Vote: Reorganized Reputation System.

[bluemtn]

As one of the people with an "army of stars", I have to say that comments that come with the rep are worth more to me than the visual. Sure, I think there needs to be some type of visual, so that others can see who is receiving what - but I have absolutely no problem with scaling it back, topping it out, or something similar. It's nice to be recognized for positive contributions - but the rep power is starting to grow exponentially, and I think an arithmatic or even geometric progression would be much more appropriate.

I'm with Kacey. I like the rep system, but I think there should be a place where something tops out...

 

[Tez3]

I vote for Bob doing what he thinks best. Why? I like things as they are because that's how I've always known it but as people who know better than I have pointed out there are some problems so the best way forward is one that Bob is happy with for a start and then I think we'll also be happy.
I agree with Kacey, that the stars are nice but I too treasure the comments far more. I'm disappointed that there's some who have turned it into an argument when it should be a discussion. I put my silly post up, which is true btw, for a bit of light relief but also if you click on the link, it shows a rather strange forum which without being nasty, is boring, hard to read and with a very odd rep system. I don't want that here!

 

[Guro Harold]

Don't mess with success!

I voted to leave the system as is.

The problem of a reset is that it is a deletion of someone's work or recognition of someone's efforts so I am against that.

It's like taking away thank-you(s).

 

[jks9199]

As one of the people with an "army of stars", I have to say that comments that come with the rep are worth more to me than the visual. Sure, I think there needs to be some type of visual, so that others can see who is receiving what - but I have absolutely no problem with scaling it back, topping it out, or something similar. It's nice to be recognized for positive contributions - but the rep power is starting to grow exponentially, and I think an arithmatic or even geometric progression would be much more appropriate.

I agree with this... pretty much entirely. And with Bob's solution & reasoning.

Rep is a loose indicator of who's posting well; whether that's constructively, accurately, voluably, or simply amusingly -- the folks with more rep tend to be the posters who I enjoy reading. It's not a guarantee or substitute for critical reading; there are some highly repped posters that I think don't always reason their way out of a paperbag, and others who are clearly highly, highly knowledgable experts but just don't get a lot rep, for reasons previously discussed.

 

[CoryKS]

What's funny about this thread is that if you replace "rep" with "wealth", you have pretty much the same argument regarding free market vs. government regulation, with some feeling that anyone should be able to rep anyone else for any reason and others who believe that the system is unfair/broken/inflated/whatever. It'd be interesting to see which side the posters who have previously commented on the one argument have lined up in this one.

 

[terryl965]

I've been asked why make any changes when the majority doesn't want them.

Here's the problem. Right now, points continue to add up. Eventually, we will have people able to rep folks and add 12 stars in 1 shot. Now, with that kind of power, things stop being any fun, or of any real value.

For the system to have any value, it's got to scale properly, and not be subject to such hugh lopsidedness.

For it to be fun, it also has to be fair. As it is, it's dramatically unfair.

While I know people are going to be upset to lose their army of stars and ability to smite dragons with a simple breath, things need to be brought back into perspective.

My intent is to do these resets annually, post the results and maybe do something special for the top person.

Folks, the systems supposed to be here as a fun addition, and to be honest, it lost the fun a long time ago for me, and alot of folks. I want to put that fun back in, and see more people enjoying it.

The catch is, is to keep what the folks who currently are in favor of keeping things unchanged intact while addressing the concerns of those who want something changed. I think by doing these resets, we can meet most of the concerns, and make it a fun part of the site again.

Bob I understand your position here, I really do. But and there is always a but so here it is why did we do a vote system to see what the majority wanted, if in the end it really did not matter?

Please do not think I'm bitching here but just asking and for the record you are right in your assessment with the rep system.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

What's funny about this thread is that if you replace "rep" with "wealth", you have pretty much the same argument regarding free market vs. government regulation, with some feeling that anyone should be able to rep anyone else for any reason and others who believe that the system is unfair/broken/inflated/whatever. It'd be interesting to see which side the posters who have previously commented on the one argument have lined up in this one.

Perhaps we should take some rep from the "wealthy" and redistribute it to the less "rep fortunate". Lol

But then Bob would have to open up an office where people would have to stand in line for hours and fill out numerous applications for "rep welfare".

 

[Kacey]

Bob I understand your position here, I really do. But and there is always a but so here it is why did we do a vote system to see what the majority wanted, if in the end it really did not matter?

Please do not think I'm bitching here but just asking and for the record you are right in your assessment with the rep system.

Not to speak for Bob... but Bob owns the site, and he can do whatever he wants. He chose to ask for input - but the decision is up to him. The discussion brought up some interesting points, and appears - to me at least - to be more indicative of what members want than a strict interpretation of who voted for what.

If I'm off base here, Bob, please correct me.

 

[terryl965]

Not to speak for Bob... but Bob owns the site, and he can do whatever he wants. He chose to ask for input - but the decision is up to him. The discussion brought up some interesting points, and appears - to me at least - to be more indicative of what members want than a strict interpretation of who voted for what.

If I'm off base here, Bob, please correct me.

Kacey I agree with you, but I have always been the one when I have a question to just ask it and go on. Bob is a wonderful person, better in personj and I have grown to except things around here. It was just an observation by me.
As always thank you for the input and I for one did not believe you was off base with any part of your statement.
Terry

 

[Guro Harold]

While I agree that Bob owns the site, we as members are the customers and customer feedback and meeting the customer's needs are essential.

That is one of the reasons why I appreciate when Bob provides avenues of communication when it comes to major decisions concerning the board.

 

[MBuzzy]

With respect to all....I personally believe that Bob did exactly what this thread was intended to do. We gathered a numerical vote, but backed it with a wealth of opinions and suggestions from the members. The final solution is a good melding of all of these. If you go back through and read the thread from the beginning, the decided upon solution has elements of what everyone wants and seems to me to be a very good compromise.

Being in frequent leadership positions in work, I know all about trying to please the masses. From that perspective, it is a difficult decision on the leader's behalf to be the one to make the decision...I'm sure that Bob did not come to it lightly and has clearly listened to the adivce and opinions of his members. Afterall, it is completely within his perogative to say "Screw you guys, we're just trashing it completely."

 

[Kacey]

With respect to all....I personally believe that Bob did exactly what this thread was intended to do. We gathered a numerical vote, but backed it with a wealth of opinions and suggestions from the members. The final solution is a good melding of all of these. If you go back through and read the thread from the beginning, the decided upon solution has elements of what everyone wants and seems to me to be a very good compromise.

Being in frequent leadership positions in work, I know all about trying to please the masses. From that perspective, it is a difficult decision on the leader's behalf to be the one to make the decision...I'm sure that Bob did not come to it lightly and has clearly listened to the adivce and opinions of his members. Afterall, it is completely within his perogative to say "Screw you guys, we're just trashing it completely."

That's pretty much what I meant - I was getting ready to leave for class and was typing pretty fast; it looks to me, at least, like Bob has read and heeded all of the comments on this thread, and is doing his best to reach compromise that the majority of members will be, if not happy, then content with.

In any group the size of MT (listed, at the moment I type this, as having 6,609 members), especially a group as diverse as MT, there's not going to be a 100% consensus on much of anything. That Bob has spent the time and effort to comb through all of the comments in this thread and come up with a compromise that addresses so many of those comments is just another reason why this board is the best!

 

[grydth]

Not what I meant.

When I say someone may not want to negatively rep a mod or admin, for fear of wrath, I don't mean that they (the admin or mod) would actually do anything.

Say I disagree with a post you have written, negative rep you, and reply to your post. Then you negatively rep me back. I've made your rep points go down by 90 and you've put me in the red.

Whether or not you actually DO it isn't my point. being able to single-handedly put someone in the red isn't a good thing. It would make me think twice about disagreeing with a moderator or admin.

For that matter, an average user such as myself could put a newbie in the red if they made one off color remark.

So... Ella, who essentially started this furor is now a banned user. Apparently a discovery was made that she was a reincarnation of a previously exorcised individual(s).

Not to question Bob's call in the least, but : Can any details be released as to who Ella really was?

Please, not the Soke or Ashida!

 

[shesulsa]

So... Ella, who essentially started this furor is now a banned user. Apparently a discovery was made that she was a reincarnation of a previously exorcised individual(s).

Not to question Bob's call in the least, but : Can any details be released as to who Ella really was?

Please, not the Soke or Ashida!

Though I'm not Bob, I can say that all staff on MartialTalk are bound by a Non-Disclosure Agreement which we take and enforce quite seriously. One of the features you all enjoy with this is that we do not release the personal information you provide to us upon registration to ANYONE. Staff who violate the agreement or abuse their privileges are managed aggressively.

So we will not reveal the prior identity of the now-banned Ella.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

On making the determination, we offered a chance to prove conclusively that she was in fact someone else. Our offer was turned down.

But, we can't release that information unfortunately.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Though I'm not Bob, I can say that all staff on MartialTalk are bound by a Non-Disclosure Agreement which we take and enforce quite seriously. One of the features you all enjoy with this is that we do not release the personal information you provide to us upon registration to ANYONE. Staff who violate the agreement or abuse their privileges are managed aggressively.

So we will not reveal the prior identity of the now-banned Ella.

On making the determination, we offered a chance to prove conclusively that she was in fact someone else. Our offer was turned down.

But, we can't release that information unfortunately.

I fully understand the Non-disclosure agreement and as an ex-staff am still bound by it.

Yet, I will let my imagination run wild on who it was.

 

[seninoniwashi]

I'm still trying to figure it out; I haven't been here very long.

I received a rep point in my first week, then lost it a few weeks ago. Not sure if I said something to offend someone or what, if that was the case I wish they would have said something

Are rep points temporary?

 

[Kacey]

I'm still trying to figure it out; I haven't been here very long.

I received a rep point in my first week, then lost it a few weeks ago. Not sure if I said something to offend someone or what, if that was the case I wish they would have said something

Are rep points temporary?

Nope. Click on UserCP on the left of the blue bar along the top of each page - that will show you your rep given and received, positive and negative, along with any comments made.

 

[seninoniwashi]

Nope. Click on UserCP on the left of the blue bar along the top of each page - that will show you your rep given and received, positive and negative, along with any comments made.

Yeah, I dug around in there and just see where I gained the point, but nothing was mentioned as to how I lost one.

 

[Kacey]

Yeah, I dug around in there and just see where I gained the point, but nothing was mentioned as to how I lost one.

Green dots by the reputation are positive; red dots are negative - also, for the first 30 minutes after giving rep, it can be reversed by the giver; either of the latter 2 could account for losing points.