Reputation points?

[JustBusiness17]

I've been on a lot of other forums where there is an option to give out "rep points" to reward members for quality posts. Is it possible to set something like that up?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

No.

I think we discussed this before, and decided that it would be a bad idea. Too much heated debate goes on here to make something like that practical.

 

[JustBusiness17]

No.

I think we discussed this before, and decided that it would be a bad idea. Too much heated debate goes on here to make something like that practical.

Did you guys figure people would score points to reward 'witicism' or something?

One drawback I was thinking about was the idea that reputation based on previous participation doesn't necessarily reflect on the accuracy of their subsequent posts. Reputation in that sense would serve as an unwarranted form of authority/credibility, which is counter productive for promoting critical analysis.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Did you guys figure people would score points to reward 'witicism' or something?

One drawback I was thinking about was the idea that reputation based on previous participation doesn't necessarily reflect on the accuracy of their subsequent posts. Reputation in that sense would serve as an unwarranted form of authority/credibility, which is counter productive for promoting critical analysis.

Well, there's that. There's also the fact that this site seems to attract people who make less than 100 posts, piss off everyone they meet, and then leave in a huff. Do you want to risk reputation points based on the opinions of those kind of people?

Hell, I've had two assholes with less than 40 posts call me a troll this week alone. I've been here since the first month or two of the website, and I have more posts than anyone else. Do I need every hit-and-run fuckstick driving my reputation down? :lol:

Quick edit here: I apparently signed up on the third day of the ORIGINAL LoR site, the archived one. :lol:

 

[nasher168]

One issue I recall from the original thread about this was that it might end up turning into a popularity contest. If two members have issues with one another, imagine what would happen if other members gave +rep to one but not the other. It could well propagate an argument or make the less-highly-rated member feel unwelcome. I think personally that it would rather ruin the relaxed, welcoming atmosphere on the present forum.

 

[Shaedys]

On points stated above such as that it would make new people(me?) feel unwelcome, and that reputation will be established through the posts themselves I disagree and say we don't need it.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

My answer is No.
And the reason is simple, this is a discution based board and opinions should be heard based on merit and not on popularity of the speaker.
It unecessarily splits people into popularity categories and that is never good, not only because it is self congratulatory smug but also because people with less awsomeness points will get away with the impression that this is not a discution board but a ego stroking session.

Now I will joke with the all situation (so don't take it seriously, I'm just practicing):
Plus rep points for what, what does it do? says that you are awsome? Well congratulations, you have nothing else in life except to train a monkey on how to use a computer just so he can post random things in the LoR for you, your mom will be proud of this achievment! (*looks at my own number of posts* whait what?)
If you need a scoring system to tell your awsomeness level in the boards so you can stroke your ego with it, then here is what you can do:
1. Make a list in a piece of paper what what rank you want to call someone with a particular number of posts
2. Make cutout trophies for a variety of categories that you think you can win trophies on
3. Once every year make a private event with cutout audience andcutout celebreties where you atribute those cutout trophies to yourself for having suceeded on the categories that you yourself have invented (culminating in a emotional charged spectacle where you cry out of your noze with greaty glee and joy as you give your thankyou speach).
4. Repeat everything next year
5. ???
6. Profit

 

[borrofburi]

Hell, I've had two assholes with less than 40 posts call me a troll this week alone. I've been here since the first month or two of the website, and I have more posts than anyone else. Do I need every hit-and-run fuckstick driving my reputation down?

I've always been uncertain about rep, because of the reasons nasher168 brings up, but after this post... Well I don't know, I think this could be highly entertaining...

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Hell, I've had two assholes with less than 40 posts call me a troll this week alone. I've been here since the first month or two of the website, and I have more posts than anyone else. Do I need every hit-and-run fuckstick driving my reputation down?

I've always been uncertain about rep, because of the reasons nasher168 brings up, but after this post... Well I don't know, I think this could be highly entertaining...

Hah hah.

...but not if you want to keep theists participating on any level. You just know that as soon as someone claims any theism, it means a billion negative reputation points.

Let's look at that Philosopher cat as an example. He's got a million terrible reasons for believing in "God" and an eagerness to share them with us. But he's also fairly polite, and at least tries to defend his position without threatening eternal damnation or name-calling or the normal theist trolling stuff. I'd hate to see a situation where people start getting negative reputation for unpopular ideas, because then we'll have everyone agreeing and things will get boring fast.

 

[borrofburi]

Let's look at that Philosopher cat as an example. He's got a million terrible reasons for believing in "God" and an eagerness to share them with us. But he's also fairly polite, and at least tries to defend his position without threatening eternal damnation or name-calling or the normal theist trolling stuff. I'd hate to see a situation where people start getting negative reputation for unpopular ideas, because then we'll have everyone agreeing and things will get boring fast.

Yes, it's probably not safe enough to assume that people in general are mature enough to handle getting negative rep, which will lead to self censoring and hurt feelings... How about a positive-only system?

 

[nasher168]

Yes, it's probably not safe enough to assume that people in general are mature enough to handle getting negative rep, which will lead to self censoring and hurt feelings... How about a positive-only system?

Same issue applies. Imagine a thread with two disagreeing people. If a lot of people say things along the lines of: "I agree, have some +rep" to one person and not the other, it makes the unpopular view less likely to be expressed. Even if positive-only rep were to reduce the feeling of unwelcomeness (?) for the unpopular viewpoint/person, it would still have an effect and would still enable the popularity contest stuff to go on.

 

[CosmicSpork]

Maybe I can clear this up...

No.

Thank you for your time

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

I agree with Nasher168 and others who see ratings points as:

turning into a popularity contest.

But I do support improving this forum's quality with a confidential "unpopularity contest."

Those with double digit "mutes" against them -- and I see the three who I figured out rather quickly are already in this thread -- should receive a 3-6 month suspension, a clean slate, then permanent banishment for a second offense. If these individuals know that non-public user opinion can get them suspended, they'd be pressured to clean up their acts right away.

Muting blowhards does improve the quality in threads somewhat, but it alone isn't enough because others keep quoting the irresponsible posts and bogging down the threads with unnecessary rebuttals to poorly reasoned opinions.

 

[borrofburi]

I agree with Nasher168 and others who see ratings points as:

turning into a popularity contest.

But I do support improving this forum's quality with a confidential "unpopularity contest."

Those with double digit "mutes" against them -- and I see the three who I figured out rather quickly are already in this thread -- should receive a 3-6 month suspension, a clean slate, then permanent banishment for a second offense. If these individuals know that non-public user opinion can get them suspended, they'd be pressured to clean up their acts right away.

Muting blowhards does improve the quality in threads somewhat, but it alone isn't enough because others keep quoting the irresponsible posts and bogging down the threads with unnecessary rebuttals to poorly reasoned opinions.

You can report a post if you want, and moderators will take a look at it.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Maybe I can clear this up...

No.

Thank you for your time

You're welcome.

I'm sure I remember that this was your response in the last thread on the subject.

If you DO institute a reputation system, it should be based on total numbers of posts. For instance, someone with less than 100 points doesn't have the credibility to give anyone reputation, and someone with over 3500 posts gets to ban anyone he doesn't like.

Oh... what a coincidence! I'm the only one here with over 3500 posts! I'm just shocked at the way that works out... I still think it is a good idea. :lol:

 

[Andiferous]

ImprobableJoe: you've got so many posts, you don't need reputation points to be cool.

In all seriousness, I rather like freedom to speak from different viewpoints without penalty, and I get a secret thrill out of people disagreeing with my posts and forcing me to re-evaluate my position. I think points will encourage the opposite. And it would be all about who can flame the best, and who agrees the most, rather then trying to discuss topics from different perspectives and learning from it. Which is the point really, for me. Pun not intended, too.

Although I'm sure this was discussed before...

 

[Prolescum]

I agree with Nasher168 and others who see ratings points as:

turning into a popularity contest.

But I do support improving this forum's quality with a confidential "unpopularity contest."

Yeah, nothing quite like the grace of the guiding hand of reason when it's obscured by secrecy. Yep siree. Wonderful.
Youbetcha.

Those with double digit "mutes" against them -- and I see the three who I figured out rather quickly are already in this thread -- should receive a 3-6 month suspension, a clean slate, then permanent banishment for a second offense. If these individuals know that non-public user opinion can get them suspended, they'd be pressured to clean up their acts right away.

Those whose usernames can generally be considered shit or those who use the word solipsistic more than once a week should also be banned for a period not less than four days, including a three minute silence to remember and reflect upon their lack of imagination. There should also be a secret ballot held for awful use of avatar space. Why, we might also exclude people based upon their geographical location or age, perhaps even their sexual proclivities while we're at it! If these individuals know that some random fuckwit's opinion can get them suspended, they'd be pressured to clean up their acts right away.

Muting blowhards does improve the quality in threads somewhat, but it alone isn't enough because others keep quoting the irresponsible posts and bogging down the threads with unnecessary rebuttals to poorly reasoned opinions.

You know, you can always hang out with the onanistic pseudo intellectuals at http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ if this board has too wide a group of users for you.

 

[CosmicSpork]

Ok that'll do.