This thread is to provide suggestions on how to better the reputation system. You are encouraged to provide reasons behind your suggestions but it is not mandatory. You are also allowed to discuss other members' suggestions but in a constructive manner.
This thread is NOT to complain about specific negative reputation. You will be allowed to cite an example(to support your suggestion(s)) if you wish, but sarcasm and swearing are to be kept to a bare minimum(preferably zero). This thread will be closed if it turns to QQing or flame wars.
My suggestions- (a)Removing negative rep, at least from the hands of regular users. There is already the infraction system to take care of offensive posts. Users only lose reputation through infractions obtained.
Why? Negative reputation given for banal reasons are only insults in disguise.Users are negative repped for what they post(which are not offensive). It's like being insulted for how you walk or how you talk. Insults are in no sense constructive at all.
This second suggestion is not very practical(as Emil pointed out to me) but I included it in any way since we'll have more possibilities or maybe one of you might get an idea from this and better it. (b) Contact a mod to evaluate a neg rep.
Not about whether the neg repper had the right to do so, but about whether it was justified and fair.
Then either nullifying the neg rep or maintaining it.
Please refrain from making comments of the likes-'you should take it as a man'.
That is what we are doing by taking such a stance.
Or 'You should learn to accept it"
We shall never accept insults as being part of the experience we have on this site.
Now onto your suggestions(keep them in bold letters) my fellow diablo fans.
All in the hope of keeping our time on our beloved site as enjoyable and as fun as possible.
The point of the rep system is to provide a fairly balanced way of "rating" users based on other users personal opinions.
Don't you think your two suggestions sort of off balance it completely? It would only be good reputation comments then.
The second suggestion would require an IMMENSE amount of work just to deem all negative reps as "fair" or "justified" which is pretty much impossible because it's a system based on opinions.
I'm all for any improvements that you guys might suggest but that's just my thoughts so far.
Now, I was always for a non-anonymous system, but then again, that is a direct mockery of the trust that I hold for a lot of people here. But I can't help but feel that's it's necessary to have a non-anonymous system.
*3.) Make the system non-anonymous. If people know they can get away with frivolous reputation, they'll keep giving it. Making the system non-anonymous will make users hesitant to give negative rep to people who don't deserve. They know it's wrong, that's why they don't leave their name.
4.) Negative rep should only correlate with the offending of users, off-topic posts (unless where thread permits, like the URT), and blatant spam.
5.) New users who only deal out more negative rep than positive rep should be given infractions. This will stop rep trolls.
Now, I know this sounds like a lot, and I don't even know if a lot of this is possible, but I want to start a forum of my own during the summer and I would like to see if these systems are actually doable and efficient.
If I could compare receiving rep for no good reason from an anonymous user to anything, it's like being sniped.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Don't you think your two suggestions sort of off balance it completely? It would only be good reputation comments then.
Why would it be so difficult to keep the good and remove the bad? Balance can be achieved through the infraction system or report a post function.
You break the rule,you lose reputation.
You post something that does not appeal to a person for their specific taste and they send you a PM to explain why.
It's way better this way. But that is just my personal opinion again.
The second suggestion would require an IMMENSE amount of work just to deem all negative reps as "fair" or "justified" which is pretty much impossible because it's a system based on opinions.
I agree. Mine was just a rough idea to be worked on. I already said it was impractical....well 'not very practical' to be exact which amounts to the same thing.
The problem is that the whole point of the Reputation System is to be user controlled and therefore, unmoderated. If we're moderating it, what's the point in keeping it at all?
Why would it be so difficult to keep the good and remove the bad? Balance can be achieved through the infraction system or report a post function.
You break the rule,you lose reputation.
You post something that does not appeal to a person for their specific taste and they send you a PM to explain why.
It's way better this way. But that is just my personal opinion again.
The point of the reputation system is to have a user controlled way to "rate" one another. If we gave negative rep for infractions what'd be the point? Besides infractions result in bans.
Quote from "Azriel »
[B]5.) New users who only deal out more negative rep than positive rep should be given infractions. [/B']This will stop rep trolls.
This can't happen. Users start with 10 rep power which means they can give 1 positive rep point, and 1 negative.
You can give half of your positive rep as negative later on.
So say you can give 8 positive rep, you can only negative rep for 4.
Just as an example, I have one of the highest reps on the site. When I give positive rep it gives +13, when I leave negative rep it gives -7. Which on average is easily remedied by anyone's +rep.
The problem is that the whole point of the Reputation System is to be user controlled and therefore, unmoderated. If we're moderating it, what's the point in keeping it at all?
I always thought the whole point of the reputation was to reward users for making meaningful contributions to discussions. Not all users possess such a capacity but they should not be 'punished' for that unless they are being insulting or overly aggressive...which is why I suggested the infraction system be fused with negative reputation.
If you disagree with someone's post, you discuss about it. That's the mature way to handle situations.
However more than a few have complained about negative reputations given for very poor reasons. It hurts the whole system more than helps it when it is abused in such a way.
[quote name='Daemaro'] If we gave negative rep for infractions what'd be the point?
The point would be to make the system fairer.
You get infractions when you break rules. It is logical you lose reputation for it.
You can give half of your positive rep as negative later on.
So say you can give 8 positive rep, you can only negative rep for 4.
Just as an example, I have one of the highest reps on the site. When I give positive rep it gives +13, when I leave negative rep it gives -7. Which on average is easily remedied by anyone's +rep.
Ah, forgot that.
Well, scratch that off then.
I think what bugs me the most is how people can get away with it. They shouldn't be able to get away with it, they're misusing the system.
How about making positive rep worth less? That will make users have to work harder for positive rep and discourage rep trading (more effort for less points, too much trouble).
I mean, yeah, I'm guilty of rep trading, but who isn't? I'm glad that the "reason" thing was put into effect, it'll make things way more balanced.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
I just think it's totally counterproductive to either remove negative reputation or make giving it harder. It's already easy to counter negative reputation because each relative positive reputation will be twice as big. Now your argument will be that people allegedly give negative reputation for silly reasons. I'm pretty certain people give lot more positive reputation for silly reasons, and they're twice as powerful.
If I were an imbecile I'd say that the new "you can't give reputation without reasoning" rule would be all there needs to be done, but I'm skeptical whether it'll cause unfair amounts of work for the poor moderators.
I am afraid it was never a matter of points but rather of intent behind the negative reputation.
Simple maths wouldn't bother anybody I assure you. Take and give a few- no worries at all.
A negative rep given without valid reasons(except for a person's specific taste or pleasure?) does not contribute to a wholesome experience.
A positive rep compared, is harmless and if it is given to you when you don't really deserve it, it also means nothing as well.
However a neg rep given to you when you don't deserve is at the very least annoying.
We CANNOT decide what is fair and what isn't as far as rep is concerned. If we get that deeply into it, we may as well just get rid of rep all together.
It's a system meant to be governed by the users. That's the ideal behind it. Some people aren't going to like you, some are. The same for posts and comments you make. It's all based on opinion.
If we start taking away peoples right to their own opinion and only allow positive things to be said it defeats the balance of the system in any form.
How about making positive rep worth less? That will make users have to work harder for positive rep and discourage rep trading (more effort for less points, too much trouble).
With a little work this MAY be possible. It's hard to tweak a system like this when it's already in use.
The way we designed it before really worked pretty well, it's just we didn't expect people to be using reputation this much. It takes quite a bit of rep to get anywhere it's just there's a lot of "rep spam" and trading going on.
We CANNOT decide what is fair and what isn't as far as rep is concerned. If we get that deeply into it, we may as well just get rid of rep all together.
At least consider my first suggestion then.
I understand it's difficult to make fair judgment when opinions are concerned.
Some people aren't going to like you, some are. The same for posts and comments you make. It's all based on opinion.
Some people don't like me because I wear Nike shoes or because I have a black jacket. They criticize me for it.
What happens?
I simply stay away from such people. They are unpleasant since their reasons are sadly very cheap.
If we start taking away peoples right to their own opinion and only allow positive things to be said it defeats the balance of the system in any form.
A person can express their opinion in a post like a real mature person. Positive rep(as I assume you are alluding to) will only contribute to better discussions. If you disagree with someone, you explain your reasoning in a post or PM. Helps you take responsibility for your views and promotes interaction in a better way i feel.
Quote from "Don_guillotine" »
You are logically totally incoherent, sadly.
First you say it's just the fact people feel they didn't deserve the negative reputations. Then you say positive reputation without reasons is harmless. Frankly, that's just plain hypocrisy. Both are equally harmless or harmful. The people who generally are unsatisfied by allegedly "undeserved" reputation are probably equally joyful because of equally undeserved positive reputation.
This bit am afraid is a very subjective point of view my friend. Thinking that you know what other users must feel is rather pretentious...and also plain false. I've put up a case to hopefully better the system and make users' experience here an insightful and more wholesome one. At least that's the idea.
There is an indifference between positive and negative reputation without good reasons. They're just some math numbers, and because of the fact positive reputation is given more and it's worth more, it results in total indifference.
Again...it was never a question of maths.
If you are saddened by negative reputation without reasons, you're probably equally happy out of positive reputation without reasons.
Please let's keep presumptions on other user's character and feelings out of this thread.
A person can express their opinion in a post like a real mature person. Positive rep(as I assume you are alluding to) will only contribute to better discussions. If you disagree with someone, you explain your reasoning in a post or PM. Helps you take responsibility for your views and promotes interaction in a better way i feel.
Basically what you just described is visitor messages. A way to only positively express your feelings of another user. If we apply too many rules and regulations to reputation comments it may as well just be a post, a pm, or a visitor message.
We provided a basic rule of no insulting someone. That didn't work because people complained about positive and negative rep spam. So we implemented a "do not discuss in public" rule. Hoping less complaining would mean less attention to someones rep, would mean less rep spam. People still weren't pleased with that. So we implemented the "reputation will be null if no reason given" rule in hopes that people would explain why they gave positive AND negative rep. That's just going to be a lot of work, and people still aren't happy with it.
We're pretty much running out of things we can do while keeping the system balanced and in the users hands.
Quite the contrary. You're being equally subjective just alike. We're dealing with opinions, they are not objective. Just because you responded oh-so constructively, I'll present my point in your terms. I am not feeling pretentious (kind wording), I merely used some logic.
If we take a hypothetical situation, involving person A and person B. Person A gives you 4 points of positive reputation, and person B 2 points of negative. Both reputations are without reason, without comment and for the same post.
There's 4 situations:
One
You feel happy about reputation A, sad about reputation B. The feelings somewhat negate each other and you're left with little more rep than you begun with.
Conclusion: The current system works.
Two
You feel indifferent about reputation A, sad about reputation B. You're angry.
But why? The reputations were both given for the same reason (well, there's none, but if we consider it being the same post) and you're also left with more reputation than you started.
Conclusion: You're a hypocrite.
Three
You feel happy about reputation A, indifferent about reputation B. You're happy. You gained two points.
Conclusion: The current system works.
Four
You feel indifferent about both reputations A and B, yet you gain two points.
Conclusion: The current system works.
Now, if we think about singular reputations, you're bound to get more positive reputations, and they're bound to be worth more. Either it's case one, and in the long run you'll be more often happy than angry. Case two, you're hypocrite. Case three, you're happy. And case four, you're indifferent.
Changing the way the reputation system works from its current implementation is very much a double-edged sword. You have to facilitate the same changes for both positive and negative reputation. Both are equally unjust without reasons. Taking out negative reputation altogether will be counterproductive because the people who don't exactly like what you posted have no way to show it through your reputation.
Dude, you are telling me that unless I am a hypocrite, the system works just fine?
Thank you.
Now that you can translate feelings into a mathematical equation and where you obviously can quantify happiness and sadness, the problem is solved.
Man, please stop. Your so-called logic is just.... I think I'll abstain. I could have broken it down bit by bit to show you the flaws but I am telling you for the third time, it's not about maths nor is it about positive rep being always more than negative rep.
It's ok now, we know what you think.
Let's not turn it into a flame war...however subtle it might appear.
Quote from "Daemaro" »
Basically what you just described is visitor messages. A way to only positively express your feelings of another user. If we apply too many rules and regulations to reputation comments it may as well just be a post, a pm, or a visitor message.
We provided a basic rule of no insulting someone. That didn't work because people complained about positive and negative rep spam. So we implemented a "do not discuss in public" rule. Hoping less complaining would mean less attention to someones rep, would mean less rep spam. People still weren't pleased with that. So we implemented the "reputation will be null if no reason given" rule in hopes that people would explain why they gave positive AND negative rep. That's just going to be a lot of work, and people still aren't happy with it.
We're pretty much running out of things we can do while keeping the system balanced and in the users hands.
I along with many users I am certain greatly appreciate the effort Daemaro. I honestly do.
The thread is just to gather ideas and argue their benefits and disadvantages. It's good at the very least that you are not trying to make people into hypocrites because they want something better.
The staff must have certainly discussed this issue in detail but I feel regular members can add their contribution too.
In my opinion, negativity never brings a community closer. I understand that people have their opinions and other people are free to disagree. I also understand that negativity exats in the real world. However, that does not mean it has to exist here. Call me a tree hugging hippy but I always try to surround my self with positivity.
If someone disagrees with a post you have they can always say so in anoher post. Just my opinion
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
Looks to me like the suggestions stopped coming on the first page and the rest of the thread is the defending of them. Doesn't look like the thread will be going any further.
This thread is NOT to complain about specific negative reputation. You will be allowed to cite an example(to support your suggestion(s)) if you wish, but sarcasm and swearing are to be kept to a bare minimum(preferably zero).
This thread will be closed if it turns to QQing or flame wars.
My suggestions-
(a)Removing negative rep, at least from the hands of regular users. There is already the infraction system to take care of offensive posts. Users only lose reputation through infractions obtained.
Why? Negative reputation given for banal reasons are only insults in disguise.Users are negative repped for what they post(which are not offensive). It's like being insulted for how you walk or how you talk. Insults are in no sense constructive at all.
This second suggestion is not very practical(as Emil pointed out to me) but I included it in any way since we'll have more possibilities or maybe one of you might get an idea from this and better it.
(b) Contact a mod to evaluate a neg rep.
Not about whether the neg repper had the right to do so, but about whether it was justified and fair.
Then either nullifying the neg rep or maintaining it.
Please refrain from making comments of the likes-'you should take it as a man'.
That is what we are doing by taking such a stance.
Or 'You should learn to accept it"
We shall never accept insults as being part of the experience we have on this site.
Now onto your suggestions(keep them in bold letters) my fellow diablo fans.
All in the hope of keeping our time on our beloved site as enjoyable and as fun as possible.
Don't you think your two suggestions sort of off balance it completely? It would only be good reputation comments then.
The second suggestion would require an IMMENSE amount of work just to deem all negative reps as "fair" or "justified" which is pretty much impossible because it's a system based on opinions.
I'm all for any improvements that you guys might suggest but that's just my thoughts so far.
*3.) Make the system non-anonymous. If people know they can get away with frivolous reputation, they'll keep giving it. Making the system non-anonymous will make users hesitant to give negative rep to people who don't deserve. They know it's wrong, that's why they don't leave their name.
4.) Negative rep should only correlate with the offending of users, off-topic posts (unless where thread permits, like the URT), and blatant spam.
5.) New users who only deal out more negative rep than positive rep should be given infractions. This will stop rep trolls.
Now, I know this sounds like a lot, and I don't even know if a lot of this is possible, but I want to start a forum of my own during the summer and I would like to see if these systems are actually doable and efficient.
If I could compare receiving rep for no good reason from an anonymous user to anything, it's like being sniped.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
Why would it be so difficult to keep the good and remove the bad? Balance can be achieved through the infraction system or report a post function.
You break the rule,you lose reputation.
You post something that does not appeal to a person for their specific taste and they send you a PM to explain why.
It's way better this way. But that is just my personal opinion again.
I agree. Mine was just a rough idea to be worked on. I already said it was impractical....well 'not very practical' to be exact which amounts to the same thing.
Diablo III Analyst
SC2Mapster
The point of the reputation system is to have a user controlled way to "rate" one another. If we gave negative rep for infractions what'd be the point? Besides infractions result in bans.
This can't happen. Users start with 10 rep power which means they can give 1 positive rep point, and 1 negative.
You can give half of your positive rep as negative later on.
So say you can give 8 positive rep, you can only negative rep for 4.
Just as an example, I have one of the highest reps on the site. When I give positive rep it gives +13, when I leave negative rep it gives -7. Which on average is easily remedied by anyone's +rep.
I always thought the whole point of the reputation was to reward users for making meaningful contributions to discussions. Not all users possess such a capacity but they should not be 'punished' for that unless they are being insulting or overly aggressive...which is why I suggested the infraction system be fused with negative reputation.
If you disagree with someone's post, you discuss about it. That's the mature way to handle situations.
However more than a few have complained about negative reputations given for very poor reasons. It hurts the whole system more than helps it when it is abused in such a way.
The point would be to make the system fairer.
You get infractions when you break rules. It is logical you lose reputation for it.
Ah, forgot that.
Well, scratch that off then.
I think what bugs me the most is how people can get away with it. They shouldn't be able to get away with it, they're misusing the system.
How about making positive rep worth less? That will make users have to work harder for positive rep and discourage rep trading (more effort for less points, too much trouble).
I mean, yeah, I'm guilty of rep trading, but who isn't? I'm glad that the "reason" thing was put into effect, it'll make things way more balanced.
I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
I am afraid it was never a matter of points but rather of intent behind the negative reputation.
Simple maths wouldn't bother anybody I assure you. Take and give a few- no worries at all.
A negative rep given without valid reasons(except for a person's specific taste or pleasure?) does not contribute to a wholesome experience.
A positive rep compared, is harmless and if it is given to you when you don't really deserve it, it also means nothing as well.
However a neg rep given to you when you don't deserve is at the very least annoying.
That's a huge difference I think.
It's a system meant to be governed by the users. That's the ideal behind it. Some people aren't going to like you, some are. The same for posts and comments you make. It's all based on opinion.
If we start taking away peoples right to their own opinion and only allow positive things to be said it defeats the balance of the system in any form.
With a little work this MAY be possible. It's hard to tweak a system like this when it's already in use.
The way we designed it before really worked pretty well, it's just we didn't expect people to be using reputation this much. It takes quite a bit of rep to get anywhere it's just there's a lot of "rep spam" and trading going on.
At least consider my first suggestion then.
I understand it's difficult to make fair judgment when opinions are concerned.
Some people don't like me because I wear Nike shoes or because I have a black jacket. They criticize me for it.
What happens?
I simply stay away from such people. They are unpleasant since their reasons are sadly very cheap.
A person can express their opinion in a post like a real mature person. Positive rep(as I assume you are alluding to) will only contribute to better discussions. If you disagree with someone, you explain your reasoning in a post or PM. Helps you take responsibility for your views and promotes interaction in a better way i feel.
This bit am afraid is a very subjective point of view my friend. Thinking that you know what other users must feel is rather pretentious...and also plain false. I've put up a case to hopefully better the system and make users' experience here an insightful and more wholesome one. At least that's the idea.
Again...it was never a question of maths.
Please let's keep presumptions on other user's character and feelings out of this thread.
Basically what you just described is visitor messages. A way to only positively express your feelings of another user. If we apply too many rules and regulations to reputation comments it may as well just be a post, a pm, or a visitor message.
We provided a basic rule of no insulting someone. That didn't work because people complained about positive and negative rep spam. So we implemented a "do not discuss in public" rule. Hoping less complaining would mean less attention to someones rep, would mean less rep spam. People still weren't pleased with that. So we implemented the "reputation will be null if no reason given" rule in hopes that people would explain why they gave positive AND negative rep. That's just going to be a lot of work, and people still aren't happy with it.
We're pretty much running out of things we can do while keeping the system balanced and in the users hands.
Dude, you are telling me that unless I am a hypocrite, the system works just fine?
Thank you.
Now that you can translate feelings into a mathematical equation and where you obviously can quantify happiness and sadness, the problem is solved.
Man, please stop. Your so-called logic is just.... I think I'll abstain. I could have broken it down bit by bit to show you the flaws but I am telling you for the third time, it's not about maths nor is it about positive rep being always more than negative rep.
It's ok now, we know what you think.
Let's not turn it into a flame war...however subtle it might appear.
I along with many users I am certain greatly appreciate the effort Daemaro. I honestly do.
The thread is just to gather ideas and argue their benefits and disadvantages. It's good at the very least that you are not trying to make people into hypocrites because they want something better.
The staff must have certainly discussed this issue in detail but I feel regular members can add their contribution too.
If someone disagrees with a post you have they can always say so in anoher post. Just my opinion
Find any Diablo news? Contact me or anyone else on the News team
~Closed.
Diablo III Analyst
SC2Mapster