# Reputation System - Yay / Ney?



## Bob Hubbard

Should we bring back the rep-system, and if so, how?


----------



## OnlyAnEgg

Returning to a system that seems to have been flawed is not good.  I feel that anytime a rep is increased or decreased, there should be some accountability.

Being only a rough jewel when this hit the fan, it matters little to me.


----------



## terryl965

Bob the rep system is valuable to some members like myself, no-matter what you or anybody else does those that have no moral code about themself will abuse the system. Only allowing good rep points is not counter productive for those of us that understand negitivity, it can be a valuable tool in one's on personal growth. I for one would like to see it back but with extreme guidelines on how you can be removed from this site if you abuse the system which means somebody with authority needs to check in on it on a bi-weekly to see what is going on.

As you can see and already know this is not going to be a easy task for anybody, making people show there signature is probaly a good ideal but it will piss some people off but that may be the price for them tpo leave rep points.

I relize I'm not giving much help but I do know the value of the system you put in place for me.

Terry Lee Stoker


----------



## Eternal Beginner

I agree that accountability should be a part of this. No more dinging because you don't like someone as opposed to actually having an issue with what they wrote.

 But I only have 30 posts, so what do I know?


----------



## mrhnau

Would there be no hack to allow user names to be attached going forward, but leaving those in the past in the dark? I forsee problems if all revealed, but I also see problems with people who have had higher ratings complaining of a complete wash of their ratings. I wonder if this would cause people to go back and re-rep people for certain posts? Increase bandwidth problems like last month?

I tend to like the user name attached idea. If you have something negative to say, you should be capable of defending your opinion of need be. Would cut back systematic negative repping.

Would a section dedicated to issues with the system be useful? make it readable just by admins?

MrH


----------



## Lisa

I agree with Terry, make strict guidelines for those that think they can abuse the system, otherwise leave it as is.  I don't believe the system was faulty, the users that abused it were.

Nothing is fool proof.  Changing one thing or doing away with something will always have consequences and bring up other problems.


----------



## arnisador

Karma systems always cause trouble...but it's convenient and can be fun. I have mixed feelings, but I grew very tired of all the in-thread complainst about "...and to the person who dinged me for saying..." and such. To the extent that this solves that problem, I'm happy. But if it's not anonymous, it's basically a PM system. The rep. itself will usually correlate heavily with post count. I'm not sure it's worth the effort, but I'd use it if it was here.


----------



## Cryozombie

Put it back, the way it was, let the Mod team deal with allegations of Abuse.


----------



## Gemini

Eternal Beginner said:
			
		

> I agree that accountability should be a part of this. No more dinging because you don't like someone as opposed to actually having an issue with what they wrote.
> 
> But I only have 30 posts, so what do I know?


 You know a very relevant term. Accountability. I for one, agree with it. You have something to say, say it. Good or bad, stand behind it.


----------



## Jade Tigress

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Put it back, the way it was, let the Mod team deal with allegations of Abuse.


  Agreed. 

  Is there a way to disable rep for abusers?


----------



## Flatlander

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Put it back, the way it was, let the Mod team deal with allegations of Abuse.


I was going to rep you for this..... I agree.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Couple notes: 

People worry about losing past rep points. If we reset the system, it can't be helped. BUT! I believe that those who had high rep will again rise, and those with low rep will again sink. 

There's not much we can do about friends boosting their buddies, but we can crack down on the other comments IF people let us know in the correct manner. It's like using the RTM system to report issues with threads. Posting "where are the mods" or "close my account" in a 400 comment thread doesn't get you action. Using the PM and RTM systems will. Same here.  Someone hits you with something that bothers you, you have to let us know. Otherwise, we can't help.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Sil Lum TigerLady said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> Is there a way to disable rep for abusers?


 Yes.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka

I had to do a lot of schmoozing, palm-pressing, baby-kissing and butt-kissing to get my rep points, and darnit I want them back!

(oh, wait a minute...I never did any of those things for points.)

Well, on second thought, whatever is OK by me.


----------



## Sapper6

bring it back, the way it was.  allow the MT moderation team to do their jobs.  just because people are going to be able to see who dinged them isn't going to solve anything, it will only fan flames.

resetting everything over a couple cry-babie incidents doesn't make sense, at all.


----------



## Andrew Green

Is there a technical reason to need a reset to 0 if the annonymity is removed?  Or is it just to put everyone back on equal ground and start from scratch?


----------



## Grenadier

I'd like to see it back the same way it was before.  

 I realize that this opens up the possibility of abuse by some less than wholesome individuals, but that's something that a prune / kill / ban sequence can handle.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Is there a technical reason to need a reset to 0 if the annonymity is removed?  Or is it just to put everyone back on equal ground and start from scratch?


 People used the system before under the believe that it would be mostly anonymous. Reseting it "clears the slate" as it were, preserving past anonimity.


----------



## mrhnau

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> People used the system before under the believe that it would be mostly anonymous. Reseting it "clears the slate" as it were, preserving past anonimity.


No way to keep older reps anonymous? Personally, I would not care, but I'm sure there are alot that will!

Another question... I'm not sure if people will be upset about losing their reps. I personally don't care. However, would it be possible to just keep the actual numerical score, and removing the comments? As you said, people with high reps will get back up there I'm sure, but I imagine some people will be upset about losing their high standings... not too sure how many!

MrH


----------



## Andrew Green

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> People used the system before under the believe that it would be mostly anonymous. Reseting it "clears the slate" as it were, preserving past anonimity.


 How about retaining the scores but not where they came from?


----------



## Kenpodoc

Personally I liked the reps, the good ones are nice and the bad ones allow you reevaluate what you said with no need to change your mind. Restarting at 0 should be OK.  It might make sense to restat at 0 every year so that rep points express current opinion and not the length of time on martial talk. As to the weight of the red reps, it seems that most of those with overall negative reps earned them and likely were proud of the accomplishment. 

Jeff


----------



## Sapper6

anonimity with the rep system is *not* a bad thing.  dinging somebody for a comment should not be about a "personal attack".  it should be about allowing that person to reflect on a comment that didn't go over well.  instead, attaching names to reps will only personalize such and will be perceived as an attack.  this *will* boil over into the thread topic as two morons sling mud at each other.  we will see more suspensions, more locked threads, and more BS.  i've seen it firsthand.

you're going to have dumbasses with any system.  resetting everyone's reputation because of a couple whiners is senseless.

resetting grants immunity to the dickweeds while taking away from the people who actually contribute to this community.


----------



## mrhnau

Kenpodoc said:
			
		

> Personally I liked the reps, the good ones are nice and the bad ones allow you reevaluate what you said with no need to change your mind. Restarting at 0 should be OK. It might make sense to restat at 0 every year so that rep points express current opinion and not the length of time on martial talk. As to the weight of the red reps, it seems that most of those with overall negative reps earned them and likely were proud of the accomplishment.
> 
> Jeff


I thought about that... heck, if the system was fully programmable and easy to do so, you could have fun. Have a bunch of seperate reps. Have a martial rep and non-martial rep. keep a total rep too. keep a yearly rep for each of them LOL. you could go bananas 

of all of those, I'd like seeing a seperation of martial and non-martial reps. Good way to kind of tell if someone is knowledgable of their art, and not just a nice chap.

MrH


----------



## Sapper6

mrhnau said:
			
		

> of all of those, I'd like seeing a seperation of martial and non-martial reps. Good way to kind of tell if someone is knowledgable of their art, and not just a nice chap.
> 
> MrH



i disagree.  the rep system should be relative to *all* things discussed on MT, regardless of it's relation to martial arts.  you could have a member that is pretty knowledgeable about MA but is a total jerk and annoying *** outside of that.  i could care less about how much you know.  if you're a jerk, you're rep should reflect that.  the martial arts is not limited just to combat arts.  its' philosophy should bleed over to everything you do in life; the way you carry yourself in public, the manner in which you treat others, maturity, etc.


----------



## mrhnau

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> i disagree. the rep system should be relative to *all* things discussed on MT, regardless of it's relation to martial arts. you could have a member that is pretty knowledgeable about MA but is a total jerk and annoying *** outside of that. i could care less about how much you know. if you're a jerk, you're rep should reflect that. the martial arts is not limited just to combat arts. its' philosophy should bleed over to everything you do in life; the way you carry yourself in public, the manner in which you treat others, maturity, etc.


I partially agree. I do care how much people know, especially if they are portraying themselves as an expert. Showing both types of rep (plus a cumalative if you like) would let you identify both characteristics of an individual. You can tell if they are knowledgable and/or a jerk. If I see someone with an outstanding rep right now, I can't say for certain if they know alot in their art. Its a decent indicator, but not always true. I've seen some very knowledgable people who have low reps too.

Someone having a disagreement on a political topic or religious topic might receive alot of negative pings based on their personal beliefs. Should I think less of them when they state an opinion on their art of choice? They should of course present their ideas in a mature manner, but people take these religious and political things quite seriously. You can be as nice and polite as possible and still upset people.

Either way, its a moot point. I'm sure the rep system is not that easy to modify. Its just a day dream 

MrH


----------



## Jade Tigress

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Yes.


 Why not just disable the privelege to leave rep for those who abuse the system?


----------



## shesulsa

I say bring it back the way it was.  If people are going to abuse it or whine about how someone had more points than they do because of possible favoritism or something, they should be disallowed to use the rep point system.

 I know the moderation team is more than capable of handling abusers of the system.


----------



## shesulsa

Sil Lum TigerLady said:
			
		

> Why not just disable the privelege to leave rep for those who abuse the system?


 REP REP REP REP!!!!!!!!!! EVERYBODY CONSIDER SLTL AS HAVING AROUND 48 MORE REPUTATION POINTS!!!  HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!


----------



## Rick Wade

Bring it back I like it and it was fun.

However I didn't like the fact that I didn't always know who was giving or taking points.

V/R

Rick


----------



## OUMoose

I voted to bring it back with no anonymous dings/kudos.  The point about it possibly fanning a flame war is true, I agree.  However, only rarely was I ever dinged in a personal attack.  If that were the case, and I knew who the coward was, I could take the fight to them offline (PM's and whatnot).  With anon dings, my only recourse is to either heat the thread more, or go whine to an already overworked mod.  Most of the time it's relatively constructive, though, and gets me back on track.  

just my 2cp.


----------



## Jade Tigress

shesulsa said:
			
		

> REP REP REP REP!!!!!!!!!! EVERYBODY CONSIDER SLTL AS HAVING AROUND 48 MORE REPUTATION POINTS!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!


 Thank you. Thank you very much. *said in Elvis voice*


----------



## arnisador

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> i disagree. the rep system should be relative to *all* things discussed on MT, regardless of it's relation to martial arts. you could have a member that is pretty knowledgeable about MA but is a total jerk and annoying *** outside of that. i could care less about how much you know. if you're a jerk, you're rep should reflect that.


I like to think of rep. as reflecting posters who are knowledgeable about the arts, or at least even-handed and insightful in their discussions of them. You're discussing rep. as more of a marker of a good board-citizen.

As I cruise the board today, nearly every one of the many posts that say something like "I wish I had the rep. system now so I could give you rep. for that post!" is a social matter--someone who said something flattering to someone else, or something funny, or the like. So, I think your version is a more accurate reflection of the current reality--rep. is a barometer of social popularity. These people with high reps. may well be popular for all the right reasons, and this does serve to, in effect, guide new users to mentors on the site, but it also reinforces social vs. martial-related postings.

**Edit**: I wasn't referring to the post above. I didn't read *shesulsa*'s post about the 48 rep. points until after I had written and posted this.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

As of this posting, we have 38 votes. 36 for a return. 22 for an open system.
This poll runs for 2 more days, but if things continue as-is, I'll reactivate the system shortly.


----------



## Sapper6

arnisador said:
			
		

> I like to think of rep. as reflecting posters who are knowledgeable about the arts, or at least even-handed and insightful in their discussions of them. *You're discussing rep. as more of a marker of a good board-citizen.*



of course, because as long as this forum has arenas of topic discussion not relating to martial arts, that's exactly what it's going to be.  there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Old Fat Kenpoka

Well, if you take away the rep system, then there is little reason to play nice so....

 :2xBird2:  :2xBird2:  :2xBird2:  :2xBird2:  :2xBird2:  :2xBird2:  :2xBird2:  :2xBird2:

Please bring back the rep system.


----------



## arnisador

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> there is nothing wrong with that.


I agree. It's just good to be clear on what it means!


----------



## arnisador

Old Fat Kenpoka said:
			
		

> Well, if you take away the rep system, then there is little reason to play nice so....


It's nice to be reputable, but it's more reputable to be nice!

Or something like that...


----------



## mantis

arnisador said:
			
		

> It's nice to be reputable, but it's more reputable to be nice!
> 
> Or something like that...


 ah!
 u just ruined it by saying "or something like that"
 man, martial artist are wise peoples, arent they?


----------



## shesulsa

mantis said:
			
		

> man, martial artist are wise peoples, arent they?


 Some of us are, yes.:supcool:


----------



## Bob Hubbard

ok....here's the scoop.

- I have re-enabled the system as-is.

- When I upgrade MT I will be installing several enhancements to the system.

- If anyone has a problem with rep-received, contact a member of the admin team.

- Anyone caught abusing it will get -1- warning. After that, you will lose your ability to GIVE reputation. 

- We will be contacting a couple of individuals about comments in the system prior to today. Those will not be counted towards the 1 chance.


----------



## Andrew Green

I'm seeing green again...


----------



## Lisa

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I'm seeing green again...



YAY!


----------



## mantis

feels like there was a black-out and now electricity is back on!


----------



## Sapper6

i see the greenies are back but the rep comments are not. was that intentional?  just wondering.

**EDIT**  nevermind.  i had to click "show rep".


----------



## jfarnsworth

Everything will be alright until people start whining. It's supposed to be fun not **** anyone off.  :whip:


----------



## Jonathan Randall

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> ok....here's the scoop.
> 
> - I have re-enabled the system as-is.
> 
> - When I upgrade MT I will be installing several enhancements to the system.
> 
> - If anyone has a problem with rep-received, contact a member of the admin team.
> 
> - Anyone caught abusing it will get -1- warning. After that, you will lose your ability to GIVE reputation.
> 
> - We will be contacting a couple of individuals about comments in the system prior to today. Those will not be counted towards the 1 chance.


Thanks. Sounds fair to me. It helps (at least it did me) new members see who's who. I've really only encountered one high rep jerk - and he has since been banned. Now that I've been here a while it's not so important because I've become familiar with most of the frequent posting members so I don't need to see their "green stuff" to tell but new members will not be.


----------



## arnisador

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> ok....here's the scoop.
> 
> - I have re-enabled the system as-is.


 I gotta admit, it's good to be able to check it again!

 Well, the discussion has been worthwhile. It's made me think more about the rep. system. I'm curious what we'll see in the new and improved version!


----------



## shesulsa

All right, I think reputation is like manure - if you don't spread it around it doesn't work right, just sits there and stinks.

 So ... HAPPY REPUTATION, EVERYONE!! I gave out as much as I could in 24 hours.  Enjoy and may all our minds grow in the fertile land of MT-dom.

 Bob - I ran out before I hit you, but I'll knock you up .. er, I mean ... I'll rep you tomorrow night! :ultracool


----------



## bignick

_"It's not easy being green"_


----------



## Jonathan Randall

shesulsa said:
			
		

> All right, I think reputation is like manure - if you don't spread it around it doesn't work right, just sits there and stinks.
> 
> So ... HAPPY REPUTATION, EVERYONE!! I gave out as much as I could in 24 hours. Enjoy and may all our minds grow in the fertile land of MT-dom.
> 
> Bob - I ran out before I hit you, but I'll knock you up .. er, I mean ... I'll rep you tomorrow night! :ultracool


I know, I LOVE giving out Rep. (30 good to every bad!)!!! I think I'll max out today, too. BTW, you got a pile of manure today. 

Here, I'll knock Bob up for you. It's the least I can do for bringing the system back up along with adding a 1 warning policy that should decrease abuse.
(BTW, someone reading my post out of context might wonder about my mental state. LOL).


----------



## Tgace

Gee..leave town for a few days and look what happens.


----------



## Eternal Beginner

I suppose I voted to having it, but not anonymously because the two times I have been dinged I can't figure out why.  Maybe if I knew who dinged me, or _at least_ a comment I would be able to modify what offended them.  One time it was for a thread on cauliflower ear (maybe they find it too ugly to talk about?) and the other time I thought I was just expressing sympathy for someone who was going through a rough patch.

 An anonymous, no comment ding just seems a little random...heck, maybe they were even mistakes - I'll never know.


----------



## 7starmantis

Question: 
Should those who have disabled reputation be allowed to give rep (positive or negative)?

7sm


----------



## mantis

it's all a matter of courage
what good are fighters if they are cowards?
when they leave a negative rep they dont say who they are
and they want to give reps and they dont want to be rep'ed


----------



## Marginal

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Question:
> Should those who have disabled reputation be allowed to give rep (positive or negative)?
> 
> 7sm


Disabled rep just means the ranking's not displayed. Rep +/- can still be given.

On the topic of dings though, has anyone ever gotten a constructive one? Almost all of mine are from disgruntled right wing wannabe pundits and christian types who dislike my study postings. Not one of 'em was constructive or informative in any way. 

Only told me I needed to do more of what they didn't like.


----------



## shesulsa

mantis said:
			
		

> it's all a matter of courage
> what good are fighters if they are cowards?
> when they leave a negative rep they dont say who they are
> and they want to give reps and they dont want to be rep'ed


 Actually it's all a matter of how you view other's opinions of yourself.  If you put so much importance on how others think about you that an anonymous opinion is upsetting, then I think the person who feels this way has a lot of self-examination to accomplish.


> Question:
> Should those who have disabled reputation be allowed to give rep (positive or negative)?
> 
> 7sm


 I think a user should either opt out of the rep system totally or engage in it fully.


----------



## Marginal

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I think a user should either opt out of the rep system totally or engage in it fully.


Shame that's not an option.


----------



## arnisador

Marginal said:
			
		

> On the topic of dings though, has anyone ever gotten a constructive one?


 Yes. But most were more directed against me personally, or as retaliation for what they believed was a ding _by_ me, than on the content of the post.


----------



## arnisador

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I think a user should either opt out of the rep system totally or engage in it fully.


 I think there's a certain fairness to this, and on balance I'd agree. I have on occasion given rep. to people who have it disabled, say for a really good post--they still see the feedback.


----------



## shesulsa

Marginal said:
			
		

> On the topic of dings though, has anyone ever gotten a constructive one?


 I've had two or three dings where the comment left made me think about the post I made to the extent that it changed my mind. Usually it's just a disagreement or something that could have been posted in thread for discussion rather than a feeling on what I said.

 Isn't that what reputation is all about?


----------



## BlackCatBonz

i think if you can see who left you the negative, along with what they may have said, allows you to a) take the comment into consideration, b) take into consideration who the comment is coming from.

if someone like Doc, Dr Dave, Arnisador, et al. to all of the senior guys on the board, i think i might take their comments a bit more seriously. 
its pretty easy to separate the wheat from the chaff on this board.....and when the wheat starts talking........


----------



## Marginal

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I've had two or three dings where the comment left made me think about the post I made to the extent that it changed my mind. Usually it's just a disagreement or something that could have been posted in thread for discussion rather than a feeling on what I said.
> 
> Isn't that what reputation is all about?


Perhaps, but nobody really needs a row of green or red boxes to get a feel of the pecking order, to pick out the royals etc. 

Judging by the actual rep points I've accumulated, the whole point of the rep system is to tell people to shut up without ever actually talking to them. Approval of cornball jokes, that's what the green stuff's largely comprised of. 

All the rep system's demonstrated to me is that one should never, ever question the merits or demerits of capitalism and/or affirmative action. (Very few red staters actually post apparently.) Actual discussion of the MA's tho... That contributes little to rep either way.


----------



## Bester

Ya know, all these green dots, and a buck fifty will get me a large coke at Wendys.


----------



## 7starmantis

Marginal said:
			
		

> Disabled rep just means the ranking's not displayed. Rep +/- can still be given.
> 
> On the topic of dings though, has anyone ever gotten a constructive one? Almost all of mine are from disgruntled right wing wannabe pundits and christian types who dislike my study postings. Not one of 'em was constructive or informative in any way.
> 
> Only told me I needed to do more of what they didn't like.


 Thats the point, I'm trying to get a feel for what everyone thinks about this topic. I understand the rep system completely, I'm asking for opinions.

 I get constructive positive ones, but most of my negatives come from unsigned people who like to just call names and such. Everyone like to call someone hypocritical when they dont have to sign it, right. I try to be pretty constructive if I give out a negative one, I also sign all of mine, so at least they know who its coming from and why. As a mod its a cool way for me to say "Good Job" or "Lets not get crazy" without coming across as "official" or a jerk. 

 Anyway, I agree with Sheshula, If one wants to disable rep, maybe they shouldn't be involved with it at all. Who knows, it really isn't the big deal its been made out to be.

  7sm


----------



## Michael Billings

Considering we have only gotten 41 or so votes to date.  Maybe it is only a big deal to a small percentage of users and needs no changing at all.  Expecially since only 27 of the 41 voters want a change.

 -Michael


----------



## mantis

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Considering we have only gotten 41 or so votes to date. Maybe it is only a big deal to a small percentage of users and needs no changing at all. Expecially since only 27 of the 41 voters want a change.
> 
> -Michael


 dude
 democractic processes are messed up all over the world
 even in a MA forum?!
 why was the poll provided if the voters wont be considered?
 now, im not bitter coz of the results, but because of the interpretation of the result!


----------



## Bob Hubbard

The bulk of those who voted prior to it's closure expressed a desire for the system to return.

It did.

Of those expressing a return, the majority expressed a desire for an open system.

This was not done.
Several reasons:
1- It would require a reset to zero, unless a way is found to save the score, but lose the comments. That is being researched.
2- Ease. It's easier to reactivate as-is while preparing for the upgrade. I have no desire to spend alot of time hacking code that will be dropped shortly.
3- Greater awareness of how to handle problems, and stiffer penalties for those who cross the line.

The system as-is was working fine, except for a few abusers. I feel that removing and restraining those abusers will allow the system to better function as-intended.

The numbers on the vote counted. The comments here balanced the numbers.


----------



## Michael Billings

Dude, it is more of an observation than an interpretation or decision regarding the outcome.  But still, if only 27 of our 3,803 members want a change (0.7099658164606889 per cent of the membership), the evidence is certainly underwhelming, to say the least.

 -Michael


----------



## mantis

Michael Billings said:
			
		

> Dude, it is more of an observation than an interpretation or decision regarding the outcome. But still, if only 27 of our 3,803 members want a change (0.7099658164606889 per cent of the membership), the evidence is certainly underwhelming, to say the least.
> 
> -Michael


 okay
  fine
 i take that back now Mr. Bob has explained what's going on. if only 41 people voted that means the rest are happy with the 41's decision. the rest are only playing a "negative" role.
  your comment sounded like a decision more than not to me
  now im happy with the democratic process in this forum hehe
  thanks Bob, thanks Michael


----------

