Limit the reputation given [Archive]

ShadowMan

04-26-2009, 06:52 PM

There should be a limit for reputation given because of the potential for abuse. I propose that each poster must give reputation to five different posters before given more reputation to the same person again. Also, there should be limit of twenty times per twenty-four hour period a poster may give reputation.

By placing these restrictions, it will help impede any poster who may have a personal vendetta against another poster in which he would like to give as much negative reputation as possible.

Also, it will encourage posters to give reputation to posts that are actually worthy of it. Right now we have the “if you rep me then I will rep you" and "let us see how high we can make ourselves” mentality which makes the reputation system a joke. We should utilize the reputation system so it means something.

jedispyder

04-27-2009, 12:02 AM

Yeah, don't think so. You're trying to use logic here, lol. We don't run on logic, you should have learned that long time ago ;)

wolf_2099

04-27-2009, 02:05 AM

Fasheem

04-27-2009, 04:56 AM

Rep was out of control on a board I post on so they imposed restrictions similar to those. Guess what - it was still out of control. Half the posters on the board currently have "maximum rep" which is a full set of green and yellow bars, and 14 stars.

I have 272912 rep points on that board. (A full bar and 10 stars.)

CBKA

04-27-2009, 09:55 AM

even if people are limited to reps per day, you would still be derepped 20 times per person per day. It soon adds up:rotate:

Tragic Angelus

04-27-2009, 01:31 PM

Limiting reps is dumb. Then I wouldn't be pushing Fash all the way to the top and she wouldn't be repping me for my witty jokes.

jedispyder

04-27-2009, 01:43 PM

I'm guessing because of that post, ShadowMan instead of getting good reps is now getting bad reps? Cause he's all red and we're all green, so....SM probably wishes he didn't create the thread now, lol...

Tragic Angelus

04-27-2009, 01:52 PM

I haven't repped him, or anyone, negatively.. he's the only one who can see that

ShadowMan

04-27-2009, 02:49 PM

We don't actually have rep numbers, like so many other boards.

Just green, rep and grey. Pretty much everyone will end up green so I don't see the harm.

If it was a numbered system however, I'd think differently.

We do have rep numbers, but only you can see them. However, everyone is ranked according to their reputation received and that can be seen in the "Members List". After you are in the list just click on "Reputation" and it will show the highest positive reputation received poster down to the lowest.

Rep was out of control on a board I post on so they imposed restrictions similar to those. Guess what - it was still out of control. Half the posters on the board currently have "maximum rep" which is a full set of green and yellow bars, and 14 stars.

I have 272912 rep points on that board. (A full bar and 10 stars.)

That could of been a problem to impose restrictions after everyone is already high. On the board that I have posted on those exact restrictions that I have mentioned were in place and the reputation system was in control. However, there are more regulations that could be done.

At that same board, they also have a way for one to gain more reputation-giving power. Here is what they do, everyone starts off with one point of reputation-giving power, but a poster needs to have at least one-hundred posts and at least ten reputation points received before his ratings will count towards another poster's reputation. To gain more reputation-giving power, for each one-thousand posts, three-hundred and sixty-five days of registration, or one-hundred points of reputation received, a poster is given one more reputation-giving point. So for instance, if you have three-thousand posts, have been registered for two years, and have four-hundred reputation points received, you would have ten points of reputation-giving power. One point you started off with, three points for three-thousand posts, two points for having been registered for two years, and four points for having four-hundred reputation points. Of course, receiving negative reputation will subtract your reputation points in which will subtract from your reputation-giving power.

If the restrictions are in place from the OP coupled with the aforementioned additional restrictions, I think this will work since it already has at the other board.

After implementing these restrictions, I think it would be fair to reset everyone's reputation to zero and have everyone start off with one point of reputation-giving power who registered after the first month (it could three months or so) of the board's creation. Everyone who registered within the the first month or so would start of with ten points of reputation.

Tragic Angelus

04-27-2009, 03:24 PM

I don't think that'd be fair to anyone at all, and I'm sure most everyone else agrees.

MGM

04-27-2009, 03:34 PM

Dude, why on Earth would you want this? You could've joined up earlier and gained rep points like the rest of us. Sheesh.

ShadowMan

04-27-2009, 04:27 PM

I don't think that'd be fair to anyone at all, and I'm sure most everyone else agrees.

What would not be fair? The restrictions or having the reputation board-wide to zero? I suggest having the reputation reset to zero if the restrictions are in place because then it would not be fair to other posters who did not get to benefit from the free for all. It may seem unfair only because you would have to really earn them after the restrictions are in place.

Dude, why on Earth would you want this? You could've joined up earlier and gained rep points like the rest of us. Sheesh.

This is not about me receiving reputation. I do not really expect to compete with anyone's reputation here. Right now it is a free for all, and people are giving out reputation points like candy. Also, there is nothing stop someone to constantly give out negative reputation points as well.

MGM

04-27-2009, 04:40 PM

Who cares about the rep's being given, really? You? Shit, the fuck do I care about rep points, I hardly even check them. But it sure as Hell doesn't bother me if people trade reps like candy.

ShadowMan

04-27-2009, 04:46 PM

Fasheem

04-27-2009, 04:46 PM

I don't think that'd be fair to anyone at all, and I'm sure most everyone else agrees.

I agree with this. Like the board hasn't been reset enough in the last couple months??!

Also if everyone is reset to zero and we have the restriction that you must have 10 rep points to give rep, ah, hmmm.

MGM

04-27-2009, 04:48 PM

And we also have a friend feature. Joining up here is making us all friends to some extent. Don't give everything a meaning. Hell, on the temp board there was a smite option, which was visible, that was FUN. And it meant nothing.

MGM

04-27-2009, 04:48 PM

Also if everyone is reset to zero and we have the restriction that you must have 10 rep points to give rep, ah, hmmm.

HA! :smilielol5:

Tragic Angelus

04-27-2009, 04:48 PM

Because it's not there for us to have it mean something. We have post counts too. Let's limit those to 4 a day as well, and you can only post after three people have posted after you in a thread. That'll make posts worth more to all of us in the long run.

Seriously, they're just points so it doesn't matter who has them or who can give them out. People give what they want when they want. If we limit reps we should then limit compliments or critiques as well since reps are basically the same thing, just much more personal.

Fasheem

04-27-2009, 04:58 PM

Seriously, they're just points so it doesn't matter who has them or who can give them out. People give what they want when they want. If we limit reps we should then limit compliments or critiques as well since reps are basically the same thing, just much more personal.

Since this thread is about ShadowMan, I'd like to point out that he received MANY non-rep comments and critiques before people (person?) got fed up and starting dropping rep bombs on his ass. Spamming the board with copy-and-paste threads and imbedded videos with no comments is red-rep worthy, imo.

No, I haven't given any red rep.

Fasheem

04-27-2009, 05:00 PM

There is of course a neat and tidy solution to this problem. If someone is red-repping you into oblivion, go to your User CP, click on "Edit Ignore List" and add them. You will not be able to see their posts, they will not be able to respond to your threads, and they will not be able to rep you.

Tragic Angelus

04-27-2009, 05:01 PM

I agree. Like I said Reps are just a way to give personal kudos or disagreement to someone that not everyone else gets to see, so it shouldn't be limited at all.

I don't think I've dropped a single Red Rep since we started this board up

ShadowMan

04-27-2009, 05:22 PM

I agree with this. Like the board hasn't been reset enough in the last couple months??!

Also if everyone is reset to zero and we have the restriction that you must have 10 rep points to give rep, ah, hmmm.

Your reputation received would be reset to zero, not your reputation-giving power. Your reputation-giving power would be set at one. If you registered after the first month or so depending on how the time restriction is set, then you start off with zero reputation received. If it is before the restriction of starting off with zero, then you start off with ten points of reputation received. Most posters here would start off with ten points received.

And we also have a friend feature. Joining up here is making us all friends to some extent. Don't give everything a meaning. Hell, on the temp board there was a smite option, which was visible, that was FUN. And it meant nothing.

That is not the same. The reputation system is to rate posts.

Because it's not there for us to have it mean something. We have post counts too. Let's limit those to 4 a day as well, and you can only post after three people have posted after you in a thread. That'll make posts worth more to all of us in the long run.

Actually, post-whoring has already been addressed. The reputation system is there for it to mean something. It is a way to rate posts.

Seriously, they're just points so it doesn't matter who has them or who can give them out. People give what they want when they want. If we limit reps we should then limit compliments or critiques as well since reps are basically the same thing, just much more personal.

There are no compliment or critique features here.

The reputation system can mean something if we let it. I think that by giving it meaning it can make the board more productive.

The reputation system should have restrictions in place so it does mean something. You do not have to use it, but if you do, it will mean something. The effect of placing these restrictions will be more positive than negative. Most people who have expressed their thoughts on the matter do not seem to care. Therefore, the reputation system should have imposed restrictions so it means something for those who use it.

Since this thread is about ShadowMan, I'd like to point out that he received MANY non-rep comments and critiques before people (person?) got fed up and starting dropping rep bombs on his ass. Spamming the board with copy-and-paste threads and imbedded videos with no comments is red-rep worthy, imo.

No, I haven't given any red rep.

You are mistaken. This thread is not about me. Incidentally, When this thread was created I was neutral. CBKA gave me negative reputation for this thread with the comment "isn't it ironic?". It was him and him alone that made my reputation in the red from that point up until now.

There is of course a neat and tidy solution to this problem. If someone is red-repping you into oblivion, go to your User CP, click on "Edit Ignore List" and add them. You will not be able to see their posts, they will not be able to respond to your threads, and they will not be able to rep you.

Again, I do not have that problem.

Tragic Angelus

04-27-2009, 05:44 PM

Um, there is a way to compliment and critique. It's by telling you in a post that I like what you said or I didnt. I can do that when I rep too.

And why the hell would we need to be more productive? This is a message board for us to have fun and hang out and talk, not make money and turn a profit and reach a social status.

Quit worrying about how the board's operating. If you wanted to do that you should have started up when we kick started this one and the arguing broke out. you're too late in my book, and reps were never a concern that we had. They were something to joke around with and have fun. You're wanting to make it more than that, and no one else does.

ShadowMan

04-27-2009, 06:41 PM

Um, there is a way to compliment and critique. It's by telling you in a post that I like what you said or I didnt. I can do that when I rep too.

Yes, of course, however, it is not a "feature".

And why the hell would we need to be more productive? This is a message board for us to have fun and hang out and talk, not make money and turn a profit and reach a social status.

Being productive can be fun.

Productive as in when you post helpful, funny, thought-provoking, etc., posts then you get positive reputation in which will create encouragement. If you post offensive, etc., posts you get negative reputation.

Quit worrying about how the board's operating.
This is a suggestion forum. It was created so that suggestions can be heard and discussed. Trying to silence me just because you do not agree with my suggestion is inappropriate.

If you wanted to do that you should have started up when we kick started this one and the arguing broke out. you're too late in my book, and reps were never a concern that we had. They were something to joke around with and have fun. You're wanting to make it more than that, and no one else does.

The reputation system is a new feature now available to us that I suspect many had no prior experience with. It is like a new toy that everyone is playing around with. I proposed a way that we can utilize it and have it mean something when it is in use. It is just a proposition that I threw out here to be discussed.

I hope more people weigh in on their thoughts about this as there are many more who have not done so.

Fasheem

04-27-2009, 08:38 PM

ShadowMan

04-27-2009, 09:04 PM

Rep is a popularity contest, and a convenient way to send a private comment on a post. If you post outrageously offensive stuff and people like it, then you will get positive rep. However if you post "thoughtful" stuff that people think is retarded, you will get negative rep. Which is as it should be.

By placing those restrictions it would not change that. It would, however, make it hard to try to push someone up the reputation list or pull them down.

I first posted on this kind of board in 2003.

It was in 2005 for me.

Tragic Angelus

04-27-2009, 09:19 PM

As for your beliefs on how we'd be productive, We're already like that. You just came late to the party and are behind. It's funny because so far, not a single person has complained about how the reputation system works, and we were all just having fun with it not caring about how many we have or give out, and you walk in trying to turn it into a check and balance system when that's not what it's meant to be at all. So far you're the only person to have a problem with how it's been operating, and this board's been going fine for a few months now without needing that changed.

Why is it you always seem to underrate the intelligence of everyone on this board? You think people can't operate or form an opinion on something until you've showed them some kind of guiding light and correct path.

Mr Wallstreet

04-27-2009, 09:20 PM

Who cares about the rep's being given, really? You? Shit, the fuck do I care about rep points, I hardly even check them. But it sure as Hell doesn't bother me if people trade reps like candy.

:iagree:

The ability to give out Reps are a fun feature but hardly one you should take seriously, and yes there is some abuse of rep points being given out (too many or too little) but its all in good fun and ultimately harmless.

ShadowMan

04-27-2009, 09:48 PM

As for your beliefs on how we'd be productive, We're already like that. You just came late to the party and are behind.

I did not say we are not productive. I gave a suggestion on how we can be more productive.

I am not behind, nor was I late to the party. I have been around. Just because I did not post does not mean I was not here.

It's funny because so far, not a single person has complained about how the reputation system works, and we were all just having fun with it not caring about how many we have or give out,

I am just proposing that it could be improved. Sometimes people do not see there is anything wrong until someone points it out to them.

and you walk in trying to turn it into a check and balance system when that's not what it's meant to be at all.

It is "meant" to be whatever the administrator deems it to be. There is no purpose unless you give it purpose. This entire board has no purpose unless it was given one. A forum has no purpose unless it was given one. The reputation system can be turned off. Since it is on, we can give it purpose or let it mean nothing. If we let it mean nothing, then I do not see why it should be on. Of course, it could stay on without any meaning. I am just saying I think it would be better if we gave it some meaning.

So far you're the only person to have a problem with how it's been operating, and this board's been going fine for a few months now without needing that changed.

I find it interesting that for someone who feels that the reputation system means nothing is adamantly against it to mean something.

Why is it you always seem to underrate the intelligence of everyone on this board? You think people can't operate or form an opinion on something until you've showed them some kind of guiding light and correct path.

Now, why do you perceive that of me? I brought forth a proposal and I backed up my proposal. I meant no harm.

wolf_2099

04-27-2009, 10:14 PM

Am I the only one who found out that rep is ranked by reading this thread?

Or the only one who actually uses rep as a way to comment on a post, that doesn't deserve a new post?
Whats the big deal?

Tragic Angelus

04-27-2009, 10:14 PM

Why do I percieve that? you said people can't handle using it because they don't know what they're doing since it has no meaning.

Jesus, not everything needs meaning. We don't need to be productive. I have a life outside of a message board for productivity. This is meant for a relaxing fun enviornment, yet everytime you pull this shit it starts to lose that, especially for me. At this point, I'm doing even having these conversations with you

Tragic Angelus

04-27-2009, 10:19 PM

Am I the only one who found out that rep is ranked by reading this thread?

No, I found that out on accident one time when i figured out how to do it by post counts.

Or the only one who actually uses rep as a way to comment on a post, that doesn't deserve a new post?
Whats the big deal?

No, that's exactly what I use it for, in place of just posting 'LOL' or 'i totally agree' I just rep something. He's trying to make it mean more than that and rank people in an actual meaningful manner because he thinks the ranking should be important.

ShadowMan

04-27-2009, 11:34 PM

Why do I percieve that? you said people can't handle using it because they don't know what they're doing since it has no meaning.

That is not what I said. You are going to have to quote me if you really believe that.

Jesus, not everything needs meaning.

I never said everything needs to have meaning. You are exaggerating.

We don't need to be productive.

You are right. But the board having the vulgar jokes toned down was being productive. That was desired, not needed.

I have a life outside of a message board for productivity. This is meant for a relaxing fun enviornment, yet everytime you pull this shit it starts to lose that, especially for me. At this point, I'm doing even having these conversations with you

You are being melodramatic. Those restrictions would make the reputation system more useful. It would not make the board having a less relaxing or fun environment.

No, that's exactly what I use it for, in place of just posting 'LOL' or 'i totally agree' I just rep something. He's trying to make it mean more than that and rank people in an actual meaningful manner because he thinks the ranking should be important.

Those restrictions would not change that at all. Personally, I would use it more seriously as I have at the other board as others there use it that way as well. The restrictions I mentioned will not force you to use the reputation more seriously. What it would do is make you spread more reputation around (five different people) before giving it to the same person again. By doing this, it will help impede just trying to push someone up the list or pull them down. It will also encourage, not force, posters to give reputation to posts that deem it.

Tragic Angelus

04-28-2009, 12:00 AM

I shouldn't have to spread it around. Funny enough, this board doesn't run the same way that your other boards do. You should be used to that by now.

ShadowMan

04-28-2009, 12:34 AM

I shouldn't have to spread it around. Funny enough, this board doesn't run the same way that your other boards do. You should be used to that by now.

All that you know about the other board is how they use their reputation system. I think their method would be useful here. So far, Jedispyder, wolf_2099, Fasheem, CBKA, Tragic_Angelus, MGM, and Mr. Wallstreet are against reputation restrictions. It is not looking good, however, there are still more posters who have not expressed their opinion. I hope more people provide their input.

To recap my proposal...

There should be a limit for reputation given because of the potential for abuse. I propose that each poster must give reputation to five different posters before given more reputation to the same person again. Also, there should be limit of twenty times per twenty-four hour period a poster may give reputation.

By placing these restrictions, it will help impede any poster who may have a personal vendetta against another poster in which he would like to give as much negative reputation as possible.

Also, it will encourage posters to give reputation to posts that are actually worthy of it. Right now we have the “if you rep me then I will rep you" and "let us see how high we can make ourselves” mentality which makes the reputation system a joke. We should utilize the reputation system so it means something.

Here is a way for everyone to gain reputation-giving power instead of always leaving it at one point:

At that same board, they also have a way for one to gain more reputation-giving power. Here is what they do, everyone starts off with one point of reputation-giving power, but a poster needs to have at least one-hundred posts and at least ten reputation points received before his ratings will count towards another poster's reputation. To gain more reputation-giving power, for each one-thousand posts, three-hundred and sixty-five days of registration, or one-hundred points of reputation received, a poster is given one more reputation-giving point. So for instance, if you have three-thousand posts, have been registered for two years, and have four-hundred reputation points received, you would have ten points of reputation-giving power. One point you started off with, three points for three-thousand posts, two points for having been registered for two years, and four points for having four-hundred reputation points. Of course, receiving negative reputation will subtract your reputation points in which will subtract from your reputation-giving power.

If the restrictions are in place from the OP coupled with the aforementioned additional restrictions, I think this will work since it already has at the other board.

After implementing these restrictions, I think it would be fair to reset everyone's reputation to zero and have everyone start off with one point of reputation-giving power who registered after the first month (it could three months or so) of the board's creation. Everyone who registered within the the first month or so would start of with ten points of reputation.

CBKA

04-28-2009, 03:48 AM

CBKA

04-28-2009, 03:52 AM

Also, there is nothing stop someone to constantly give out negative reputation points as well.

Oh man, twice in the same thread, im just too sick:razz:

CBKA

04-28-2009, 03:57 AM

You are mistaken. This thread is not about me. Incidentally, When this thread was created I was neutral. CBKA gave me negative reputation for this thread with the comment "isn't it ironic?". It was him and him alone that made my reputation in the red from that point up until now.

:smilielol5:

CBKA

04-28-2009, 04:02 AM

I did not we are not productive. I gave a suggestion on how we can be more productive.

I am not behind, nor was I late to the party. I have been around. Just because I did not post does not mean I was not here.

I am just proposing that it could be improved. Sometimes people do not see there is anything wrong until someone points it out to them.

It is "meant" to be whatever the administrator deems it to be. There is no purpose unless you give it purpose. This entire board has no purpose unless it was given one. A forum has no purpose unless it was given one. The reputation system can be turned off. Since it is on, we can give it purpose or let it mean nothing. If we let it mean nothing, then I do not see why it should be on. Of course, it could stay on without any meaning. I am just saying I think it would be better if we gave it some meaning.

I find it interesting that for someone who feels that the reputation system means nothing is adamantly against it to mean something.

Now, why do you perceive that of me? I brought forth a proposal and I backed up my proposal. I meant no harm.

Shit man,why must everything be a debate?

relax and post some dick jokes you'll feel better for it.

CBKA

04-28-2009, 04:08 AM

If you limit reputation giving power by amount of reputation wouldn't the people repping each other consistently keep doing so meaning they are the only ones with this ability?

This wouldjust create a massive gap meaning me, you and probably tragic (sorry man but yousuck :)) would be lonely at the bottom.

and i hate being at the bottom as much as i hate tragic (sorry again man, butyou still do suck)

Mr Wallstreet

04-28-2009, 01:12 PM

There should be a limit for reputation given because of the potential for abuse.

There isn't really much Rep abuse going on right now. You cited a potential for abuse. So far, none has really occured and to overhaul the entire repping system based on what may happen rather than what is happening seems a bit like chicken little crying "the sky is falling".

Right now we have the “if you rep me then I will rep you" and "let us see how high we can make ourselves” mentality which makes the reputation system a joke. We should utilize the reputation system so it means something.

I have to disagree with you.

I'm not sure there are any people here who rep each other again and again for shits and giggles. From what I've seen people rep each other whenever they make someone laugh, cry, post something insightful or weird and not just for the hell of it, ergo, the repping system does mean something and is (mostly) being utilized properly.

wolf_2099

04-28-2009, 01:36 PM

I barely rep people as is, let alone for when they rep me.

I like the rep system, with no need to tweak it. Said it before, I'll say it again.

Great way to avoid post whoring since little quick comments are used with the rep thingy.

ShadowMan

04-28-2009, 01:39 PM

If you limit reputation giving power by amount of reputation wouldn't the people repping each other consistently keep doing so meaning they are the only ones with this ability?

No, it would not work that way. Everyone can rep anyone they want. After they rep someone they would have to rep five different people as well before they can rep the same person again.

This wouldjust create a massive gap meaning me, you and probably tragic (sorry man but yousuck :)) would be lonely at the bottom.

and i hate being at the bottom as much as i hate tragic (sorry again man, butyou still do suck)

There would be no gap unless you are just not receiving rep. If you are not receiving rep, then that is not the fault of the restrictions. People would just not favor what you are posting.

There isn't really much really much Rep abuse going on right now. You cited a potential for abuse. So far, none has really occured and to overhaul the entire repping system based on what may happen rather than what is happening seems a bit like chicken little crying "the sky is falling".

By placing the restrictions it would still allow people to give reputation as they normally would. They would just have to spread it around as well. This would help impede abuse while having limited interference with giving out reputation.

I have to disagree with you.

I'm not sure there are any people here who rep each other again and again for shits and giggles. From what I've seen people rep each other whenever they make someone laugh, cry, post something insightful or weird and not just for the hell of it, ergo, the repping system does mean something and is (mostly) being utilized properly.

You are wrong with that assessment. Just check out this thread (http://basement-x.com/showthread.php?t=163) for proof.

Tragic Angelus

04-28-2009, 03:27 PM

But.. but.. i thought we were getting along so well lately... :disappointed:

Tragic Angelus

04-28-2009, 03:33 PM

And dude, that thread was just for us to have fun and dick around for a new feature. Kind of what we do here, you know, instead of bounding ourselves in rules upon rules and regulations.

If you don't like what we do here, you can always just leave.

Mr Wallstreet

04-28-2009, 03:53 PM

By placing the restrictions it would still allow people to give reputation as they normally would. They would just have to spread it around as well. This would help impede abuse while having limited interference with giving out reputation.

Repping is purely subjective. Its based on your own personal belief of what constitues someone getting a rep from you whether it be for humor, insight or otherwise. For example, if I consisently find only 2 or 3 people funny or interesting or what have you, then I'm only going to rep them. If I don't find other peope funny or interesting then I shouldn't have to be forced to rep them before I can rep the people who I genuinely want to because they make me laugh.

You are wrong with that assessment. Just check out this thread (http://basement-x.com/showthread.php?t=163) for proof.

I knew that was going to come up. Yes there was some crazy repping going on in that thread but that thread was created when this board was new and back then there were a lot of shenanigans going on in addition to crazy repping such as postwhoring but since then we've all pretty much mellowed out. Sure there may still may be a few people (and I stress very, very few people) who rep each other relentlessly but the vast majority of us now rep those who we feel genuinely merit a rep.

Mr Wallstreet

04-28-2009, 03:55 PM

If you don't like what we do here, you can always just leave.

I don't think it needs to come to that.

ShadowMan

04-28-2009, 04:44 PM

But.. but.. i thought we were getting along so well lately... :disappointed:

We can all be in a disagreement without fighting. The only one being hostile here is you.

And dude, that thread was just for us to have fun and dick around for a new feature. Kind of what we do here, you know, instead of bounding ourselves in rules upon rules and regulations.

It is not about bounding ourselves to rules and regulations for the be all and end all. It is about keeping the reputation system fair.

If you don't like what we do here, you can always just leave.

I would not want to give you that satisfaction.

Repping is purely subjective. Its based on your own personal belief of what constitues someone getting a rep from you whether it be for humor, insight or otherwise. For example, if I consisently find only 2 or 3 people funny or interesting or what have you, then I'm only going to rep them. If I don't find other peope funny or interesting then I shouldn't have to be forced to rep them before I can rep the people who I genuinely want to because they make me laugh.

By having those restrictions, it would make the reputation list more accurate. Instead of a person receiving the highest amount of rep based on a few select people, a person would be receiving the highest amount of rep because of the general board consensus. It is not likely that you will only find one or two people worthy of giving rep in a day. Even if that were to happen, you can always go back and give that person rep later. There is no expiration date to posts of when you can give rep to.

I knew that was going to come up. Yes there was some crazy repping going on in that thread but that thread was created when this board was new and back then there were a lot of shenanigans going on in addition to crazy repping such as postwhoring but since then we've all pretty much mellowed out. Sure there may still may be a few people (and I stress very, very few people) who rep each other relentlessly but the vast majority of us now rep those who we feel genuinely merit a rep.

That thread is a great example of abuse. But the restrictions are not just for that either.

Again, the restrictions will not stop people from receiving rep. It will just stop people from receiving rep constantly by the same few people. With the restrictions, if you have high positive rep or high negative rep, it is because the general board consensus is that your posts are well liked or disliked, not because of a few select people who think so.

Tragic Angelus

04-28-2009, 06:42 PM

We can all be in a disagreement without fighting. The only one being hostile here is you.

That wasn't directed towards you

Tragic Angelus

04-28-2009, 06:43 PM

I don't think it needs to come to that.

I said since everyone decided that was a similarly decent thing to say the last time we went through this crap

XIII

05-02-2009, 03:32 AM

Who gives a shit about rep, seriously? We've known each for so long now that we know who is worth what.
Putting limits is useless and a waste of time.

wolf_2099

05-02-2009, 02:48 PM

Goddammit Arn!

I want it proven that you all like me the most! THE MOST! THE MOSTEST!

What? Not humble enough? Heh.

CBKA

05-03-2009, 05:03 PM

No, it would not work that way. Everyone can rep anyone they want. After they rep someone they would have to rep five different people as well before they can rep the same person again.

so essentially someone could post deep insightful rep-worthy posts one after the other but would be unable to receive a fair amount of reps.

There would be no gap unless you are just not receiving rep. If you are not receiving rep, then that is not the fault of the restrictions. People would just not favor what you are posting.
.

surely this contradicts your previous point, what if less than 5 people post stufff on a regular that you deem rep-worthy?

you would have to hand out meaningless reps is what would happen. or meaningfuldereps:smilielol5:

CBKA

05-03-2009, 05:04 PM

If you don't like what we do here, you can always just leave.

theonly change i recommend ischanging theone repperpost limit, so i can sit here allday and rep tragic

ShadowMan

05-03-2009, 11:47 PM

But.. but.. i thought we were getting along so well lately... :disappointed:We can all be in a disagreement without fighting. The only one being hostile here is you.That wasn't directed towards you

I did not say, nor imply, your comment was towards me. I merely addressed it. Just because there is a disagreement, does not constitute "fighting".

Who gives a shit about rep, seriously? We've known each for so long now that we know who is worth what.
Putting limits is useless and a waste of time.

The rep system is not fair as it stands. Also, this board has the potential to grow. Having the restrictions on the rep will make it fair to us and for future posters.

so essentially someone could post deep insightful rep-worthy posts one after the other but would be unable to receive a fair amount of reps.

surely this contradicts your previous point, what if less than 5 people post stufff on a regular that you deem rep-worthy?

you would have to hand out meaningless reps is what would happen. or meaningfuldereps:smilielol5:

I have already addressed this concern with Mr. Wallstreet here (http://basement-x.com/showpost.php?p=9404&postcount=48). I will restate it for you...

There are no expiration dates given to posts for when you can no longer give rep to. Thus, even if you could not find other posts to give rep to in one day, you can give rep later.

jedispyder

05-03-2009, 11:51 PM

Holy fuck, everyone let it drop!

CBKA

05-04-2009, 08:06 AM

There are no expiration dates given to posts for when you can no longer give rep to. Thus, even if you could not find other posts to give rep to in one day, you can give rep later.

but you would in effect be limiting peoples abilityto receive reps unfairly. noone is going to trail through old threads looking for the posts they wanted to rep.

your idea is ridiculous,get over it

ShadowMan

05-04-2009, 01:43 PM

but you would in effect be limiting peoples abilityto receive reps unfairly. noone is going to trail through old threads looking for the posts they wanted to rep.

your idea is ridiculous,get over it

It would not be unfair since it is highly unlikely anyone will only find less than five people they want to give rep to. The rep system is to rate posts, not to comment on them. The comment for the rep is for exactly that, for the rep. By implementing the restrictions, it makes people use the reputation system conservatively.

These rules are not my own. They are from another board which has much success with it.