Reputation take 2

[TrotlDebilni]

I can be the first with -100 and be special

Don't worry Monte, you will always be special in my eyes.

How is it not a matter of opinion, though? Should those giving out reputation points look at posts objectively and somehow determine if they're worthy of a point regardless of how they feel about it?

Determining one's credibility using a system like this can be extremely deceiving. That's one lesson the previous 'take' on this system taught us.

Well it's a matter of opinion because you can always look past these rep points and ignore them since they are useless internet points (just like the money in RS4).

The only issue that exists is people not really knowing how to use them, on other forums people get +rep when they do something helpful, and -rep when they do something stupid (may it be begging for points, or whatever Monte just did), here the points are very opinionated, people +rep their friends and people like Teddy, who work on the site like insane, but -rep the people they dislike, like Devin if he denied their unban appeal, or an admin that warned them.

I think the rep system is a great idea, because it gives an insight on who is contributing to the community, it's just that people here aren't using it for that, so maybe adding a comments function will fix it.

For example, you deserve +rep for what you just said because it was well written and it contributed to the discussion.

[eymas]

The misuse cannot be avoided but you can trust the staff team to combat any abuse of it.

Furthermore, if this system is to stay, then we do need to be vigilant on said prejudgments and conspiracies. For instance I can expect monte to get negativity thrown at him even if he has a perfectly constructed argument against a change on whatever. Because men like to follow the bandwagon and pick on him because he made himself a target in the past/present.

I'm neutral on the poll; can't vote yes/no because it's the people that will form the reason to vote. If the community uses it proper, then it can stay. If not, then not.

[Huntsman]

Well, my negativity fell from -18 to -14 out of the blue. Just like it rose out of the blue  . I can't really be arsed to care at this point. I'm neutral.

[Kaze]

I voted yes because I find it funny.

In all seriousness no, it's pointless. Am I meant to hang a rope around my neck because I am not liked by 8 people? This community still have minors which can not control their emotions as much as the olders and veterans can. I can see chaos with this.

[Stivi]

Where do I see who voted and why?

[Huntsman]

How do I even vote? 

[eymas]

Where do I see who voted and why?

And what would you do with the people that voted then?
Pretty sure those who voted negative upon you will get a personal vendetta from you then 

Which is the exact reason why it would be hidden.

How do I even vote? 

So far there's a heart button on everyone's "profile" on the left of each post.

[Sweeper]

- For those of you cry babies, you can also hide your reputation publicly.
- This is per post and you need to add a comment to why you are voting that specific way.
- You need to have reputation power to perform reputation actions.

The wishes of our babies have now been met, and guess what... Still crying about their virtual reputation.

Keep the system.

[Gandalf]

I never chyecked in to the systems since a year or 5 ago, but with the release of SMF 2 there was a system that did not alllow negative reputation, meaning it is only possible to give a positive mark.
While I see such systems more as a popularity contest as a genuine way to see if someone is a valuable contributor, removing the negative will at least keep everyone above 0.

[Kaze]

What do the different color codes mean? Some people have blue, red etc

[[NP]Monte Montague]

I never chyecked in to the systems since a year or 5 ago, but with the release of SMF 2 there was a system that did not alllow negative reputation, meaning it is only possible to give a positive mark.
While I see such systems more as a popularity contest as a genuine way to see if someone is a valuable contributor, removing the negative will at least keep everyone above 0.

I believe in that case it would defeat the purpose as to why it was added.
It seems like the attempt of a pursuit of consensus for the justification of some modus operandi against certain people whilst the existence of substance for the justification could be lacking... Let's also just disregard the fact that sometimes some just hate for the sake of hate, or that grudges are genuinely regarded as sound reasoning for persecution. So even if it went one way if anything it'd just give justification for someone with a bigger e-dick to say something to another person and get away with it whilst the victim who may be considered by some as a bitch is unable to make the same sort of comment in return without facing serious backlash for not being accepted as part of the clique. You know... #Argonath ?

[Gandalf]

I believe in that case it would defeat the purpose as to why it was added.
It seems like the attempt of a pursuit of consensus for the justification of some modus operandi against certain people whilst the existence of substance for the justification could be lacking (let's just disregard the fact that sometimes some just hate for the sake of hate, or that grudges are genuinely regarded as sound reasoning for persecution).

That seems to be your idea. In reality is is just a way to see if some people are seen as more cridible than others.

[Huntsman]

I believe in that case it would defeat the purpose as to why it was added.
It seems like the attempt of a pursuit of consensus for the justification of some modus operandi against certain people whilst the existence of substance for the justification could be lacking (let's just disregard the fact that sometimes some just hate for the sake of hate, or that grudges are genuinely regarded as sound reasoning for persecution).

....
....
What?

[Devin]

I believe in that case it would defeat the purpose as to why it was added.
It seems like the attempt of a pursuit of consensus for the justification of some modus operandi against certain people whilst the existence of substance for the justification could be lacking (let's just disregard the fact that sometimes some just hate for the sake of hate, or that grudges are genuinely regarded as sound reasoning for persecution).

The contemplation based on the complication of your vocabulary is extraordinary I wish I could write sentences in outstandingly long paragraphs that hold no value but I prefer to get to the point. The perspective of the community when one creates a nonsense post is often the same which in the overall mindset of the world obama because potato and potassium cohesion.

Your justification is rather flawed when you say the purpose of the system is defeated when you personally run around trying to get the most negative votes when you don't even have to try to be brutally honest. The comprehension of your request for negative votes is somewhat senseless but every person for their own fetish.

[TiMoN]

gonna make a new account and rep my posts so i become most popular person in argonath