Easy to see who is a troll and who is not maybe? Or is it giving/removing site features upon reaching a certain score maybe?
I think the general idea is that it gives people an impression of who is trusted and who isn't. If the system is in use for a while, you'll start to see frequent posters who tend to post decent stuff with several green rectangles, whilst those with a red rectangle are likely to be distrusted. For example, if someone with very high rep posts a potentially contentious or inflammatory thread, the idea is that you'd see the rep and realise they normally post sensible stuff, so are just aiming for a well-argued, decent debate, rather than someone with several negative rep posting the same thread, which might indicate it to be more of a WUM thread and not worth rising too. The system used to be anonymous, which meant that you could leave negative rep without fear of someone getting annoyed at you. The anonymity was removed because people were abusing it, and sending nasty stuff to each other anonymously as rep. However, without the anonymity, the system loses some of its use, because everyone will know exactly who was annoyed with what they post.
What happened with posts #9 and #10? EDIT: I think the clock's been reset. It was about five minutes fast, now it's only a minute ahead.
Starting to get annoyed by the rep system already. I want to rep someone who made an excellent post but I get a message telling me that I have to spread my reputation around a bit before I can rep 'X' again. Since then I gave reputation to a few others but I still get the same message. How many different people do I have to rep before I can rep the first one again? I shouldn't have to actively search through threads to find something I think is worth it, to give rep to, just to be able to rep the first one again. :S The following is a rant, your time might be better spent reading something else. Consider your self warned And also, I got one negative rep last week, which is fine really, but the comment was "I strongly disagree". Now this might be strange, but I really appreciate when someone disagrees with me as long as it is backed by reasonable arguments, because I believe that one must constantly always be open to re-evaluate his views. So I initially gave him positive rep back for that. And as he hadn't replied to the post he disagreed with, I sent a PM asking him to please explain to settle my curiosity. I am yet to receive anything at all in response. Now this is only one negative rep and that is nothing to get upset about, which I'm not. But what annoys me and I can't let go of, is that someone will give negative rep just because they disagree, and without explaining the reason behind. I personally give reputation based upon how well thought through someone present their opinion. In the post that got negative comments, I had fairly thoroughly explained the reasoning behind my interpretation of the subject being discussed. As a Schumacher fan, if someone were to post "I can't stand him for when he tried to punch David Coulthard. I am strongly against all forms of violence..." it would be perfectly fine, and if the person develop that further with nicely put arguments, I can see no reason for why he/she wouldn't deserve positive reputation for that. But if someone wrote "I hate Schumacher, he can't drive for sh#t and his mother is a..." that absolutely deserves negative reputation. Even if it was about someone I too disliked! So, do I have the wrong idea about reputation? Is it just to show who you disagree with or not? Or is it to show who is 'trolling' or not? With this post(second part), I am not so much asking for a reply, but hopefully will affect some people to view reputation more in the way I do.
Just as a reminder, if you feel the rep system is being abused, or used as a tool of personal attack, you can report it to one of us mods or the admin to look into
I feel a bit better about having missed Schumacher off the poll now. As off-topic as this all is, I agree with most other people. The Rep system seems to be intact and (unless someone corrects me) the new 'Like' system doesn't appear to interfere with it. However, the Like system looks a bit messy, with an apparently burgeoning list of likes and dislikes beneath each post, could make it easy to miss something, and doesn't need to be attributed. If you don't receive positive or negative rep for the likes and dislike, why not just make it anonymous?
They're only sticking names on these likes/dislikes to hopefully start a few arguments, I already got 2 lol! How dare somebody disagree with me
Yes - discussion on it swamped the Bahrain chat thread. I wouldn't be averse to one of you moving all the 'Likes' comments into this thread...
