indicator at the bottom of the thread...

[z28luvr01]

I don't hate anyone. There are two posters who seem to have an active vendetta against me; since any response whatsoever to their posts just seems to provoke them, I have them on ignore and don't read their posts unless the discussion downthread indicates they were unusually insightful that day. Helps with the civility.

-20

j/k

[Drew Dowdell]

permissions issue that should be fixed now.

[daves87rs]

Well, everyone likes me, so don't have to worry....

[Croc]

Still not seeing that menu anywhere in a thread...

[Drew Dowdell]

Does anyone else not see it?

[Croc]

AH! I see a little thing that just says in text "Currently viewing all posts. Change threshold?" But it isn't a menu, at least not prior to clicking on it.

Yeah, it just isn't a menu until you click on it.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Croc

[AAS]

Still not seeing that menu anywhere in a thread...

Does anyone else not see it?

It's not so much a drop-down menu, as just a link under the last post that reads "Currently viewing all posts. Change threshold?".

[Robert Hall]

It's not so much a drop-down menu, as just a link under the last post that reads "Currently viewing all posts. Change threshold?".

Ahh...finally noticed it. Pale blue 2 pt font on dark blue strip.

[Z-06]

AH! I see a little thing that just says in text "Currently viewing all posts. Change threshold?" But it isn't a menu, at least not prior to clicking on it.

Yeah, it just isn't a menu until you click on it.

+1. You gotta click it or ticket.

[Intrepidation]

Great system. We use it on LHF and DI.net. Everyone seems respectful of the system, and I like to think we on this bored will be as well.

[Camino LS6]

I've never ignored anyone, and I won't now.

[Paolino]

I've only had to ignore one person (which is pointless because when someone quotes them their post appears in the quote), but I think I will like this system more.

[Z-06]

Hey!!! Don't put Mr. Newsfeeder under the Reputation Sword. If his reputation goes down people will not see the entire article.

[Robert Hall]

Hey!!! Don't put Mr. Newsfeeder under the Reputation Sword. If his reputation goes down people will not see the entire article.

Good point. He seems to be a 'just the facts' kind of guy, no bias or editorial slant that I can see..

[Intrepidation]

[daves87rs]

I've never ignored anyone, and I won't now.

+1

[balthazar]

>>"I've never ignored anyone, and I won't now."<<

+2.

[Robert Hall]

I checked my ignore list..it has one, a banned user called 'lance armstrong's testicles'...someone long gone, I think.

IIRC, I used to add 68 occasionally when his delusional hysteria got too over the top, but then remove him from the list after a few days.

[vonVeezelsnider]

I can't say I've ever been tempted to ignore someone on this site, so I'll have to think seriously about any rep points I give out...

[Drew Dowdell]

Rep points can be used to give props to people too. If you like a post, think it's especially informative, or funny, give it a rep point.

[Blake Noble]

I don't see this feature lasting very long ...

[FAPTurbo]

[Croc]

OK, I keep being told I've reached my quota for POSITIVE feedback. Really? We're going to limit POSITIVE feedback? C'mon now...

Edited December 7, 2009 by Croc

[Drew Dowdell]

yes, because we don't want people gaming the system.

[FAPTurbo]

I still think this system is really not worth it. I know I can only refer to gaming communities, but people can get upset over rep points, and I don't think they're really fair.

[Robert Hall]

About the only forum I frequent that has a feature like this IIRC is Slashdot.

[Drew Dowdell]

It's actually the Slashdot model that I wish we could offer here. SD is largely self moderated.

[Robert Hall]

It's actually the Slashdot model that I wish we could offer here. SD is largely self moderated.

Yes, it's pretty effective... I've done a bit of moderation on there over the years...

[Croc]

yes, because we don't want people gaming the system.

Alright, well I personally think the quota should be much higher...but frankly it's YOUR rep and those of a handful of other posters who regularly make particularly insightful posts that will be held back...

[Drew Dowdell]

rep points don't expire. You'll build them up forever.

[Croc]

rep points don't expire. You'll build them up forever.

Of course not; I'm just saying I'd be able to bestow more positive rep points with a higher quota. Not unlimited--but higher than what is currently available (seems like ~10/day, whereas ~20 or ~25 would be more appropriate for a board with this much traffic/posts IMO). I mean, once I hit quota, I doubt I'll remember "hey, tomorrow I should go back and try to rate this post again," because there will be plenty of new ones appearing.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Croc

[regfootball]

the whole rep thing is cheesy and accomplishes nothing. if you have a disagreement with someone, you respect that they have a disagreement, a decision had to be made whether the disagreement is detrimental to the whole group function in any way. If its merely a difference of opinion that can be validated either way, then all you are doing is promoting group think and a popularity contest of the larger group.

its one thing to have a disagreement with someone, debate it, and both learn something from it. its another to simply say you don't like it and throw a number at it and be closed minded about having multiple viewpoints. or shall i say DIVERSITY.

it becomes nothing less than like those websites where you rate people based on their looks.

hard to say your a website of biggest critics when you are going to slam people for being critics.

and besides, this is not a discussion forum about video games and gaming with that whole immature set of folks.

the only thing a rating systems does within this group is just a way to create more division and promote divisive attitudes.

Edited December 8, 2009 by regfootball

[Croc]

the whole rep thing is cheesy and accomplishes nothing. if you have a disagreement with someone, you respect that they have a disagreement, a decision had to be made whether the disagreement is detrimental to the whole group function in any way. If its merely a difference of opinion that can be validated either way, then all you are doing is promoting group think and a popularity contest of the larger group.

its one thing to have a disagreement with someone, debate it, and both learn something from it. its another to simply say you don't like it and throw a number at it and be closed minded about having multiple viewpoints. or shall i say DIVERSITY.

it becomes nothing less than like those websites where you rate people based on their looks.

hard to say your a website of biggest critics when you are going to slam people for being critics.

and besides, this is not a discussion forum about video games and gaming with that whole immature set of folks.

the only thing a rating systems does within this group is just a way to create more division and promote divisive attitudes.

A lot of this is true. I dunno, I just wish I could give more positive feedback. I can see why negative would be limited, especially for the reasons you just stated, but positive feedback shouldn't be limited; that's just ridiculous.

[Drew Dowdell]

the whole rep thing is cheesy and accomplishes nothing. if you have a disagreement with someone, you respect that they have a disagreement, a decision had to be made whether the disagreement is detrimental to the whole group function in any way. If its merely a difference of opinion that can be validated either way, then all you are doing is promoting group think and a popularity contest of the larger group.

its one thing to have a disagreement with someone, debate it, and both learn something from it. its another to simply say you don't like it and throw a number at it and be closed minded about having multiple viewpoints. or shall i say DIVERSITY.

it becomes nothing less than like those websites where you rate people based on their looks.

hard to say your a website of biggest critics when you are going to slam people for being critics.

and besides, this is not a discussion forum about video games and gaming with that whole immature set of folks.

the only thing a rating systems does within this group is just a way to create more division and promote divisive attitudes.

The idea behind this is so that there is a level of self moderation here. The population of C&G is generally fair... I'm monitoring the logs and watching for abuse. The greatness of the system is that if you see a post that you feel has been repped unfairly, you can rep it the other direction. If a moderator unapproves a post, the post goes away and you don't ever get to see it.

[Drew Dowdell]

A lot of this is true. I dunno, I just wish I could give more positive feedback. I can see why negative would be limited, especially for the reasons you just stated, but positive feedback shouldn't be limited; that's just ridiculous.

If I had my way, you'd have a set number of points to use either for positive rep or negative rep, it'd be up to you. Unfortunately, the software makes me set a quota on each.

[Robert Hall]

Seems how the timing on the quotas are determined doesn't work well. I just tried to vote up one post and got a message "You've used your quota for positive for today" or some similar. That is incorrect, an invalid response--it was the first one I tried to mark today. I marked several yesterday...it probably doesn't account for time zones, since 10pm here is midnight EST.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[mustang84]

the whole rep thing is cheesy and accomplishes nothing. if you have a disagreement with someone, you respect that they have a disagreement, a decision had to be made whether the disagreement is detrimental to the whole group function in any way. If its merely a difference of opinion that can be validated either way, then all you are doing is promoting group think and a popularity contest of the larger group.

its one thing to have a disagreement with someone, debate it, and both learn something from it. its another to simply say you don't like it and throw a number at it and be closed minded about having multiple viewpoints. or shall i say DIVERSITY.

it becomes nothing less than like those websites where you rate people based on their looks.

hard to say your a website of biggest critics when you are going to slam people for being critics.

and besides, this is not a discussion forum about video games and gaming with that whole immature set of folks.

the only thing a rating systems does within this group is just a way to create more division and promote divisive attitudes.

Reg has a good point. We have a local news site with a comments section that allows posters to award or take away reputation points from other posters. It's a great concept in theory, but it gets widely abused. It has come to the point where a handful of people who frequent the site will rate anything negatively they disagree with, or they will rate up anything their website buddies post. Some of the most valid and rational viewpoints get torn down because of the rating system, and the person decides to no longer bother.

I do agree that our member base is generally fair however, so I don't see widespread abuse of this rating system.

[Intrepidation]

So far the only things I've seen repped down are completely asinine (not intellectual disagreements) posts. Otherwise everything else neutral for the most part with rep ups here and there.

[Justin Bimmer]

While I 90% agree with Reg's post here, I too feel that if you are going to post something that is totally inappropriate but not to the point that it gets unapproved, or if you post something that obviously was not thought out or can be backed up you are going to get a -1 from people.

Edited December 9, 2009 by JamesBond
Changed from 100 because I don't think rep is cheesy.

[Croc]

Frankly, if we have a moderating team, I don't see the NEED for the rep system. I also think that in the case of smk, people automatically vote him down. I see his negative reps are already quite high, and some of those posts actually weren't bad at all.

[regfootball]

Reg has a good point. We have a local news site with a comments section that allows posters to award or take away reputation points from other posters. It's a great concept in theory, but it gets widely abused. It has come to the point where a handful of people who frequent the site will rate anything negatively they disagree with, or they will rate up anything their website buddies post. Some of the most valid and rational viewpoints get torn down because of the rating system, and the person decides to no longer bother.

I do agree that our member base is generally fair however, so I don't see widespread abuse of this rating system.

right, that sort of thing goes on in other places, and all it is is sport for those who derive entertainment from rating people on the internet, if you don't get out of the house much and can't score with your friends and such, its too easy to just sit and take your frustrations out by rating people on the net.

you know, it shouldn't be rating a poster, either. it simply should be, do you like that particular post or not? Agree or disagree? Well, that's what 'reply with quote is for'.

We're not in the business or sport of rating people. Someone says something, its either something you agree or disagree with, or its something you can expand upon, or learn from. In some cases its another point of view that makes you go, 'why yes, that could be the case as well'.

But to give people a points system for simply not liking someone, is all it amounts too.

While I understand the desire to have some sort of self moderation, a point system is not going to get it very far I don't feel. Instead of Johnny negative thinking its making a world impact by docking points on someone because they either don't like them personally, or thinks differently about something doesn't accomplish anything but to foster division. If you don't agree on someTHING, deal with that notion that opposing viewpoints do exist and yours may or may not ultimately be wrong, and if the other person bothers you that much that perhaps instead of clicking points to get back at them maybe you would rather engage in a critical debate about the issue or whatever and resolve it in adult fashion.

I really had no plans to use or recognize this feature at all myself....although if I do end up using it it will generally to complement someone for something.