Originally Posted by n00b

Its a fun little feature, but its not like its a super serious thing. I don't think any less of someone with a low rep than I do someone with a high rep. Also its not like we can see why their reps are high/low. Like Kaz had a rep of 3 at one point and I have no idea why. I don't know why Cooba, Violet, and Stijn are rocking substantially higher rep counts than everyone else who are in this 0-40 range.

As for me, I got like half of it for my post where I announced reputations where enabled.

Anyway, I mostly agree - it's just a number, and nothing depends on it (except your ability to give reputation - you can only do so when yours is 10 or higher). Don't take it too seriously, see it as a little gimmick.

Moderating would be giving it way more weight than it actually carries, in addition to introducing a new task for the forum staff (and I personally don't feel like checking all ratings, really) - and yeah, more rules often equal less fun.

How does the reputation system make the forums better? exept growing virtual (-)(-)(-)(-)(-)
Well, maybe we can make a difference between bad posters and good posters. But, why do I then get bad reputation for my bad posts and no reputation for my good posts?

I think it works pretty meta - if one takes reputation so seriously that it's unhealthy, people will know how to treat their posts in the future.

I think the rules are too restricted for a game like JJ2, I mean it's not really a kids' game anymore, considering the kids who've been playing it already grew up and turned into adults.. I know bigger forums with only 1 moderator (who's actually barely ever around) and no censorships at all and they work way better than this one.. I also don't see the point in having so many sub-forums (like Lark, I believe once pointed out).

Myself, I see the reputation I receive as a way to tune my posting style to match the forum, especially given that with a purely text-based medium you lose a lot of information. For example, if it's not blatently obvious that a post is a joke from the text then people may take it seriously (with all the drama that entails), as they don't have any body language or tone of voice to use to judge it. It's already had an effect on my posting, and I imagine it's change the posting styles of some other members as well.

At the moment reputation has no effect on forum privileges or abilities (with the exception that you must have positive reputation to use the feature), though I'm vageuly considering adding bonuses for high rep and penalties for low rep. For example, a low rep could disable someone's signature, while a high rep could permit you to change your rank (the bit below your name that says "JCF Member"), grant access to a restricted board, permit attachments... there's lots of options. Alternatively, it may be possible to award privileges for giving out reputation (rather than having a specific reputation) to encourage the use of it.

I personally see no need to regulate the giving out and receiving of reputation. The forum software has limits in place to try and prevent abuse by requiring you to spread the reputation among multiple users and rate-limiting the giving of reputation. Should someone manage to abuse it despite that then we can take action, though the main issue I can think of is using it to send supposedly anonymous abusive messages. I don't necessarily see persistently down/upvoting someone as an issue, as you'd have to spread the reputation among multiple users and it woudn't really achieve anything (though again, action can be taken if it gets ridiculous).

While I would love to be able to change my title thing, I don't really think it should be as a result of the reputation. It's just going to go all over the place. Low if you're new, or excessively high if you're Unknown Rabbit. Most people will only have something in-between, but the feature's not all that important anyway. It's a bit of fun, but it shouldn't be used for privileges or punishment.

In which case, I am content to withdraw my suggestion that we try regulating reputation. The only other forum I'm used to it from, from what I can tell, restricts reputation to something you give to people who answer your questions in help threads, but on reflection that doesn't need to be the only use and we're free to experiment.

As for "excessively high": hey, I contribute a lot to this community. And I'm able to bump up other people quite a bit as a result, stimulating the economy.

Sorry, I was only joking. I wasn't saying you don't deserve it or anything.

I really think that we shouldn't deviate from the JCF Member/Administrator/etc titles. They should serve an informative purpose, and there's already one custom title everyone can use.

Originally Posted by spaceboy

I think the rules are too restricted for a game like JJ2, I mean it's not really a kids' game anymore, considering the kids who've been playing it already grew up and turned into adults.. I know bigger forums with only 1 moderator (who's actually barely ever around) and no censorships at all and they work way better than this one.. I also don't see the point in having so many sub-forums (like Lark, I believe once pointed out).

You've said this before but really, if you'd actually look at THE FACTS!, it would be obvious that the Derby-era on the JCF ended a few years ago. So stop pretending it's still like that, it's tiring and simply wrong.

Also, remember the drama when I merged one of the less active forums, Technical Help? I'm not sure the forums would survive it if something even more radical than that happened, like, god forbid, merging General Jazz Talk and Future of Jazz.

I haven't noticed any drama. Besides people would adjust quickly to anything. I think you're just avoiding solutions but meh. The forum barely has enough members to keep even 4 different categories on, and it has like what.. 10?

http://www.jazz2online.com/jcf/showt...t=18762&page=2

Not like it matters anyway. People just avoid the inactive forums as it is now, it's not like there'd be a huge difference were they to be merged.

Please refrain from adding privileges and punishments. I don't want to feel bad about adding/subtracting rep.

You are just a conservative coward.

Originally Posted by spaceboy

You are just a conservative coward.

We don't wanna tick off Tik (see what I did there), Trafton or Derby (yes he is still here).

The thing is that the forum is absolutely perfect, that's no understatement. Honestly I just don't think we need new themes, a punishment system and all this hooey. Spaceboy makes a good point, there aren't many posts now to really moderate from, I also haven't seen many offensive posts for the past few months. The reputation feature is some harmless fun, but with a Punishment system your only empowering it to become more serious , I think it may discourage people from posting.

Another problem is the fact that we can't see why our posts get negative rep. I often make more than one post a day, sometimes people don't understand what you post or just misinterpret what you may of said. I would rather fix my negative posts and learn from my mistakes.

Another flaw about reputation is not everyone is going to look at a thread , perhaps because it just doesn't interest them. Someone who just cracks a funny joke could get more rep than say someone who helps a person getting there JJ2 working. I think the person who helped the guy trying to get his JJ2 to work deserves more rep than the guy who crack a joke. Sadly however you can't allocate how much rep someone deserves. Some of these people who have high reputation for example, I look at some of there posts and I'm wondering "How on earth did these guys get so much rep, compared to some others with lower rep and have done a lot more helpful things.

I Just don't think reputation should be treated this way. Its bad enough when you see someone with a red blip and you hover over it and it says "this person doesn't post anything worth reading", (I know it doesn't say that , but along those lines) .

I think this reputation thing has came in too late to be honest. Perhaps when there was more posts daily it may of been good to use. Most of the time we all keep happy and get along. A possibility is reputation could actually course us all to become a bit annoyed at one another, as its all anonymous we don't know who is giving us negative rep, or why most importantly. Doesn't this just give admins more of a Job as well, I mean you will have to check a bunch of reasons, and see if they are being given out correctly on top of posts .

Its all my opinion I suppose , but I regret ever supporting reputation, I just thought you would have a thumps up on a post you made, and it showed who liked the post.
I suppose its not too much of a big deal either , but it would be a lot nicer if you could just change your JCF rank anyway.

Originally Posted by Speeza

Another flaw about reputation is not everyone is going to look at a thread , perhaps because it just doesn't interest them. Someone who just cracks a funny joke could get more rep than say someone who helps a person getting there JJ2 working. I think the person who helped the guy trying to get his JJ2 to work deserves more rep than the guy who crack a joke. Sadly however you can't allocate how much rep someone deserves. Some of these people who have high reputation for example, I look at some of there posts and I'm wondering "How on earth did these guys get so much rep, compared to some others with lower rep and have done a lot more helpful things.

In Unknown Rabbit's case, I must say this statement contradicts itself, unfortunately.

Though I'm not completely opposed to reputation, Speeza does bring up some valid points. However, I feel as if it is as fair of a system as it could get. What more could be done without regulating reputation? He's dead-on when he said this should've been done years ago.

And what would be funny is if you got below 50 rep, you were unable to post unless your post was viewed by a mod/admin first. That would be a real form of quality control, however, and I'm not so sure as to whether I'm opposed to that idea or not.

Yeah I should point out , I meant not everyone who has high reputation didn't deserve it. Unknown rabbit has always posted useful stuff. Its just others you can look at. I'd rather just not say names is why.

An expansion on Speeza's Idea: I think there should be a thumbs up/thumbs down at the bottom of each post showing whether the post got positive or negative rep and how many times of each.

Originally Posted by Speeza

Another flaw about reputation is not everyone is going to look at a thread , perhaps because it just doesn't interest them. Someone who just cracks a funny joke could get more rep than say someone who helps a person getting there JJ2 working. I think the person who helped the guy trying to get his JJ2 to work deserves more rep than the guy who crack a joke. Sadly however you can't allocate how much rep someone deserves. Some of these people who have high reputation for example, I look at some of there posts and I'm wondering "How on earth did these guys get so much rep, compared to some others with lower rep and have done a lot more helpful things.

I slightly agree with this. Im at 47 for a couple of jokey, some even meanspirited posts, meanwhile mothersnuckin Blackraptor is at 14. This guy contributes great discussion to the forums. Whats the deal? Seriously.

Like its a good thing that number doesn't mean anything because the implications of that is effed up.

Originally Posted by Dermo

And what would be funny is if you got below 50 rep, you were unable to post unless your post was viewed by a mod/admin first. That would be a real form of quality control, however, and I'm not so sure as to whether I'm opposed to that idea or not.

That would be funny because that would mean no one but like Cooba, Stijn, and Unknown Rabbit could post freely. And I think that illustrates why rep shouldn't have any serious consequence/reward added to it.

Originally Posted by n00b

That would be funny because that would mean no one but like Cooba, Stijn, and Unknown Rabbit could post freely. And I think that illustrates why rep shouldn't have any serious consequence/reward added to it.

I meant to say negative 50. Bleh.

n00b: Blackraptor has made three posts to the JCF this year, let alone since reputation was implemented. His posts simply don't show up much, and there doesn't seem to be much retrorepping, so he stays low.

Originally Posted by spaceboy

You are just a conservative coward.

And you're just trolling.

Huh? No why would I? If actually standing for something automatically equals trolling in this place, then whatever.. let it be. Like always you try to present those who oppose to your opinion as some negative contributors, but I'm just being honest here, like I always am..

Originally Posted by Unknown Rabbit

n00b: Blackraptor has made three posts to the JCF this year, let alone since reputation was implemented. His posts simply don't show up much, and there doesn't seem to be much retrorepping, so he stays low.

I somehow fused FireSword and BlackRaptor in my head. I don't know how.
Please for future reference switch the names mentally and replace the 14 with a 34. The point still stands

EDIT- I probably got them mixed up since they're both great posters and posted back to back in the semi thread.

This 'reputation' feature became real misleading real fast. It's also a rather convenient method to exact hate. Not pointing this out because some control freak kid went goofing around with it here and there, but because it's generally misleading.

so when you will be able to delete accounts? I personally dont want to be associated with a forum full of people who dont understand humor. meanwhile im waiting ill abuse this reputation feature a bit.

EDIT: I am also kindly requesting people to not provoke me into fights about this post.

I really don't know how to say this in the nicest way. But a lot of your rep loss was because you were flaming about losing rep and your deleted post message wasn't too nice either. Don't take reputation too seriously, you would of kept a lot of it if it weren't for your other posts, Its good that you deleted them however.

I personally wouldn't of downrepped you for your post about using Google. Not everyone see's the same things in a post. Its hard to see if the person was joking or just being arrogant when its all mostly text base.

If people are trying to flame bait you let them, just don't reply to it. Your soon see they will lose rep and you simply won't. It would be a shame if you were to stop posting snooze. In my eyes everyone is a vital asset to this forum :P Mostly everyone anyway...

I just browsed through a lot of recent reputations, and noticed that barely any hateful (or even just negative) reputation is being handed out (except by a few people, including some who should know better). I think the perceived effect of there being lots of hate and trouble is partly caused by a few people overreacting to the negative reputation they receive.

(there ARE some people who use the reputation feature for any person they disagree with, even if the person has written an eloquent post, though. that's unfortunate)

Haha, thanks to the latest one. Never posting/visiting this forum again. You dont deserve people like me.

Good riddance.

Originally Posted by Bboy Type7

Haha, thanks to the latest one. Never posting/visiting this forum again. You dont deserve people like me.

Originally Posted by snzspeed

Haha, thanks to the latest one. Never posting/visiting this forum again. You dont deserve people like me.

If that's your additude about it, then frankly, we don't need you. Pity though, I liked your levels.

"Hmm... what's that? A noob wants some help in that thread? Well, first I'll negrep him for being such an idiot, and now I'll write an answer. Haha, I'll get some easy reputation."

"Hey, I'm being negrepped? Hmm, I think it's that guy, he doesn't like me. Okay, I'll negrep him as well, I just need to search for some stupid post of him."

"Wtf, that guy here has a lot of rep and I don't even remember his nickname. He surely doesn't deserve it."

"Looks like the rep of my friend is too low. He surely has some decent posts for which I can give him some points."

"He thinks he's funny? Oh well, I'm not laughing - negrep."

"I'll leave my nickname in the positive rep reason. He'll feel that he should rep me back as well."

They're just some random thoughts I think some people could have. I myself try not to really care about this whole new system. When it started, I was even quite happy that something really new happens just a while after I joined this great community. I saw that a lot of good quality posts are now appearing and I was pressing that nice button of "I approve" next to the most of them. I noticed a lot of posts are talking about this new feature now, though. Complaining about receiving some bad reputation and "I'll surely get negrepped for this post but...". I felt that a lot of freedom is lost and people are scared of posting not to lose the precious points. I've read posts of some seemingly angry people. The overall quality of posts was worse and worse with every day. As well as the atmosphere which was so nice before, when I was visiting no reputation JCF. And now, the first such serious explosion. Although I think and I hope that Snooze won't leave the whole community ("never posting/visiting this forum again"), I still find it a great loss for JCF. I can easily imagine a lot more people leaving in this or a more quiet way in the future.

Obviously, in this way I vote for disabling this feature.

I like how you have to paint the community as heartless a holes or crazed addicts in your attempt to go "No sir, I dont like it". Seems like you have more of a problem with all of us than you do the actual rep feature.
Stop being so goddamn melodramatic in describing the impact of an e-peen feature on a bunny-game forum. Speaking as someone who has recently come back, the JCF doesnt seem like some horrid fukken crapsack wasteland obsessed with rep, it just seems like the JCF when I checked it earlier this year.
And then theres this nonsense:

"Looks like the rep of my friend is too low. He surely has some decent posts for which I can give him some points."

How is this a fukken problem? What the hell is this? Please excuse me for leaving it at that, but it almost feels like a waste of time to explain how this is legit and listing it as a problem just shows you're trying way too hard in your attempt to villainize the feature. For someone who claims he's trying not to care about the feature, you seem to be failing hard.

Exept that Sir Ementaler is right. Voting for closing the reputation feature.

I vote for disabling it, too.

Me too. Too risky for the atmosphere of this forum.

I tend to agree with n00b and Frank. Please don't exaggerate over a single incident, you get banned only when you act like a moron (see above).

The only point of this system I can see is to make unopinionated people aware of the fact that according to some, people with low reputation should not be taken seriously. I myself would not use a system like this one because I think even trolls can make a valid point once in a while. Just look at me, I'm not below 0 (yet).

What bothers me is the air of mystery that surrounds it. You don't get to see who gave you what reputation. Even though I do understand that the admins and moderators would get yet another job just monitoring these if they were public. I suspect that most of the reputations are given out by a select crowd and that most people do not bother to press the button. This makes the reputation system a system for the "elite".

In the end I don't really care for the entire system, I think I'm perfectly able to decide myself who I think highly of and of who I do not. Just reputate me down all you want. See if I care.