Reputation

[ooZer0]

The wording of the last sentence has a very rhetorical connotation to it.

I've never like those "buttons" you press on every post. Is there not a new type of revolutionizing way to distribute reputation points?

At first glance, you seem to be saying that there IS a revolutionary way that was recently thought up, but that the staff are un-informed to its existence. Although its true, that the sentence doesn't necessarily HAVE to be rhetorical, you also have to remember we co-exist on the same forum that D-Squid, Archer and others who use such linguistics as their M.O.

A better way of saying it would have been: "Isn't there a better way to distribute reputation points?"

But even then, some form of suggestion would generally be provided as an alternative to the "established" format. If there were something obviously better, or at least competitive, it would likely have been discussed between the staff in the first place before this thread came out.

[Gradius]

I've never like those "buttons" you press on every post.

You're not really obligated to give anybody rep points though.

[Arkalis]

Headpost!
+50 Rep

[Blazur]

Such as?

You earn 2 reputation points to distribute everytime somebody gives you positive rep, and every time you receive a negative rep it's a week before you can receive a positive one. Players are notified whenever they receive rep and by who. Admins can give out rep whenever they want and are free from limitations...and they are the ones that start the rep system by handing out points.

[Arkalis]

You earn 2 reputation points to distribute everytime somebody gives you positive rep, and every time you receive a negative rep it's a week before you can receive a positive one. Players are notified whenever they receive rep and by who. Admins can give out rep whenever they want and are free from limitations...and they are the ones that start the rep system by handing out points.

You kidding right?

[KDraconis]

Well, it certainly does prevent rep spamming, as well as people having more rep do get an advantage in the fact that they can rep people more. And someone getting negative repped won't mean the person can go on a wild vengeful negative-rep spree and it presents a good penalty.

Seems like a good idea, but then there's the problem of two people spamming each other rep points to get even more rep points to spam rep elsewhere.

I like this one better than "one rep a day" though, although it would require more control so that people don't boost each other.

[Todie]

Blizzforums had time-limitations (or postcount) to restrict how often you could +rep the same person, and/or if it was that you had to rep others first.

it wasnt exactly clear how the system worked, but as i recall it, there was no problem rpping up several people in quick succession.

i think it might be kind of counter-productive to give people "reputation points to spend" ... people would be +repping a decent post and then a day later theres a WTF awesome post but they have no points to rep it up with? GG.

[Twilice]

See there was one, thanks Blazur for saving my skin :P

But when you are given a negative one, maybe it would be better if it just reduce the amount of rep points you can distribute. (as well as giving you lesser rep-points)


Distributable reputation points given by one player should not be able to pass on to the same player again. (maybe you can't code it that way, but it would be good to prevent mirror-spamming)

[mr. peasant]

Not to rain on anyone's parade but I don't really agree with a rep system. I mean, is a point made by a person with a high reputation any more valid than a person with a low reputation? Will people perceive it as such? Personally, my main fear is that it will simply serve as a bragging point and promote elitism. Let's face it; if a person really is distinguished enough as an individual to deserve 'lots of rep points', odds are we will recognise the name on our own regardless. Moreover, most of us here are just out to have a good time and decent discussion; be it about Starcraft, Blizzard or the world at large regardless of who we're having a discussion with.

In addition, having a rep system might result in self-imposed censorship. For instance, a person might be unwilling to admit to an unpopular view (e.g. admit that they prefer WoW to SC2) or speak a harsh truth and get gang-repped down to death by others.

[spychi]

I agree, we don't have members that wise and old enough to have it working like it works at BF