Bringing back the Reputation System

Should the reputation system be brought back?

  • Yes, bring back the rep system as it was before.

    Votes: 33 51.6%

  • Yes, bring back the rep system but leave out the steroids.

    Votes: 14 21.9%

  • Yes, bring back the rep system but leave out neg rep.

    Votes: 2 3.1%

  • No, we don't need a reputation system.

    Votes: 15 23.4%
  • Total voters
    64
  • Poll closed .

DeletedUser

Guest
*cough*TheWest*Cough*

Any ideas on what kind of rep system you will use? *Cough* ... o_O
 

DeletedUser2795

Guest
Please elaborate on them, I do not like being left in the dark. (quick, run, I spoke out to a mod, I only have a few more minutes to li *silence*)
Edit:
And just so that people are not voting blindly on this, here is the rep system:
person could receive positive or negative reputation from people based on what they thought of the rep-receiver's posting abilities. The total reputation of a person was displayed on a set of green or red bars right under their post count (or was it over the post count :S). It meant that you could tell more about a person then just how many posts they had outside of OT*. I believe that the reason that it was removed was to prevent people misusing reputation by just effectively bribing them with anything to get more reputation.
*Some of the sig makers, for example, stay in OT, yet do great work
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
I loved the old rep system. I never understood why they removed it. I just hope my rep is returned :D
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Dont bring it back, rep is only for 12 year olds who get high from seeing how virtually popular they are on a tiny forum.

Just my opinion
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Actually, I don't think negative rep should be involved... unless it balances whichever system is put in.

After you have voted on whether or not rep should be back, state a reason for why not if no... and what kind of rep system you would like if you chose yes.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Xerxes94x said:
Dont bring it back, rep is only for 12 year olds who get high from seeing how virtually popular they are on a tiny forum.

Just my opinion
Click to expand...

That's not an opinion it's calling anyone who likes rep a 12 year old. It's useful by letting you know that if a guy has 10 bars of rep ie maxed rep to listen to him over a guy who has -2 bars of rep.

It's a good way of deciding whose advice to listen too and whose not to. So I think neg rep is a good thing, just keep the vulgarities out of the system.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
It is an opinion, its my point of view.


I think you decide on whose advice to listen to by reading their advice not their rep.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Someone could have really bad rep because all of their "spam" was given bad rep... but their advice could still be worth listening to when in Questions and Discussions.

People will also give bad rep when someone disagrees with an idea...
or give bad rep to an idea they don't like.

Those are some of the reasons I don't like negative rep. People use it to snipe at people they don't like, whether the post is good or not. Likewise they give rep to their friends, even when the post is totally stupid.

So the type of rep system is important I think.
 

DeletedUser2795

Guest
BuckyKev said:
Someone could have really bad rep because all of their "spam" was given bad rep... but their advice could still be worth listening to when in Questions and Discussions.

People will also give bad rep when someone disagrees with an idea...
or give bad rep to an idea they don't like.

Those are some of the reasons I don't like negative rep. People use it to snipe at people they don't like, whether the post is good or not. Likewise they give rep to their friends, even when the post is totally stupid.

So the type of rep system is important I think.
Click to expand...
Personally, I voted to keep as was, because no specific idea for how the rep system would work without any negative rep at all was posted, meaning that I do not know what I will get if I click anything but 'no' or 'keep as was'
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Xerxes94x said:
I think you decide on whose advice to listen to by reading their advice not their rep.
Click to expand...

This. If someone has given bad advice then there are bound to be lots of posts below that advice correcting them or mocking their idiocy.

If they have given good advice, then others will only add to it, or if they give alternative good advice they will likely give reasons. Again, any alternative bad advice will be marked as such.

This pattern is enough of an indication of who is worth listening to, and who isn't.

As to the posts you like... Well everyone's taste/friends/sense of humour is different, so I would expect any rep for these reasons to be pointless.

Also, the 'steroids' option... What's that about?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
A reputation system is not needed. It is far too subjective, and very easy to manipulate. The only way it would have any meaning is if only the Mods would be able to give reputation awards.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Sigismund said:
A reputation system is not needed. It is far too subjective, and very easy to manipulate. The only way it would have any meaning is if only the Mods would be able to give reputation awards.
Click to expand...

An award system would be nice, but the downside to having a Mod only award system will simply be players complaining that the mods are biased or that such and such players are kissing up to the mods to get awards.

I personally enjoyed the old reputation system and since you can not give the same player rep without passing rep out to other players as well it is not an issue for abuse in my opinion.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I do not believe we need a rep system; surely the reason we have mods is to keep the forums in order and to ensure that everyone is treated fairly? If the mods are doing their job correctly, then we should have no need for a rep system.
 

DeletedUser2795

Guest
yus001 said:
I do not believe we need a rep system; surely the reason we have mods is to keep the forums in order and to ensure that everyone is treated fairly? If the mods are doing their job correctly, then we should have no need for a rep system.
Click to expand...

In THEORY, all they really seem to do is go around deleting reported posts and deleting random threads without any explanation I mean, they are the most righteous people I have ever met and have always done their best to do their job, it is just that although they do do the job to the height of perfection, their job has nothing to do with what the reputation system does.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I neeed REP NAO!

I thought it was a really good system. It helped me when I was new to the forums. There could be a few changes done however.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I am against any sort of reputation system as much as I think that the postcount isn't required either. These things usually encourage spam and other nonsense, usefull postings get pushed into the background.

Name and join-date is all that's needed.
my 2 cents.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I think that the rep system should be brought back the same as it was before because although it was abused it gave a new side to the forums which was taken away when it was removed. Reputation gives people who invest time and effort into the forums a reward like sig makers and mao makers. If rep was still here Becca Lee the greatest sig maker ever on the forum might of stayed.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I never bothered about my rep count but I did find it a good way of flagging a post that had amused me....most of it went to leggy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top