"Reputation"?

That is my point. The tool "could" be used for good, but most likely would be used by those who wish to take advantage of the system to enforce their agenda of hate and spite.

 

so what does "off the scale" mean?

 

I'm just worried about people giving negative reputation points just to be a jerk. Maybe members should ONLY be able to give positive reputation points. Leaving moderators to use negative reputation points as another means of discipline besides carding.

Then again some moderators are jerks, so whatever. I'm just going to leave the whole thing alone.

P.S.

Please don't turn these boards into highschool.

 

It's already happening to me.

Huss - this whole "reputation" thing is not going to work.

 

Or you could just not give a crap what a bunch of internet soccer nerds think of you. My life got infinitely better when I decided back in high school I wasn't going to care what the "popular" kids thought of me - it's probably the best decision I ever made in my life, or at least it's up there with buying those orange Pumas on sale for $29.99.

 

right, I don't care, which Is why I'm not going to fool with it. But Huss is talking about adding privileges or something to that effect for people with "good" reputations... That is where it becomes more than giving a crap "what a bunch of internet soccer nerds think of you." If I, or any other user, is denied some kind of access to the board because some shmuck is being a jerk and giving people negative "reputation" points for no reason, don't you think thats wrong?

If they are going to make this reputation thing mean something, or count towards something, It HAS TO BE Controlled. If they are not going to control it then the "reputation" should be window dressing only.

 

Skip,

You are missing the point.

I stopped caring a long time ago what the Big Soccer genetic anomalies thought of me. I know I'm far better than them.

However, when THEIR opinion affects my ability to grant positive "reputation" as the same level of other posters, I have a problem with that.

And FWIW, orange Pumas are never in style, even if they are on sale

 

relax, as with everything if it stinks, we'll dump it. we always do.

 

sniff sniff sniff.

(just trying to save the trouble)

 

Please. All the cool kids are wearing orange Pumas. Namely me.

Personally, I don't think user ratings are all that useful or a site like this - it makes sense for a computer user forum, where it really makes a difference if an opinion or advice comes from a knowledgeable poster.

But whatever, it's part of the software so there's no harm in trying. Huss is taking a wait-and-see approach, and that's good enough for me.

 

and me.

$29.99? well done.

 

I was just kidding with the orange Pumas joke, there.



I have no problem with Huss trying out new things. I'm just providing an opinion about the dangers of one of his new "programs". It's like a political campaign; I'm already taking a side against this "issue".

 

I would at least like to suggest that we be allowed to see who has voted on our "reputation". That seems vaguely fair.

 

You know, I looked back and I can't find a post where Huss says any such thing. It seems you're reading too much between the lines.

He mentions "filter out the noise", which I gather to mean that the admins might use the approval rating as a guide for moderating the boards, but there is no implication that reputation will be the determining factor in granting or denying priviledges.

That said, I reiterate my doubts about the effectiveness of this feature.

 

skipshady - I suspect this exchange is what they're talking about with adding or subtracting privileges based on reputation.

 

Okay, thanks. "Filter out the noise" makes more sense with the auto-ignore list, and I can see how some people could get upset about it.

Still, at this point, while it isn't exactly cure for cancer and it would require some work for it to be of any practical use, I don't think it's doing any harm.

 

Is there a way to see who has voted for or against your post, what posts have been voted for, and how many times?

 

That's all well and good, however the opportunity for a regular BigSoccer user who has a decent Reputation score (and he/she/it may not have received it simply due to actual merit) can still cause problems.

EDIT: A lot of the "personal attackers" and "trolls" on BigSoccer have enough "buddies" on BigSoccer who will vote positively for them no matter HOW they act towards others, which will counteract any attempt by others who are geniunely interested and motivated to do the right thing by discouraging their behavior of personal attacks and trolling.

I know of several BigSoccer users who would have nice "Reputation" scores (mostly because they got their buddies to vote for them just for sh!ts and giggles) who would happily knock other users' Reputation scores down because they think it's hilarious and funny to knock others down to make themselves feel better.

In sum, if we lived in a pollyanna BigSoccer world where everyone treats everyone else with respect, this system would work. (By the way, this kind of "everyone treats each other world" actually does exist. It's called the NotSoccer forum. Unfortunately, this kind of mature environment does not exist everywhere on BigSoccer.)

However, as in most other things in life, it will be the few assclowns who will ruin the premise of the system for everyone else. It will be another tool for them to abuse.

 

This whole reputation thing is a joke. What, are we all little junior high school girls who decide who is "popular" and part of the "in" crowd? Like I need snivelling nerds deciding my reputation for me. There should be an option to turn off this feature...and if you turn it off, then you can't give reputation points for/against others. That would be fair. Otherwise, only the geeks who play the middle of the road on every topic will escape unscathed. Those who actually have an opinion one way or the other will get skewed.

 

Andy, go chew on a brick.


Sincerely,

The Rivalry XI

 

I've seen this on another set of boards.
Thing is, it does seem merely to turn into a popularity contest. Each person is allowed to pass judgement on 15 posts daily. There are (as Huss made clear) certain criteria - the 'approval' and 'disapproval' is stronger or lighter depending on these criteria - and so the more weight they carry.
You do find however that the equivalent of the BSSM crowd, have stacks and stacks of the green blobs merely for being buddies with a load of others who can give out major 'approval' ratings - rather than for useful or interesting input. That's not to say I think it's a terrible idea, more that there should be a way to stop that happening.
Also, I think the amount of praise given should be limited - to perhaps 2 or 3 a day, maybe less. Otherwise you've got all this karma flying around not meaning anything.
Linking it to 'filtering out' things is a good idea - but again it should and will probably have to be monitored, as people simply can't be trusted to respect the system. If the mods aren't already over worked, perhaps they can oversee the 'good/bad' reputation points given out - check the reason, use their own judgement and allow or disallow them to stand. I'm not even sure if that's possible but I'm just passing on my experience with the system.
And yes, as Ian said - that other site does allow people to opt out of the system. You can neither recieve nor give out points.

 

FWIW, it appears that you can't simply continue to pile on "reputation" points to just a few people. When I have tried to learn how to use the system, it keeps telling me to "spread more reputation points before I can give it to (fill in whoever you were trying to give Rep points to).

That would somewhat curtail the extreme abuse of the system.