The following changes are being implemented to the rep system. 1) The rep options (on the comments dialogue box) have changed. Hopefully it will be clear this isn't a popularity contest. 2) Old rep will "expire" on a regular, rolling basis. Flame away.
I don't think that will be the case, but one can always hope. So does that mean that a persons rep will fluctuate?
A few questions: Can anyone tell me how this 'rep reduction' has been formulated? Because I see some people have lost over 5 green squares and others lost none at all, how come? How much will the reviewed rep reductions take off per time? If you have a period of inactivity on the boards will your rep reduce in your absence? What was the determining factor in deciding what rep poins people could keep and what would be lost? e.g I had rep from the start of the month kept, yet rep from the middle of the month is gone, why? Thanks for your time.
It appears to be less than 30. I know I had rep a few times in July, but only my August numbers show. Not that it matters, just an observation.
I don't understand the 60-90 day range. Did some people keep more rep than others? Edited to say that what I'm really asking is if different rules were applied to different users.
so does this apply if you have over 60+ days of inactivity? If you have a period of inactivity on the boards will your rep reduce in your absence?
some people have the same amount of rp as they did beforehand whilstt others are back to 1green square again after haviing 5
I don't agree with the idea of expiring reputation. If a post was good enough for rep "back then," it is good enough for rep now. Some of us don't post on BigSoccer every day, but when we do we try to make a well-informed point designed to help somebody else. For example, in the referee forum rep is not handed out very often from what I can see. But, when it is it usually means that particular post was very well thought-out and helpful. A referee poster with a high rep can usually be trusted as somebody who really knows what he or she is talking about. This is vital to the discussion in that forum. Under the new system none of the referee posters will ever garner up enough rep points to have their status changed -- and even if they do, it will just disappear again. I've been a member for awhile now and was proud I earned 99 rep points solely from the referee forum. Now I have 16, and I cannot go back and re-read some of the posts that did earn myself positive rep because they have disappeared from the "rep history." Those are the posts that I like to share with others needing advice -- both on the forum and off. BigSoccer has almost become my own repository of conventional wisdom I've learned over my long career of officiating, with the rep'd posts being the most valuable. Not anymore. Anyway, I don't really care about the actual point value -- 99 or 16 doesn't matter to me. What I do not like is having the history of rep'd posts disappearing along with the points. If you can find some way to keep the history but toss the points that would be acceptable to me.
all rep before a certain time stamp was deleted. it's that's simple. the time stamp was somewhere between 30 and 60 days ago. it was meant to be 60-90 but i read the timestamp wrong.
I like the changes, but I would prefer if one of the options wasn't italicized when the other one is. Also, one of the big things I neg-rep for is posters who just flatout lie. On a discussion board, we ought to be able to trust that some poster has written what he thinks is true to the best of his knowledge. If we have to wrestle and validate a poster's stuff, you just get bogged down. I also would prefer if the neg-rep was written differently, more inclusively. Finally, I think you shouldn't be able to give neg-rep without a comment. If you're gonna neg-rep, you should take the time to tell why. But overall, good work.
I just want to second what Statesman said. The referee forum is probably one of the few forums where rep points are not abused or used as "popularity points". Since many people in the referee forum only post in that forum (and, as Statesman said, reputation is rarely given out), it is very difficult to attain a high reputation; so a poster with a high reputation can be seen by other posters as 'someone that knows what they are talking about' (which is relatively important when talking about refereeing...and yes, I know I just opened myself up to jokes about MLS refereeing). Anyway, in effect, the reputation system in the referee forum was working as it was supposed to be. But, I do know that the referee forum is only one (relatively unpopular) forum of hundreds on these boards. So, if there was a technical reason to have reputation expire on a rolling basis, I understand the change; I'd just like to hear what the logic behind that change is? Other than that change, I do like all the other alterations made to the reputation system.
One other suggestion. Sometimes a poster does something annoying, but I don't want to go to an extreme and neg-rep them, and I don't want to get OT by bringing it up in the thread. For example, it annoys me when a poster quotes a 25 line post and then writes "Good post." Um, you didn't need to clip the whole thing. I know AndyMead hates text message writing. Could we have a "neutral" or something option, that doesn't affect rep., but allows you to call attention to something. It might help keep threads on topic, at least a little bit. OK.
lol ,you can change your rep points system as much as you want... at the end of the day only the "popular" posters will get any rep. All the rep will filter back to the same people. With the rep points being removed regularly that guarantee's that only people who are "popular" or part of "rep giving" cliques will ever have any rep.
yeah I was like, how the hell did I lose that nipple? and if you recieve neg rep, after a certain amount of time will that dissapear as well? and your rep would go up with the passing of dated neg rep? Lord, why is this starting to sound like an algebra problem?
Re: yeah I like the rolling rep even though it cut my points in half because otherwise one comment that draws a strong negative reaction (like agreeing with a certain call in euro2004...ahem) can wash out generally positive reaction to a large number of your posts over time. BTW it is not keeping 60-90 days. I lost rep from the end of July so it looks like less than 30 is being kept