# What's with the inflated rep system?



## Ella (Aug 9, 2007)

I'm on some other boards with the exact same rep system... This one is obviously out of control...

people have 26 stars... are there any plans to reset it, fix it, SOMETHING?


----------



## Blindside (Aug 9, 2007)

Ella said:


> I'm on some other boards with the exact same rep system... This one is obviously out of control...
> 
> people have 26 stars... are there any plans to reset it, fix it, SOMETHING?


 
Any rep system goes out of control sooner or later.  To be honest, the folks on here with lots of stars tend to be our better posters, which is the way its supposed to be.  You can always disable your rep if you don't want to play the game, several members have.

Lamont


----------



## terryl965 (Aug 9, 2007)

Ella said:


> I'm on some other boards with the exact same rep system... This one is obviously out of control...
> 
> people have 26 stars... are there any plans to reset it, fix it, SOMETHING?


 

I believe all that have those high numbers are with there wieght in gold around here. The rep system is just that a system right or wrong we all have a choice whether to play or not. Ella these people have been here for years it is not like they started two months ago, it has been a long hard road for all. enjoy and relax have fun.


----------



## Drac (Aug 9, 2007)

I too am a member of some other boards, where I have no reps to speak of because I find the threads *BORING *so I don't post...I elect to be here as there is *ALWAYS *some controversy brewing...


----------



## 14 Kempo (Aug 9, 2007)

Me, I have little rep points compared to many, many others. For the most part, I look up to those with high rep, thier posts are normally very informative and insightful. At times, I have questioned the rep points, and why what I feel is a very good post gets not reaction, but for the most part, it seems to be somewhat valid even if a bit inflated. As stated by others, there are ways to disable the rep points and not play the game.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 9, 2007)

The systems a bit different here.  Couple of tweaks, different point values, and the running it unreset for a long time. We've discussed a reset and revamp a few times, but it gets voted down. *shrug*  take it with a grain of salt.  The high reps tend to be the more active posters.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 9, 2007)

Or those with the most valuable things to say.

*Ella*, the rep system is a very good way of cutting down on the endless tide of "Me too!" posts that you tend to find in some quarters.  

If someone has made a very good point to which I can add nothing but would like to commend them on then the rep system is a perfect tool for the job.  PM's would work too but it's much easier to just hit the rep button, type in a short comment and on we go .

Plus, it is a good guide to how valuable someones contribution has been.  A poster such as *Exile* has a high 'rank' because almost every time he touches his keyboard he makes a positive addition to a subject.

At the end of the day, you don't have to pay any mind to it if you don't wish too.  I didn't even know what it was when I first came here - I only realised after I spotted a post in the 'congrats' thread with my name in it that those dots and stars actually indicated something .


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Aug 9, 2007)

I don't see much problem with the high number of stars.  They all deserve them.

One thing I have noticed is how quickly those stars are accumulating.  It took me a year to get my first one, and others have racked up in a few weeks.

I suspect this is because how much positive rep is worth is directly tied to number of posts and amount of personal rep.  So if somebody like Carol, Exile or Georgia reps you....well, you end up with a _lot_ of points.

I wouldn't mind seeing that tweaked a bit, as that inflation seems a little out of control.

But overall, Ella, relax and enjoy the board.  Those folks with lots of rep are good posters and valuable friends.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 9, 2007)

Personally it is nice when someone reps you after you have worked hard on a response.  Still having said that it is not needed!  This particular board is really nice because it has a friendly atmosphere and high quality discourse! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  That is what makes MartialTalk so special!


----------



## grydth (Aug 9, 2007)

Ella said:


> I'm on some other boards with the exact same rep system... This one is obviously out of control...
> 
> people have 26 stars... are there any plans to reset it, fix it, SOMETHING?



What would be truly awful, Ella, is if you were to get 5000 negative rep points for simply raising this...:uhohh:

Seriously, while I do not always agree with you, it is clear you have both a conscience and a brain. I'd say the same of the huge majority of those who have big star counts.

Hope you stay.


----------



## Dave Leverich (Aug 9, 2007)

I thought for some time that it was simply a post counter heh.
I do find though, as most, it seems to indicate those posts I'll find more informative.


----------



## Ella (Aug 9, 2007)

It wasn't meant to be an "I'm leaving" or "I'm infuriated" type post.... 

its just, to me, to a newer user, when EVERYONE has yellow dots, its hard to tell who are the more "respected" users. I mean, yellow is a pretty big deal elsewhere, but here, it's like I have to actually get to know the people before I decide whether or not their worth their weight in salt.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 9, 2007)

Naw, we're all just weird. 


and my weight in salt could deice a small road, LOL!!!!!  (ok, sidewalk, I aint that big.)


----------



## Carol (Aug 9, 2007)

Ella said:


> but here, it's like I have to actually get to know the people before I decide whether or not their worth their weight in salt.



Props!!


----------



## Ella (Aug 9, 2007)

OT: Carol, is your hair that color all by itself? It's beautiful.


----------



## Carol (Aug 9, 2007)

Ella said:


> OT: Carol, is your hair that color all by itself? It's beautiful.



Awww thanks!  Its close, but I give it a bit of help


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 9, 2007)

Color me confused, but I do not see anyone with 26 stars.  

The highest at the time of this post is 11 with a couple at 10. 

As stated by others, some do not like the rep system.

Some use it more than others.

Others like me can be disagreeable, so I get rep points sometimes, while others I do not.  :lol:

It is no big deal to me.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Aug 9, 2007)

Ella said:


> It wasn't meant to be an "I'm leaving" or "I'm infuriated" type post....
> 
> its just, to me, to a newer user, when EVERYONE has yellow dots, its hard to tell who are the more "respected" users. I mean, yellow is a pretty big deal elsewhere, but here, it's like I have to actually get to know the people before I decide whether or not their worth their weight in salt.



Actually Ella, that's what the rep system is supposed to signify. The gold pips, or stars, are the signs of well respected members. I know few people who rep just for the sake of repping. Those with high rep counts have been around a long time and have made many very valuable contributions to the board with very informative posts. Sometimes a new member comes in with a fountain of information and is willing to share in a respectful way, those people end up racking up the points fast too. I understand your thought process though. As a new member all those pips and stars can seem rather daunting, but rest assured, they have been hard earned. :asian:


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Aug 10, 2007)

Ella said:


> OT: Carol, is your hair that color all by itself? It's beautiful.



Aw, come off it, Ella.  Just 'cos all the boys have crushes on Carol doesn't mean you need to get in on the act.


----------



## Last Fearner (Aug 10, 2007)

Drac said:


> I elect to be here as there is *ALWAYS *some controversy brewing...


 
You mean, like a rep system running rampant, and out of CONTROL!!! :lol:




Ella said:


> here, it's like I have to actually get to know the people before I decide whether or not their worth their weight in salt.


Isn't that the way it should be? :asian:


I would say the rep system here, while not perfect, typically reflects those who contribute the most, and whose posts are better received by their peers. Occasionally, this means that the same group of like-minded individuals read each others posts, and continue to rep one another, "spreading" the love around to the same popular friends (kind of like High School all over again!).
:high5: :highfive: :cheers: artyon: :ladysman:

However, look at the number of posts and "join date" in relationship to the number of stars. Some have been here for several years, and posted many thousands of posts (beyond my level allotted internet time).  Naturally, if a person manages to squeeze out one intelligent thought every dozen or so posts, after ten thousand posts you are bound to have a constellation of stars. I don't think anyone has attained a galaxy yet, though. :lol:


----------



## exile (Aug 10, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> I would say the rep system here, while not perfect, typically reflects those who contribute the most, and whose posts are better received by their peers. Occasionally, this means that the same group of like-minded individuals read each others posts, and continue to rep one another, "spreading" the love around to the same popular friends (kind of like High School all over again!).



To say with any plausibility that this was going on, you would have to know who was repping whom, and how often. And this is information that only Admins, and maybe Senior Mods, have access to. So while it's a story, it's only one among many and would require access to information that those of us who are not senior staff do not possess. Actually _stating_ that it happens, as a matter of fact, and that it's the reason for inflated reps, as in the discussion to this point, therefore incorrectly implies access to information for which there _is_ no such access.

But of course, one can believe what one likes, eh? :wink1:


----------



## DavidCC (Aug 10, 2007)

It might be reasonable to introduce some point deterioration, a small increment towards zero over time... positive or negative.


----------



## exile (Aug 10, 2007)

DavidCC said:


> It might be reasonable to introduce some point deterioration, a small increment towards zero over time... positive or negative.



There've been discussions in the past about rep reform; Bob has solicited input from the members about whether or not there's a perceived problem and if so, what should be done about it. I gather from his assessment of  these discussions that there isn't at this point a consensus that a major problem exists... that's what the polls that have been run on the board have been saying, that not enough people think the setup is broken to warrant fixing in some particular way or other...

I could see altering the system in some way, maybe cycling people at the top of system out, or something like that&#8212;replacing their rep with a placeholder symbol of some sort that cannot be augmented... :idunno:


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 10, 2007)

The rep point system as it is; is fine IMO. What* really* drives me nuts is having to check "Little Gold Star" thread every 10 minutes to congratulate someone...  

Glad I didn't subscribe to that thread... my inbox would be busting everyday...


----------



## Ella (Aug 10, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> What* really* drives me nuts is having to check "Little Gold Star" thread every 10 minutes to congratulate someone...
> 
> Glad I didn't subscribe to that thread... my inbox would be busting everyday...



That's how the last person thread is, and "The next poster game"

I blame YOU for that second one. You should be forced to subscribe, seeing as what you've done to so many of the rest of us by creating that thread.


----------



## MA-Caver (Aug 11, 2007)

Ella said:


> That's how the last person thread is, and "The next poster game"
> 
> I blame YOU for that second one. You should be forced to subscribe, seeing as what you've done to so many of the rest of us by creating that thread.


T'wasn't ME who made that thread... I's innocent! 

it was TKDGirl's fault.... a far departure from Lisa to be sure but TKDGirl created that particular thread... so nnnyyaahhh


----------



## Last Fearner (Aug 12, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> I would say the rep system here, while not perfect, typically reflects those who contribute the most, and whose posts are better received by their peers. Occasionally, this means that the same group of like-minded individuals read each others posts, and continue to rep one another, "spreading" the love around to the same popular friends (kind of like High School all over again!).


 


exile said:


> To say with any plausibility that this was going on, you would have to know who was repping whom, and how often. And this is information that only Admins, and maybe Senior Mods, have access to. So while it's a story, it's only one among many and would require access to information that those of us who are not senior staff do not possess. Actually _stating_ that it happens, as a matter of fact, and that it's the reason for inflated reps, as in the discussion to this point, therefore incorrectly implies access to information for which there _is_ no such access.
> 
> But of course, one can believe what one likes, eh? :wink1:


 
Do you real feel it is necessary to clinically analaze every post that I make to find theoretical flaws in the logic and refute the "plausibility." My comments were not an indictment of the rep system, just a personal observation made from a bit of deductive, and inductive reasoning. If I had known there was going to be an inquisition into my comments, I would have saved you the trouble by saying, "it appears to me, a lowly mentor who lacks access to privileged information to back up my claim, that groups of like-minded individuals repeatedly rep each other, in my opinion."

Are you denying that this is what happens "occasionally" or are you just saying that you are not privy to the proof of my allegation. Obviously you are saying that *I* am not privy to that information, yet I do see the pattern of reps which increase my own stars. This IS a slice of that privileged information which supports my conclusions. Further, I see posts where some members say to others, "I would rep you, but I have to wait till you cycle off my list." I see the same people stroking each other's egos with comments within the thread that tells me they are in awe of each others brilliant posts, and chomping at the bit to rep them some more.  What I am NOT saying is that there is anything wrong with this.  It is just what I read and observe happening.

What is so implausible about my comment - - "like-minded individuals read each others posts, and continue to rep one another." Who else reads your posts and gives you positive reps but people who think and believe like you do, otherwise they wouldn't rep you positively. Furthermore, you can look at the number count of how many people have "viewed" a thread and compare that to the number of members here, and then look at the names of those who post in each thread. Those who are interested in KMA, CMA, or JMA tend to visit those threads and comment on each other's posts. With rare exception, it would "appear" that it is the same people visiting, reading, and repping each other over and over!

It's inductive reasoning: 2 + N = 5.  Where "N" is an unknown quantity it is not difficult to determine what "N" is. I might not have privileged access to "N" but I can observe the pattern, and reach a logical conclusion. Besides, I didn't intend to state it as a "matter of fact," and I could be wrong! I know what is happening on my rep list, and you know what is happening on yours.

But of course, one can deny what one likes, ad infinitum, eh? :wink1:


----------



## Kacey (Aug 12, 2007)

For those with questions about the rep system, there is a post about it in the FAQ section.  The part that seems to be in question here has to do with who can rep who, and how often - the policy is as follows:



> *Q - How does it all work?*
> 
> A - Default reputation is 10.
> 
> ...


----------



## exile (Aug 12, 2007)

Last Fearner said:


> If I had known there was going to be an inquisition into my comments, I would have saved you the trouble by saying, "it appears to me, a lowly mentor who lacks access to privileged information to back up my claim, that groups of like-minded individuals repeatedly rep each other, in my opinion."



I also happen to lack that information, LF, as I stated in the post you're responding to, and I'm uncertain as to why lowliness or any other judgments like that come into it. As I pointed out explicitly, there are only a few people who possess the necessary information to make the claim that this is what happens and, like you, I am not one of them: I mentioned specifically `Admins and maybe Senior Mods' (Seniors/Supers and up). And that is obviously not me, any more than you.  But the thread OP is about why the rep system works the way it does, and if I were to state as fact that the reason for this situation is the existence of `repping circles' of the kind you mention, I'd be implying that I knew something which I don't in fact know. I have no clue who gives anyone but me rep, or why. Saying that `groups of people rep each other in way that  
has some bearing on the thread topic' would express something that only Bob, Lisa, Shesulsa, MJS and maybe a few other people actually have the data to assert as a fact. If you reformulate your original statement along the lines you did, you're simply saying that, to the extent we're talking about why the rep system is out of control, you have an opinion whose factual basis you don't have evidence for.



Last Fearner said:


> Are you denying that this is what happens "occasionally" or are you just saying that you are not privy to the proof of my allegation.



I would neither deny it nor assert that `this is what happens', since I don't know any more than you do just what the repping patterns over the board are. I _do_ believe that there's a far simpler explanation for the massive rep levels as a whole, though, which _is_ both publically available and predictable from the way rep power increases with rep, but leaving that aside for a moment,  I am not privy to the proof that the existence of repping circles, where `occasionally' knots of people form who _repeatedly_ rep each other into exaggerated numbers&#8212;the question the OP is asking about&#8212;exist. And as I say, only the Top Brass are privy to the facts bearing on that question.



Last Fearner said:


> *Obviously you are saying that I am not privy to that information,* yet I do see the pattern of reps which increase my own stars. This IS a slice of that privileged information which supports my conclusions.



Let me get this straight: in saying



Last Fearner said:


> Occasionally, this means that the same group of like-minded individuals read each others posts, and continue to rep one another, "spreading" the love around to the same popular friends (kind of like High School all over again!).
> :high5: :highfive: :cheers: artyon: :ladysman:



you actually intended something closer to 

_Occasionally, this means that I and various like-minded individuals read each others posts, and continue to rep one another, "spreading" the love around to the same popular friends (kind of like High School all over again!).
:high5: :highfive: :cheers: artyon: :ladysman:_

?? If so, it wasn't clear from your post. The idea of ongoing repping circles of the kind you bring up has in fact been raised in the past, at least twice that I recall, in discussion of high rep counts, and in at least one case was  very firmly denied by the supposed members of these alleged mutual repping groups. 



Last Fearner said:


> Further, I see posts where some members say to others, "I would rep you, but I have to wait till you cycle off my list." I see the same people stroking each other's egos with comments within the thread that tells me they are in awe of each others brilliant posts, and chomping at the bit to rep them some more.  What I am NOT saying is that there is anything wrong with this.  It is just what I read and observe happening.



But what you report has nothing necessarily to do with repping circles that correspond to the `high school' behavior you allude to, where members of an in-group persist in trading visible signs of their own membership in that group, as mutual reinforcement of in-group membership. What you're referring to simply the possibility that people will give rep to people whose points of view they agree with&#8212;something that's far more likely than people giving rep to people whom they _disagree_ with (though I imagine that that happens too). Given a rep system, and given that people use it to reward others they agree with and withhold it from those they disagree with, it's pretty much going to be the default that certain people will rep each other more often (because the agree with each other) than they will others (since they disagree with those others). Groups of people _repeatedly_ and deliberately repping each other into higher numbers, à la high school, is something quite separate, and _that_ is what would require knowledge that only Admins have access to.




Last Fearner said:


> What is so implausible about my comment - - "like-minded individuals read each others posts, and continue to rep one another." Who else reads your posts and gives you positive reps but people who think and believe like you do, otherwise they wouldn't rep you positively.



Exactly, so how does this bear on the question of how the rep system has gotten, as per the OP and your own response to it, `out of control'? What you're describing here is just a fact about rep systems in general; I had _thought_&#8212;apparently incorrectly&#8212;that you were suggesting that this pattern had something to do with why the rep system on MT is `out of control', since otherwise it's simply a statement about rep systems that's inherent in having a rep system in the first place. 



Last Fearner said:


> Furthermore, you can look at the number count of how many people have "viewed" a thread and compare that to the number of members here, and then look at the names of those who post in each thread. Those who are interested in KMA, CMA, or JMA tend to visit those threads and comment on each other's posts. With rare exception, it would "appear" that it is the same people visiting, reading, and repping each other over and over!



Again, people will tend to gravitate to threads that interest them, and once there will rep, maybe more than once, people whose views they agree with, and that will almost certainly show up in any repping system that's actually put in place. But in the context of the OP, and the comments about deliberate `sharing the love' in high-school popularity terms, it seems quite natural to draw the inference that your comments had a bearing on how it is that the rep system got out of control, and _that_ implies something more than just these inherent properties of repping systems&#8212;something much more like deliberate, repeated repping amongst a group of people to drive each other's numbers `out of control', and _that's_ what you would need information about that only the Admins have. 



Last Fearner said:


> It's inductive reasoning: 2 + N = 5.  Where "N" is an unknown quantity it is not difficult to determine what "N" is. I might not have privileged access to "N" but I can observe the pattern, and reach a logical conclusion. Besides, I didn't intend to state it as a "matter of fact," and I could be wrong! I know what is happening on my rep list, and you know what is happening on yours.



So what the conclusion is,  is this?&#8212;all you were saying is that people tend to rep other people whose views they agree with, sometimes more than once? I guess I don't see what this has to do with the high-school popularity mode you alluded to or an out-of-control rep system, but... :shrug: 

In terms of Ella's question, I gather from what LF says here that actually, _no one_ contributing to this discussionis saying that a contributing factor to the out-of-control aspect of the rep system is deliberately iterated repping amongst posses of members seeking to reciprocally build up their rep as a group. So then, where _is_ the `problem' coming from? The main factor in the high rep numbers a lot of people have accumulated is something that's mentioned in this thread here, which is really all about Ella's question. The key point is that if rep power increases with rep numbers, you will reach a point where you only need a relatively few reps from others to award a star to someone; their own rep power will be correspndingly increased, and a positive feedback loop is set up that will ultimately lead to exponential-scale rep explosions. A rep hit from the current  four or five highest-rep members will lead to one, or sometimes two gold pips appearing on the recipient's rep line, just going by the numbers, leading to more and more people with higher and higher rep, and the more such people, the faster others acquire higher and higher rep... ad infinitem. 

Or _is_ it ad infinitem? There was a lot of speculation that once people got to the end of their `star line', which looked as if it were going to be eleven stars, there would simply be no more room for rep increments and either a new symbol (I pleaded in vain for a `galaxy' symbol' early on, but now we see why no such symbol was in the works) would be introduced, or that rep line would freeze and no more could be given to that member. But now it seems as though rep can expand indefinitely, that there is no cap on the horizon, and that means that the drive towards exponential grown will continue inevitably. Mutual reinforcement of each other's `popularity' is irrelevant to this process: a rising tide lifts all boats, into the sky apparently. 

So if we're talking, as per the OP, about the `out of control' aspect of rep, probably the single most important thing to do is to would be to decouple rep numbers from rep power. Everyone's rep would have the same value. This was one of the possibilities that was considered in Bob's poll earlier this year about rep reform, but most people seemed to think that no action was called for.

BTW: thanks, Kacey, for posting that summary of the rep rules. There's one other that has a bearing on all this but isn't included in that list: you cannot rep the same post twice.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 12, 2007)

_*ADMIN. NOTE:

Ladies and Gentlemen, the reputation system has been discussed repeatedly.  If you'd like to read some discussion on the reputation system, some earlier comments on it and learn more about how we got to where we are, I'd like to suggest you run a search for "reputation+system" and peruse to your heart's content.

Suffice it to say there is no perfect system (even a lack of one), complaints of abuse are always welcome, and we're always looking at ways to make things better here.

Thank you,

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Administrator*_


----------



## Last Fearner (Aug 13, 2007)

Gee, exile. Me thinks thou dost protest too much!



exile said:


> "has some bearing..."
> 
> "...have the data to assert as a fact."
> 
> ...


 
Hold on, wait till I get out my court book rules of evidence and dust it off. :readrules

So, who is the defendant and who is the prosecution here. I just want to get our roles straight before we continue the game.

*Bailiff:* All rise! Kangaroo court is now in session. The Honorable Administrator, Bob, presiding (that is, if you want to have some nonsensical fun reading this drivel):boing2:

*Bailiff:* Place your left hand on your keyboard, and raise your mouse in your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you Bob? 

*Last Fearner:* Truth? You want the *truth*?!? *YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!! *(sorry, couldn't resist)



exile said:


> I also happen to lack that information, LF, as I stated in the post you're responding to, and I'm uncertain as to why lowliness or any other judgments like that come into it. As I pointed out explicitly, there are only a few people who possess the necessary information to make the claim that this is what happens and, like you, I am not one of them: I mentioned specifically `Admins and maybe Senior Mods' (Seniors/Supers and up). And that is obviously not me, any more than you. But the thread OP is about why the rep system works the way it does, and if I were to state as fact that the reason for this situation is the existence of `repping circles' of the kind you mention, I'd be implying that I knew something which I don't in fact know. I have no clue who gives anyone but me rep, or why.


 
Last Fearner: Well, counselor, since your opening argument is a repeat and rephrase of what was said earlier, I'll waive my right to an opening statement and just ask the court recorder to read back into the record what my earlier testimony was.

exile: I would neither deny it nor assert that `this is what happens', since I don't know any more than you do just what the repping patterns over the board are.

Last Fearner: Ahhh, pleading ignorance, eh? So you don't know this to be a fact, nor do I. I believe we have already established that fact, counselor.

exile: I _do_ believe that there's a far simpler explanation for the massive rep levels as a whole, though, which _is_ both publically available and predictable from the way rep power increases with rep, but leaving that aside for a moment,

Last Fearner: Hmmmm, drawing conclusions and making predictions, are we now? "A far simpler explanation," eh? I was not aware that my explanation was all that complicated.

exile: I am not privy to the proof that the existence of repping circles, where `occasionally' knots of people form who _repeatedly_ rep each other into exaggerated numbers&#8212;the question the OP is asking about&#8212;exist. And as I say, only the Top Brass are privy to the facts bearing on that question.

Last Fearner: I accept your plea of ignorance that you are not aware of this going on.

exile: Let me get this straight: in saying

Last Fearner: Yes? 

exile: you actually intended something closer to 

_Occasionally, this means that I and various like-minded individuals read each others posts, and continue to rep one another, "spreading" the love around to the same popular friends (kind of like High School all over again!)._??

Last Fearner: I object!!! Counselor is leading the witness.

exile: If so, it wasn't clear from your post.

Last Fearner: I am sorry I wasn't clear. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

exile: The idea of ongoing repping circles of the kind you bring up has in fact been raised in the past, at least twice that I recall, in discussion of high rep counts, and in at least one case was very firmly denied by the supposed members of these alleged mutual repping groups. 

Last Fearner: Objection! Counsel is testifying on behalf of witnesses not present, and asserting facts not established in the record (or something like that). 

exile: But what you report has nothing necessarily to do with repping circles that correspond to the `high school' behavior you allude to...

Last Fearner: (Ahem, sidebar! fyi, exile, the "high school" comment was just a joke.... you know, humor. :lol: )

exile: ...where members of an in-group persist in trading visible signs of their own membership in that group, as mutual reinforcement of in-group membership.

Last Fearner: Point of order. That is not what I stated or implied. Like in high school, friends tend to stick up for and support their friends. People who have similar interests tend to hang out together, and participate in activities together. I am not just referring to an "in-group," but most people (except for the occasional "loner") will attract like-minded individuals and associate with one another.

exile: What you're referring to simply the possibility that people will give rep to people whose points of view they agree with&#8212;something that's far more likely than people giving rep to people whom they _disagree_ with...

Last Fearner: Yes, that is exactly what I am referring to. Although people can give negative rep to reduce the star value, the likely-hood is that those who have been here for a long time, know each other better, tend to agree with one another, and either give positive rep points, or just disagree within the thread itself (which has no affect on the star count)

exile: (though I imagine that that happens too).

Last Fearner: Formulating unsupported theories, are we? 

exile: Given a rep system, and given that people use it to reward others they agree with and withhold it from those they disagree with, it's pretty much going to be the default that certain people will rep each other more often (because the agree with each other) than they will others (since they disagree with those others).

Last Fearner: Once again, my esteemed colleague, you have restated my position nicely. 

exile: Groups of people _repeatedly_ and deliberately repping each other into higher numbers, à la high school, is something quite separate, and _that_ is what would require knowledge that only Admins have access to.

Last Fearner: Whoa, now counselor! First of all, didn't we just agree that some people who visit the same boards are going to rep each other more than once. I think that qualifies as "repeatedly." Furthermore, are you suggesting that people do not rep "deliberately?" I am not familiar with "accidental repping." :rofl: Is this a phenomenon that I have overlooked. Or are you implying that the deliberateness is *simply* to rep each other "into higher numbers" without there being any substance or reason to the rep. Now, I *never* suggested that (have the court recorder read the record back). This alleged plot to raise numbers as connected to my "high school" reference is an incorrectly drawn conclusion.

exile: Exactly, so how does this bear on the question of how the rep system has gotten, as per the OP and your own response to it, `out of control'?

Last Fearner: Objection, counselor. It was the OP who raised the issue of "out of control," not I. My comments simply state how and why it might "appear" out of control, but I also stated, if you read the record, *"I would say the rep system here, while not perfect, typically reflects those who contribute the most, and whose posts are better received by their peers."*  I believe that is what a rep system typically does (in my opinion - without having to bring in expert witness testimony!).

exile: What you're describing here is just a fact about rep systems in general;

Last Fearner: Yes! Exactly!! 

exile: I had _thought_&#8212;apparently incorrectly&#8212;that you were suggesting that this pattern had something to do with why the rep system on MT is `out of control',

Last Fearner: Yes, apparently your thought was incorrect. I was not the one who said that the rep system is 'out of control'.

exile: since otherwise it's simply a statement about rep systems that's inherent in having a rep system in the first place. 

Last Fearner: Precisely! 

exile: Again, people will tend to gravitate to threads that interest them, and once there will rep, maybe more than once, people whose views they agree with, and that will almost certainly show up in any repping system that's actually put in place.

Last Fearner: Brilliant! Once again we have restated the obvious, and this is exactly what I was saying. :highfive:

exile: But in the context of the OP, and the comments about deliberate `sharing the love' in high-school popularity terms, it seems quite natural to draw the inference that your comments had a bearing on how it is that the rep system got out of control, and _that_ implies something more than just these inherent properties of repping systems&#8212;something much more like deliberate, repeated repping amongst a group of people to drive each other's numbers `out of control', and _that's_ what you would need information about that only the Admins have.

Last Fearner: Objection... double objection.... triple objection!!! :tantrum: I move to strike (no, not strike exile),  I move to strike those comments from the record. Firstly, "deliberate" goes to the intention of the person giving rep. I can not testify to another person's intent, nor can you. Yet, I never stated, suggested, or implied that the repping between like-minded individuals was "intended" and "deliberate" solely for the purpose of raising rep points. Secondly, it might be natural for you to "draw the inference," but perhaps you shouldn't do that. Once again, I never said that the rep system was "out of control," nor did I state that these "like-minded" individuals were the only reason for the higher star count. My comment is that I believe it is a contributing factor, but alas, I have no proof to offer in support, and to that I concede the point. Thirdly, we have already established that certain select Administrators are the only ones who have access to special data that would indicate who is repping whom, and I would not suggest that this information be subpoenaed (not that I could do that in a kangaroo court such as this), but even the Administrators can not testify to the "intent" of the individual alleged repper!

exile: So what the conclusion is, is this?&#8212;all you were saying is that people tend to rep other people whose views they agree with, sometimes more than once?

Last Fearner: "conclusion?" Are you making my closing argument for me counselor? Yes, all I was saying is that people tend to rep other people whose views they agree with, sometimes more than once!!! I think you've finally got it! What confuses me, is that I have not heard you once denounce that statement, or claim that you had proof that it was incorrect, or that you even disagree with it. So, I really think we have wasted the court's time (not to mention the poor readers who have languished through this silly charade!)

exile: I guess I don't see what this has to do with the high-school popularity mode you alluded to or an out-of-control rep system, but... 

Last Fearner: Ok, I have to ammend this section since I did mention "popular friends" right before I alluded to the "high school" thing.  What I am saying is that people who are popular tend to attract many friends (hence the term "popular").  When these friends participate in activities together, they tend to out-number the less popular individuals who often choose not to actively participate.  Thus, if an award were to be chosen to be given by "popular vote," those who are friends are more likely to agree on one of their friends to receive it.  I'm not saying that the person would not be deserving of the award, it is the natural progression of popularity, and the concept that the majority rules.

In any event, I did not say that there was anything wrong with this, that it was being done intentionally for the sole purpose of driving star counts up, nor that it was a "fact" that this is hapening here (just my inductive reasoning from observing other patterns of behavior that are visible).  Also, I never said that it was an "*out-of-control rep system*." I think everyone else has probably gotten that by now! 

exile: In terms of Ella's question, I gather from what LF says here that actually....

Last Fearner: Uh, excuse me counselor! Why are you now referring to me in the third person. Oh, are you offering your closing argument to the jury.  Sorry for the interruption - - please continue. 



exile said:


> _no one_ contributing to this discussionis saying that a contributing factor to the out-of-control aspect of the rep system is deliberately iterated repping amongst posses of members seeking to reciprocally build up their rep as a group. So then, where _is_ the `problem' coming from? The main factor in the high rep numbers a lot of people have accumulated is something that's mentioned in this thread here, which is really all about Ella's question. The key point is that if rep power increases with rep numbers, you will reach a point where you only need a relatively few reps from others to award a star to someone; their own rep power will be correspndingly increased, and a positive feedback loop is set up that will ultimately lead to exponential-scale rep explosions. A rep hit from the current four or five highest-rep members will lead to one, or sometimes two gold pips appearing on the recipient's rep line, just going by the numbers, leading to more and more people with higher and higher rep, and the more such people, the faster others acquire higher and higher rep... ad infinitem.


 
exile: Or _is_ it ad infinitem?

Last Fearner: Actually, it's "ad infinitum." But please, continue! :ultracool



exile said:


> There was a lot of speculation that once people got to the end of their `star line', which looked as if it were going to be eleven stars, there would simply be no more room for rep increments and either a new symbol (I pleaded in vain for a `galaxy' symbol' early on, but now we see why no such symbol was in the works) would be introduced, or that rep line would freeze and no more could be given to that member. But now it seems as though rep can expand indefinitely, that there is no cap on the horizon, and that means that the drive towards exponential grown will continue inevitably.


 
exile: Mutual reinforcement of each other's `popularity' is irrelevant to this process: a rising tide lifts all boats, into the sky apparently.

Last Fearner: That is, unless the boat is in dry dock, or sunk to the bottom of the ocean, but I digress. 



exile said:


> So if we're talking, as per the OP, about the `out of control' aspect of rep, probably the single most important thing to do is to would be to decouple rep numbers from rep power. Everyone's rep would have the same value. This was one of the possibilities that was considered in Bob's poll earlier this year about rep reform, but most people seemed to think that no action was called for.


 
Last Fearner: Interesting. Very interesting! but.....



exile said:


> BTW: thanks, Kacey, for posting that summary of the rep rules. There's one other that has a bearing on all this but isn't included in that list: you cannot rep the same post twice.


 
Last Fearner: How about one more. You can not rep yourself, can you? If so, I'd have the most stars of anyone! :angel:

Last Fearner: Exile, I hope you realize I'm just messing with you here, and not to take this whole rep system debate too seriously. 

Bailff: All rise! Kangaroo court is adjourned! (I know, baliffs don't adjourn court, but I don't want to speak on behalf of the judge - - lol) :lfao:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 13, 2007)

Guys, you want pistols at 10 paces?

Bottom line:
- Some abuse happens. When we get complaints, we investigate. Otherwise we're too busy doing other things to grab a cold one and some popped corn and spend our evenings reading rep comments.
- The numbers are skewed. Active posters and long time members tend to have higher rep abilities.
- We're discussing some possible changes and will put em out therewhenever we finish thinking on em.
- parsley is edible and more than just a garnish.

Hope that covers everything.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 13, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Guys, you want pistols at 10 paces?
> 
> Bottom line:
> - Some abuse happens. When we get complaints, we investigate. Otherwise we're too busy doing other things to grab a cold one and some popped corn and spend our evenings reading rep comments.
> ...


 
Parsley is also a breath freshener...  And a parsing program.

But I don't think we need to cover everything with it!

I think it's simple; I don't think there's a lot of deliberate abuse of the rep system.  I think some of the numbers are natural reflections of human behavior; folks who post more tend to rep more, and they also tend to acquire more rep because people who post more have a better chance of getting repped -- and because people who post more (and end up with more reps & more rep power) tend to read and rep more.

Make ya dizzy enough with that sentence?


----------



## Ella (Aug 13, 2007)

jeez, I retract the freakin question.


----------



## terryl965 (Aug 13, 2007)

Ella said:


> jeez, I retract the freakin question.


 

It is ok Ella we all feel the same way.


----------



## Kacey (Aug 13, 2007)

Ella said:


> jeez, I retract the freakin question.



I wouldn't worry about it - you get any group of people together who feel strongly about something - MA in this case - and their enthusiasm is going to spill over onto other things; in this case, onto this discussion.

Yes, the rep system has gotten a little top-heavy in places - but compared to to other boards I've seen, it's really not that bad.  If you have questions about the rep system, as I said, look here, in the FAQs.  If you have comments, there's a discussion thread about the rep system here.  You are by no means the first person to ask this question, and I seriously doubt you'll be the last.


----------



## Tames D (Aug 13, 2007)

Ella said:


> jeez, I retract the freakin question.


These Rep System "discussions" always remind me of the Kenpo Red Stripes "discussions"...lol


----------



## bluemtn (Aug 13, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> T'wasn't ME who made that thread... I's innocent!
> 
> it was TKDGirl's fault.... a far departure from Lisa to be sure but TKDGirl created that particular thread... so nnnyyaahhh


 

Yes, I'm the guilty party of that thread.  I won't deny that!  But that was a long time ago, when the star was a distant "dream" of me actually receiving.  I'm still shocked that some people on here will give me rep...


----------



## Last Fearner (Aug 14, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Guys, you want pistols at 10 paces?


 
I'll take wet noodles at 5 paces! :ultracool



Bob Hubbard said:


> - parsley is edible and more than just a garnish.
> 
> Hope that covers everything.


 
I wasn't sure about that parsley thing, but thanks for clearing that up Bob! 

I have no complaints about the rep system here! Works fine in my opinion. Anyway, I view it mostly as just for fun, and not to be taken too seriously. It does help to let you know if others like what you say or not.

On the other hand, as Mark Twain said, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."


----------



## arnisador (Aug 14, 2007)

exile said:


> To say with any plausibility that this was going on, you would have to know who was repping whom, and how often. And this is information that only Admins, and maybe Senior Mods, have access to. So while it's a story, it's only one among many and would require access to information that those of us who are not senior staff do not possess. Actually _stating_ that it happens, as a matter of fact, and that it's the reason for inflated reps, as in the discussion to this point, therefore incorrectly implies access to information for which there _is_ no such access.



You don't think it's rather obvious? I see many posts like "I _owe _you rep." or "I tried to rep. you but it turns out that I have to spread some around first" or "I repped him because he had repped me" that incline me to believe that this is the case (plus the out-of-whack ratios of rep.-to-martial-arts-posts in several cases). Then there were the rep.-for-cash offers for the *Super-Supporting Memberships* (I forget the exact name). A great deal of rep. is given tit-for-tat. Repping circles? Yes, it's obvious that that explains a fair amount of rep. given (and it's probably unavoidable, incidentally), and that more generally much rep. is given to the _person_, not the _post_. Some abuse happens? True. The system is broken? Well, _I_ think so, but I recognize that I'm in the minority there. It would be hard to police the system? Well, that's just more evidence that it's broken, I'd say.

Yet I see that once again that discussing rep. is the third wire here...*Ella *has already had to defend herself, that she isn't necessarily planning on leaving just because she thinks something could be improved, and I'm sure I'll once again be given an invitation to leave the entire site if I don't like this one feature too. Now she retracts the question. I think we all know that if you truly _love _your website, you don't question its policies. That's just defeatism.



Last Fearner said:


> On the other hand, as Mark Twain said, "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."



Indeed.


----------



## MJS (Aug 15, 2007)

Admin Note:

Folks,

As its already been said, there are a number of threads regarding this system.  The Steering Board is currently discussing the rep issues.  This thread will remain closed.  We will hopefully have a solution soon.

Mike Slosek
MT Asst. Admin


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 15, 2007)

Here is an older post of mine regarding the reputation system and the consideration of its importance on MT.  I liken it to reputation in real life and feel very strongly that the value of your reputation according to others has the most value for you and you alone ... and that all depends upon your perspective.  Some people take the purpose of the rep system WAY too seriously, some are finger-pointers and tattle-tells, some LOVE negative rep and some LOVE positive rep.

It could be argued that someone with rep like mine can say these things easily - well ...  I *used* to be the highest-repped person on the board. To that I'd have to say ... So what? 

Again, we are looking for a better solution ... nevertheless my sentiments about reputation on message boards still stands.  Thanks for your patience and I will now be a lamo-lame-lamerer and quote myself. :lol2:



> I appreciate all the positive suggestions we receive.
> 
> I have something for all to consider when the reputation system gets your knickers in a knot:
> 
> ...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 15, 2007)

Side note: Theres a poll in the Admin Announcements area on a possible change.   Keep/Fix/Dump, go cast your vote.  What we do it up to y'all.


----------

