What do you want me to do about Neg rep?

[dst]

There is a limit, currently 50 i think.

 

Can it be lowered?

[Chewett]

I believe so.

Can it be lowered?

[Rophs]

So you would entirely ban someone from the forum if you dont like their point of view?

No, if they consistently have a disruptive and toxic attitude ingame and on the forums to the point where it heavily detracts from other players' enjoyment of MD as a whole then it can be said that their existence is detrimental to the community and they should be removed until they can be a productive member of the community.

[Burns]

Can you add reputation to account settings? So people can choose to not show their rep, like they can choose to disable comments on their profile?

 

I don't think having a judge over reputation, in one way or another, is a good system. I can take any post in this thread and cook up a highly valid reason for positive or negative rep on the fly, don't even need to bother thinking about it before i get called out on it. And as long as the reason is valid on a personal level, telling somebody that the reason is invalid to the judge would mean they are invalidating you as a person, which sucks. It's a different matter to say that they lied about the reason, but without personal contact, there's no way to tell if that's the case. You can gift-wrap any reason to look presentable enough to pass for true feelings, add in the language factor and you're good to go with any sort of nonsense.

 

Maybe the system can be altered to not work indefinitely?

For example, rep points that are older than 6 months don't get counted for your forum rep? Or maybe it can be changed so every user can only give 50 positive or negative points to one person at a time, and when s/he adds the 51st negative point on a new post, the oldest negative point gets removed (or doesn't get counted for overall rep anymore, which would be even better imo)? I honestly don't know the technical boundaries here :/

[Chewett]

I wont be performing any code changes RE the forums after the latest announcement.

[No one]

If a player consistently displays toxic behavior and receives complaints about neg repping and annoying others then he/she should be removed from the community to prevent the toxicity from spreading.

As Chewett already said, you cannot remove one person based on repping.
Worst case scenario, he can exclude itself based on his/her opinion/s.

I would do absolutely nothing about Neg rep.  ;)

  
Sorry for neg reppng you.
You are right indeed and I agree with you : there is nothing to do to Neg rep but to those that use it too much.

[font='comic sans ms', cursive]@Chew: You tell me. What is the purpose of a reputation system existing and being on display for all to see?[/font]

There was quite a fuss a while ago about reputation being used / removed and how to use it. You can check it for yourself.
(I am not yet proficient writing on my tablet)

As the topic is about "What do you want me to do about Neg rep?" and about the ppl that give neg rep for the wrong reasons, then lets get back on topic.Please.

Unfortunately, Chewett, each case is unique for our comunityas we are few. Also, I/we don't know what options are in the interface.

My point of view is this:
As stated above a list should be done.A list with the repoted/reporters and cases andprobabli held by moderators. if more then a few cases point for an abuse, a trial should be held to judge it. Even a public trial if it is found appropriate.

_________________
off topic: reputation is ... just like ego, a really big topic, discussed in other older topics and not appropriate for an offtopic reply

[Ary Endleg]

Can you add reputation to account settings? So people can choose to not show their rep, like they can choose to disable comments on their profile?

 

You can do that? Somebody actually has comments enabled on their profile? I see the option in profile settings to enable it, but it didn't work when I tried it, so...

[Chewett]

You can do that? Somebody actually has comments enabled on their profile? I see the option in profile settings to enable it, but it didn't work when I tried it, so...

Is that a statement or a question?

[Ary Endleg]

Sorry for offtopic. I got confused over there, I had no idea that "comments" was actually same feature as status.

[Kamisha]

I would do absolutely nothing about Neg rep.  ;)

 

I actually have to agree with lash on this one. We don't need to dwell on a system which has no real impact on a persons play experience. If you are actually hurt by a negative reputation score you are obviously too sheltered. I have face to face rejection and shrugged it off and I have to wonder why a bunch of peoples digital avatars actually seems more harmful to people.

I often look at things from a detached point of view and this makes me unpopular and I am willing to take the negative reputation for that.

 

My final point of view is the Wookie can do what ever he wants to do with it but I see regulating it in anyway is not really necessary for such a trivial system.

[Rophs]

It's magical internet points.

[Lazarus]

I would do absolutely nothing about Neg rep.  ;)

[Rophs]

One website with a similar feature of magical internet points no longer shows the amount of ups and downs, just the net total.

[Prince Marvolo]

One website with a similar feature of magical internet points no longer shows the amount of ups and downs, just the net total.

If you're talking about Reddit, they are used way differently though - it's more a sorting system than anything else. 

[Azthor]

Unlike many features, the reputation system has no underlying purpose other than that of the myriad votes that gave birth to its current incarnation. Given the looseness of its purpose, it is outright unlikely that all will agree upon a given format. Resolving this through discussion alone may as well be an exercise in futility.

 

Myself, I see no reason to alter it in any form or fashion. We can ill agree on what constitutes misuse in many cases, and the clearly abusive cases are much more a symptom than the cause of the problem. If someone retroactively assigns negative reputation to a hundred or more posts of another user in a couple of days, clearly, they'd just as easily search for another outlet if barred from doing so.

 

If it has to be changed at all, or not so, given the unspecified premise of purpose under which the previous vote took place, I suggest the following votes be later undertaken to settle the matter:

 

A: Should the usage of the reputation system be held to any specific standards? [Y/N].

 

B: Which format should the reputation system take, if any? [List of the different formats available, per Chewett's availability].

 

If A has a majority for No, there is nothing to be done on that account. If the majority is for Yes, refer to C. B is a reiteration of the 2013 poll.

 

C: Which standards should the use of the reputation system be held to? [List of variants suggested in the pertinent thread].

[Jubaris]

The downside of the reputation system has been brought up, as well as why it should be here.

 

What we can do (can we, Chewie? :D), to avoid the subconscious distortion of someone's image with "a lot of green/red points", is to make the reputation (on a post - the profile reputation sum has already been brought up) hidden until a click is made.

 

So (bottom line), reputation point difference on a post is shown with a default value until you click on the box to see who liked/disliked the post.

I think this solves a lot of problems, and doesn't have any negative side-effect, on a first glance anyway, please correct me.

[Rophs]

Going off of Princ's idea, only allow people to see the general consensus of votes on any one post until they've voted up, down, or null. (Similar to forum polls) 

[Kamisha]

Although I am responding to this I want to make it clear that my stance is still the same as my earlier post.

 

Going off of Princ's idea, only allow people to see the general consensus of votes on any one post until they've voted up, down, or null. (Similar to forum polls) 

 

It seems most people aren't worried about what an individual post is rated as but what there total rating is so when we look at those profiles (I really have to ask who has time enough to care) directly people can feel happy that they have a green little number there. So truthfully it really seems like the actual important things who sees the final number and I wonder how you plan to police that.

 

Truthfully if this is really all this important to people and you cant get over it I would just say do away with the system completely. I looked at other forums that this site hosts and it seems like most forums have no rating system. Its not needed as I said earlier is just a damn useless number with no actual mechanics attached.

[No one]

Are you going to make this topic discussion about something offtopic?
As I said above, reputation and ego are big points not to be discussed offtopic.
This topic was for Chewett's options.

Mooooods, do split this damn topic.


_______offtopic_______

So (bottom line), reputation point difference on a post is shown with a default value until you click on the box to see who liked/disliked the post.
I think this solves a lot of problems, and doesn't have any negative side-effect, on a first glance anyway, please correct me.

What do you mean by default value?
And ... you mean to hide the value? Why? Reputation points on posts are there to express other's opinion on that post. Like a reply with no word. Why do you want to hide feedback?
And ... sometimes i pass through a topic i dont seem to enjoy only to see if it has some high feedback posts ( with high positive/negative reputation) and read those. Yea, it is not really fair but I read the topic before replying if I have something to say or just give the short feedback +/- to the post.
So, why would you hide my feedback/hide yours from me? Do you think that you'd like 100 posts stating: i dissagree player a on topic b & c?

____________
Mods?¿??? Edited September 10, 2014 by No one

[Jubaris]

@No one:

You haven't been paying attention, Chewett's dilemma was a natural conclusion of the current reputation system, so we're suggesting alternatives.

 

What I mean is that the reputation box of a post would not display a current sum of reputation points on it until you click it to see who liked/disliked it. The box would not show a number, or it would show the total number of people liking/disliking it, rather than the difference between liked/disliked, that's even more practical if you want to see which post stimulates most reaction.

The reason why it wouldn't the rep difference be blatantly shown is already explained. The red/green number stimulates presumptions for a lot of people, and is not helping for a reader to individually rate the post. When he wants to see opinions of others on the post, he will click the box and see which concrete players have liked/disliked a post, rather than becoming deceived by the glowing difference button.

 

edit: gave you a neg rep for not paying attention for the stream of the topic nor actually reading what I said there... and as a personal vendetta for neg repping me (and rophs) :D

Edited September 10, 2014 by Rhaegar Targaryen

[No one]

And I,as a revenge, will not poz/neg rep you :p
just my average null rep for you as you havent earned another yet.

Otherwise I dissagree with you. That value shows the 'interest'ness of the post and is part of the reply. It has to be shown.
(i will go hard on some now)
If there are ppl influenced by the difference/value then, I am sorry to say but, they weak of mind ( or how it is spelled). Anyway, everyone has its right to a reply influenced or not even if we dissagree with them/know better.

And I dissagree with you again : the topic is about rep spam rather then influenced rep points.
If spam is a problem that needs mostly individual addressing, influencing/manipulation is something we each face it everyday hundreds of times and it cannot be stopped.
One can fight spam a heavy fight but one can only win if it influences/manipulates others.

[Rophs]

My opinion on the rep matter:

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

[No one]

@rophs: that depends on the problem.
And, unless I am fed up with figting, it always bothers me.
I foolishly like/enjoy being fair to everybody and I always fight to keep it like that.
It is not fair, from mypoint of view, to treat all equally in limiting them instead of punishing just the guilty.

[Jubaris]

the topic is about rep spam rather then influenced rep points.

 

Spam can clearly be seen as spam if you look at the names behind those spamming points that repeat themselves constantly. It won't affect the general rating of a post if most of people understand that "player X obviously dislikes player Y and is constantly neg repping player Y on new posts". Furthermore, if the amount of total rep difference is not shown on a forum profile, then spamming someone doesn't really have a point, it has more chances to backfire because the society should figure out player X as a player that cannot weigh posts of others properly, and he will lose a percentage of his credibility.

 

If the points are already shown, then the spam does work in the interest of the spammer, because the spam point hides behind the number.

 

 

Touche on the weak minded part, but not all of us are totally independent of cunning subconscious messages, and we are trying to minimize the distortion of an image a random post has.

 

After all, it's about who dislikes it, not how many dislike it, I thought MD prefers depth, goes against the mainstream and hates democracy :))

 

---------

to help visualize the first part, imagine you, dst and eon neg repping dark demon's posts in shifts, so his every post has "by default" -2 or -3 points. A random average dude will be more quick to disregard his post because he will not bother a lot to see who liked/disliked it. But if he notices it is the same group of few people repping his posts, he will be more prone to disregard the mentioned reputation points.

 

Of course, we can say that a person should be able to individually rate a post, and not be radically affected by those reputation points, but those red and green numbers are direct suggestions for you to be more (or less) approving of a post, let's get rid of that trick.

Just keep a number of the amount of people that repped the post as a default value, to signify whether it is a popular post, rather than implying it is a good or a bad post.

[DARK DEMON]

On the profile to show a general agreement/disagreement of that persons posts.

 

And if a huge proportion of rep is given by a few people only repeatedly no matter what incredible reasons they seem to claim, there is definitely something wrong because it is not "general agreement/disagreement".