the OFFICIAL Final Gear reputation system poll - please vote!!!

the OFFICIAL Final Gear reputation system poll - please vote!!!

  • I like the system the way it is now

    Votes: 41 19.6%

  • I like the system, but would rather it wasn't anonymous

    Votes: 128 61.2%

  • I like the system, but would rather if rep power and/or blobbies are hidden

    Votes: 8 3.8%

  • I don't like the system, and I would rather see it disabled altogether

    Votes: 32 15.3%
  • Total voters
    209
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Redliner said:
In my opinion that "Thank you" button could be implemented instead of the rep system if we also had a way to express that we didn't liked the post.No idea if it's possible.
Click to expand...

It's (Thanks+Anti-thanks) implemented on another board I frequent, so it's definitely possible. I just don't think it's desirable.
 
I think per-post rating system would work better than a per-person system we have now.
Have a thanks and no-thanks buttons on posts. When a post would receive few no-thanks votes it would be hidden away and you would have to click to view it. And when a post receives few thanks votes it would be highlighted.
Of course a person would get reported to the moderators if they constantly make posts that get hidden.
In my opinion this would prevent people from taking the reps too personally and the rep wouldn't be so global ie. if you make shit post after a long string of good behaviour the post could still get hidden and vice versa if you make good post for once your previous negative posting doesn't effect it.

This would really resolve the three biggest problems with the current system. Which are that people take it way too personally, many people seem to think that the reps judge the whole person, not just the post that the received it for. Which is the second problem too, the whole thing does infact judge you as person and if you change your mind you will still have the red or green blobs no matter how your current posting is. The third problem is that none of the reps really have any effect anyway. People who have made more than 1 post can pretty much do what ever they want and their general blobs stay the same.
 
Last edited:
Now its getting weird. I'm beginning to regret my choice (voted option two), lets just keep the damn system the same. I know the people who make good posts (and it isnt influenced by how many green blobbies they have) and I like to think I know my place in this forum as well. If you dont fuck up too badly, you'll have a swag of +rep in no time, and the guys who's opinion I actually give a shit about are all respected members who (probably) wouldnt abuse the system with pointless trolling anyway.
 
@ geeman:

I've seen that implemented for a news-comment system on a website I frequent quite often. It was removed after a few weeks.

The simple matter of fact is that in the end, it's people that hit the buttons. And despite a few exceptions, people generally do not understand how such a system is supposed to be operated, or even worse they misuse it deliberately. So whichever way you twist and turn it, the overall result of rep and shown/hidden posts will not represent the actual situation of good and bad content, rather than simply reflect the opinion of Joe Average. May it be public or hidden, with or without comments, points and power, as long as people don't get it, it becomes moot sooner or later. The problem is not in the system, it's the people that use it.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a good reason to disable the whole thing then.
 
geeman said:
When a post would receive few no-thanks votes it would be hidden away and you would have to click to view it. And when a post receives few thanks votes it would be highlighted.
Click to expand...

Oh, man, there's nothing worse than this. I really hope mods don't share your views on this feature :)
 
Well, I would have loved to see names to sort things out by myself, but since Viper doesn't seem to like that either, I'd also propose to turn it off. Stops the whining and means less work for the staff.

Nevertheless, I still find having names the better option than keeping it how it is.
MXM said:
Oh, man, there's nothing worse than this. I really hope mods don't share your views on this feature :)
Click to expand...
This can work excellently. Problem is that the people who vote have to know what they're doing.
 
the Interceptor said:
This can work excellently. Problem is that the people who vote have to know what they're doing.
Click to expand...

In other words it never works well. It only annoys the hell out of everyone because you have to click every single post. There's only a need for it on blogs with huge number of comments, like slashdot, as far as I'm concerned, where it's just a lesser of two evils.
 
^I think we're underestimating how stupid people can be, especially if it's anonymous.

it's like this : stupid + anonymous + large audience = assholes
 
MXM said:
In other words it never works well. It only annoys the hell out of everyone because you have to click every single post. There's only a need for it on blogs with huge number of comments, like slashdot, as far as I'm concerned, where it's just a lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...
Well you don't have to click every post. While reading a thread, simply give a thumbs up for good and a thumbs down for bad posts once in a while. Posts with a lot of thumbs up get highlighted in some way, posts with a lot of thumbs down become hidden and only visible on click. The idea itself is brilliant, it's just that in real (virtual) life, it won't work.
 
Last edited:
I don't see why need to turn it off altogether... banning all whiners is a pretty effective way me thinks, even if the system remains the same.
 
I can't recall giving anybody a neg-rep. However, I did receive a positive rep yesterday (or today) and all it said was...

For a happy time party call 734-395-1338, i will give you long head big time
Click to expand...
 
MXM said:
Oh, man, there's nothing worse than this. I really hope mods don't share your views on this feature :)
Click to expand...
Agreed. Moderation systems like those are for comment boards, not forum boards.
 
Shawn said:
I don't see why need to turn it off altogether... banning all whiners is a pretty effective way me thinks, even if the system remains the same.
Click to expand...
Effective yes, but more like the sledgehammer way than an actual help.
 
the Interceptor said:
@ geeman:

I've seen that implemented for a news-comment system on a website I frequent quite often. It was removed after a few weeks.

The simple matter of fact is that in the end, it's people that hit the buttons. And despite a few exceptions, people generally do not understand how such a system is supposed to be operated, or even worse they misuse it deliberately. So whichever way you twist and turn it, the overall result of rep and shown/hidden posts will not represent the actual situation of good and bad content, rather than simply reflect the opinion of Joe Average. May it be public or hidden, with or without comments, points and power, as long as people don't get it, it becomes moot sooner or later. The problem is not in the system, it's the people that use it.
Click to expand...

I just automatically "click to view" those posts, anyways.
 
the Interceptor said:
Effective yes, but more like the sledgehammer way than an actual help.
Click to expand...

Sure, but more people seem to prefer the status quo over no rep system at all... it's the will of the people!

I mean, I am still all for non-anonymous, but I didn't start any of these threads. I don't think the abuse of the rep system is that widespread... even with all the crap I post the ratio of negs to positives for me is 1:8 or so.

If people prefer having the system (84 percent voted options 1-3), then we shouldn't disable the whole thing just because of some isolated cases of abuse.

If not complaining about rep was made a rule, I think most would follow it. If there's ever any outrageous neg reps you could have a moderator look into it. I think Quiky said previously they only got a few neg rep reports a month.

Honestly, I think we just need to settle on something once and for all. Even the anonymous system could work better than the past if we decide that's the way it will remain for the foreseeable future. I hope some of the unfunny neg reppers out there have learned a thing or two from this thread as well.
 
NooDle said:
^I think we're underestimating how stupid people can be, especially if it's anonymous.

it's like this : stupid + anonymous + large audience = assholes
Click to expand...

Ah yes the Internet Fuckward Theory.

20040319h.jpg
 
Shawn said:
Sure, but more people seem to prefer the status quo over no rep system at all... it's the will of the people!

I mean, I am still all for non-anonymous, but I didn't start any of these threads. I don't think the abuse of the rep system is that widespread... even with all the crap I post the ratio of negs to positives for me is 1:8 or so.

If people prefer having the system (84 percent voted options 1-3), then we shouldn't disable the whole thing just because of some isolated cases of abuse.
Click to expand...
It's the will of the people to keep the system, but it's also the will of the people to introduce names to repping. I can surely understand Vipers concern that this will lead to revenge-reps and bring the number of given neg-reps to a minimum. But hey, if you guys want to stop the whining about neg reps, this is a way. Some people have proposed in this thread that they'd prefer a positive-only system. If you can do it by introducing names, why not give it a shot?

Shawn said:
Honestly, I think we just need to settle on something once and for all. Even the anonymous system could work better than the past if we decide that's the way it will remain for the foreseeable future. I hope some of the unfunny neg reppers out there have learned a thing or two from this thread as well.
Click to expand...
So do I my friend, so do I.

However, I still am convinced that introducing names is the better choice. Those who used the system correctly - leaving deserved neg-reps with a proper comment and their name - will carry on doing so, since nothing changes for them. Those who left undeserved neg-rep without signing it will likely stop - but it was undeserved anyway, so it's right that they stop. If we get to keep the system, I see no actual disadvantage in seeing names along the reps. Why not make it a rule to forbid whining and make people sort things out among themselves?
 
Last edited:
I also think introducing names it the best option. I was just saying if option 2 is no go, then I'd prefer the status quo over nothing at all.
 
I think using names is the best option. Pretty much all the regular contributors are mature enough not to retaliate with neg-reps to a neg-rep, and it's also a good way to catch out neg-rep trolls. Although I suspect that using names will force them into the hole from which they came... which would probaly solve the problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top