Why do you give rep points?

[MacGuffin]

I give rep so that I may someday raise a Great Army and march into the West and finally cast the EVIL ONE into the sea.

 

[substitute]

CzeCze... I undersetand your point and mostly agree with it... except... it seems that giving positive comments doesn't seem to need as much justification, or as careful consideration, as negative ones. Well, it probably should, but the general attitude is that it doesn't.

The thing I'd be concerned about, if neg reps flowed more freely, would be why people were giving them. Is it value judgements about what they say? Is it purely penalizing sloppy logic? Or whatever... but my intuition tells me that more harm can be done by someone wantonly dishing out criticism and stuff because someone doesn't agree with them (as is always the danger), than by people wantonly giving out encouraging and pleasant comments.

And I don't just mean in terms of flame wars evolving on the forums, but I mean the personal damage it can do to someone, that we don't necessarily see here.

Also, it tends to be something of a law of averages that people tend to not say anything as long as you're doing alright, but to come down on you like the proverbial ton of bricks if you make a mistake. That's often the way... so if neg reps were encouraged to flow as freely, then I can imagine a scenario in which someone might get far more negative than positive comments, purely because they have some controversial opinions, despite that they haven't harmed anyone in doing so, and have expressed them politely and stuff. And that can kinda feel like being bullied...

Well... I'm not sure what my point is here ...

Haha... maybe that's just it: I think neg points have more potential to do damage to a person in an unconstructive way, if used freely, than positive ones.

 

[disregard]

I could never give neg rep.. it's such a buzz kill.

 

[swordpath]

Drunk posting can be funny or obnoxious.

Side note:
I've been neg repped twice (same person). =/

 

[Geoff]

CzeCze... I undersetand your point and mostly agree with it... except... it seems that giving positive comments doesn't seem to need as much justification, or as careful consideration, as negative ones. Well, it probably should, but the general attitude is that it doesn't.

The thing I'd be concerned about, if neg reps flowed more freely, would be why people were giving them. Is it value judgements about what they say? Is it purely penalizing sloppy logic? Or whatever... but my intuition tells me that more harm can be done by someone wantonly dishing out criticism and stuff because someone doesn't agree with them (as is always the danger), than by people wantonly giving out encouraging and pleasant comments.

And I don't just mean in terms of flame wars evolving on the forums, but I mean the personal damage it can do to someone, that we don't necessarily see here.

Also, it tends to be something of a law of averages that people tend to not say anything as long as you're doing alright, but to come down on you like the proverbial ton of bricks if you make a mistake. That's often the way... so if neg reps were encouraged to flow as freely, then I can imagine a scenario in which someone might get far more negative than positive comments, purely because they have some controversial opinions, despite that they haven't harmed anyone in doing so, and have expressed them politely and stuff. And that can kinda feel like being bullied...

Well... I'm not sure what my point is here ...

Haha... maybe that's just it: I think neg points have more potential to do damage to a person in an unconstructive way, if used freely, than positive ones.

I am not trying (exactly, ha) to lead you down the garden path here.. but.. if you are concluding that negative rep points are "bad", and that positive rep is mostly encouraging and all...we are left with a system that simply rewards prolific posters (on the whole) and reinforces cliquey groupings...?

 

[Nadir]

I am not trying (exactly, ha) to lead you down the garden path here.. but.. if you are concluding that negative rep points are "bad", and that positive rep is mostly encouraging and all...we are left with a system that simply rewards prolific posters (on the whole) and reinforces cliquey groupings...?

You are right here. However, the perception of a cliquey grouping is really up to the observer. So, do people choose to feel alienated? Eh, not quite. But you could say that the display of positive rep might just help augment the tendency to feel that way, again up to the people in question. As a fairly new member, I don't have this feeling myself, as I've found that reputation doesn't really influence perception (here meaning noticing each other's posts) all that much -- however, others just might.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Drunk posting can be funny or obnoxious.

Hell yeah!

P.S. This is probably the last time we talk for a while, since I no longer talk to people with less rep than I. Sorry.

 

[swordpath]

Why do you have more rep than me?

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

How DARE you play the pity card in MY pity-thread! SHAME! SHAME!!!

 

[CzeCze]

How DARE you play the pity card in MY pity-thread! SHAME! SHAME!!!

Browbeating him will only win him more sympathy.

Jeez Edahn, you gotta learn to protect your crack better.

 

[The Ü™]

So what we have discovered is that no one gives rep points for cool avatars? After all, that's what the system was designed for!

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Browbeating him will only win him more sympathy.

Jeez Edahn, you gotta learn to protect your crack better.

Sorry.

 

[swordpath]

 

[MacGuffin]

So what we have discovered is that no one gives rep points for cool avatars? After all, that's what the system was designed for!

We don't?

Dammit.

 

[substitute]

I am not trying (exactly, ha) to lead you down the garden path here.. but.. if you are concluding that negative rep points are "bad", and that positive rep is mostly encouraging and all...we are left with a system that simply rewards prolific posters (on the whole) and reinforces cliquey groupings...?

Well, I wasn't concluding anything at all in particular, just expressing a few concerns/points... but yeah I agree that's kinda the way it leads... which seems a bit pointless. I don't know what the altnernative is though... well, not one that doesn't have just as many drawbacks.

I totally disagree about the cliques thing though. I mean I really, totally, passionately disagree about that. But I can't be bothered to argue it right now, having just come from a RL dispute... ugh. I reckon I've probably already put across my views on that though, elsewhere, so I can afford to shut it.

Oh... also, not necessarily 'prolific' posting per se... cos it'd have to be prolific posting that people actually LIKE. If it's about posting good stuff, and good stuff is about what people like, and all the different things that different people like are just as valid as each other... then I don't personally have a problem with that...

 

[cascadeco]

I am not trying (exactly, ha) to lead you down the garden path here.. but.. if you are concluding that negative rep points are "bad", and that positive rep is mostly encouraging and all...we are left with a system that simply rewards prolific posters (on the whole) and reinforces cliquey groupings...?

Seems to me negative rep points would have the same effect on 'cliquey groupings', you'd just have the unpopular and unlikeable 'cliques' added into the mix. [and I do think the cliques are solely a perception thing. I mean, I initially perceived people with really high reps as being more of an exclusive clique that I wasn't a part of, but even as I thought this, I also recognized it was mostly my perception anyway, and that it wasn't really the case...at least, no more different than the real world. Have I felt left out and completely not a part of things? Oh, absolutely - but I think a lot of it is what you make of it, and, well, one could say much of it falls on me anyway. I think this ties into what Nadir was saying. And everyone is on here for different reasons, and the majority of members probably *don't* have the time OR desire to post that often.

Someone positive reps because on some level, he likes what that person said. So someone with a really high rep is probably genuinely liked, for what they post, as well as their personality/character traits...and to me the two go hand in hand anyway. Ones personality and character traits are the foundation for what and how one writes. Sure, someone with a really high rep is bound to post more on the board and have a more solid *presence* on the board, and as a consequence will also probably interact with others on a more 1:1 basis and maybe form some genuine friendships. In this way, it seems a higher rep might accurately reflect things, and it just seems natural that things work out the way they do.

Someone with a lower rep might have incredibly valid and insightful things to say, but if they post less, then they won't have as much of a presence. Although they would get repped probably equally as much as others, in terms of proportion, it goes without saying that if they post maybe once or twice a week, and someone else posts 50-100 times a week, the latter will accrue reputation faster than the former.

I don't think negative repping would alleviate any perceived 'cliques' at all. If anything, it could make things worse, where you have the people with higher reps, and the people who might be consistently negative repped -- in a sense, negative repping would reinforce the 'popularity' aspect to me, because then you'd have the non-likeable people ostracized, and you'd have the people on the other end of the spectrum. It would be the same thing in reverse. (oh, obviously this is just one way it could play out, and I'm sure I'm over-dramatizing it, but anyway...)

Edit: But the whole thing could easily be intimidating or confusing, especially to newer members.

 

[Lateralus]

What if rep was a ratio based on the number of posts you make? Or some hybrid between that and the current rating system?

 

[INTJMom]

So what we have discovered is that no one gives rep points for cool avatars? After all, that's what the system was designed for!

I do!!

 

[INTJMom]

Out of all the reps I have recieved, a few of my posts have received more than one rep,
and I believe only 2 of my posts have received 3 reps.

One was an informational post,
and one was an amusing post,
both quoted below.

I think it means "unique"
non = none
pareil = the same

Well, I was close.
"Having no equal; peerless"

Yes. And with the Adlblock Image Blocker, I am in complete CONTROL! Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

 

[Morpeko]

1. I want to tell someone their post appears more meaningful to me than it would if I simply liked it.

2. I want to tell someone something short but I don't think it's particularly necessary to quote the whole thing and post in the thread myself.

3. I want to show some sort of personal support in some way.

4. I am currently in lurking mode, meaning I don't really want to make any posts, but I read something I want to reply to anyway.