Negative Reputation.

[Kromize]

It's a bit silly as it is right now, people can neg rep anywhere they want for no good reason, and that causes unbalance, and a reputation system that is inaccurate.

Make it so that you have to leave a reason for giving negative reputation(over 15 characters worth).

keeping anonymity is important. Otherwise, you'll just create drama.

http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=210050

[Bracosius]

I just tried to give you negative rep but could not.

My reason: Your worthless threads stole seconds of my life I will never get back.

[Borror0]

I agree about the comments, but keeping anonymity is important. Otherwise, you'll just create drama.

[Kromize]

I agree about the comments, but keeping anonymity is important. Otherwise, you'll just create drama.

Hmm. There ought to be a check box to choose to keep yourself anonymous? Maybe not, because then that would create additional drama knowing that they chose not to tell you who they are. Touchy topic.

[Letrii]

I agree about the comments, but keeping anonymity is important. Otherwise, you'll just create drama.

And anonymity causes drama for people feeling safe to neg rep people because they don't like their ideas, even when presented in an orderly and civilized manner.

[Kromize]

And anonymity causes drama for people feeling safe to neg rep people because they don't like their ideas, even when presented in an orderly and civilized manner.

This is also true.

So discuss, which is for the greater good? Anonymity or Publicity?

[Bracosius]

Publicity, promote confrontation.

Anonimity on the internet is creating an entire socially inept generation.

They can still hide behind screen names, but it is a start when they can be identified in game.

[Borror0]

And anonymity causes drama for people feeling safe to neg rep people because they don't like their ideas, even when presented in an orderly and civilized manner.

Not to the same extent. Anonymity might cause a small, short-lived derailment, at best, when someone does not understand why he or she got neg rep but it will go away. If those derailments are judged problematic by the moderators, they can just add a clause to the forum guidelines and start handing out infraction points to people derailing threads.

On the other hand, by revealing the name of the person who gave negative reputation, not only do you increase the chance of there being a derailment but you also make it possible for long lasting grudges to develop. Let's face it, most people (myself included) don't feel they "deserved it" when the established laws play against them.

[Letrii]

In its current incarnation, the rep system is little more than a glorified griefing system that encourages people to grief others for perceived slights.

[Kromize]

On the other hand, by revealing the name of the person who gave negative reputation, not only do you increase the chance of there being a derailment but you also make it possible for long lasting grudges to develop.

However, these grudges will only develop when people believe they have been given negative reputation for an ill-gotten reason(or they are ill-tempered), thus, they dislike the person who gave it to them. So, if it were made public, would it be good enough to add in an appeal system(where a moderator can make a final decision)? Or worth it? Keep in mind that moderators could always disable a users ability to appeal if they are abusing it.

[Creeper]

I agree about the comments, but keeping anonymity is important. Otherwise, you'll just create drama.

Very true, non-anonymity is a HORRIBLE idea.

The rep system is working out a lot better than I thought it would, that is to say... well... I don't know. It's fun at least!!!

If someone has a red bar you can rest assured they have contributed no useful information–that's got to count for something, but join date is usually what I go by. It's funny that having a recent join date and negative rep seem to have something in common. I wonder why that is?

If having negative rep really bothers you just post something funny and wait.

[Cedwin]

If having negative rep really bothers you just post something funny and wait.

That's why it's a broken system. Positive rep should only be given to people who answer questions or help people out. If you help a person out, they mark your answer as correct or helpful, and you get a rep point.

This forum reputation system is more like a popularity system.

[Creeper]

This forum reputation system is more like a popularity system.

True, and popularity and reputation have several things in common. If you look though, more positive rep is dealt out to people who post funny but otherwise, useless junk.

[Demoyn]

I agree about the comments, but keeping anonymity is important. Otherwise, you'll just create drama.

Why? Do you expect people would get upset if they realized that 80% of all negative rep is issued by Tarrant and Tolero?

[Cyr]

Why? Do you expect people would get upset if they realized that 80% of all negative rep is issued by Tarrant and Tolero?

lol
+1 rep to you sir to offset the ten coming your way from T & T from their multiple forum accounts.

[Arkat]

lol
+1 rep to you sir to offset the ten coming your way from T & T from their multiple forum accounts.

What this guy said.

[Demoyn]

lol
+1 rep to you sir to offset the ten coming your way from T & T from their multiple forum accounts.

They're so predictable, aren't they?

[Samadhi]

It's a bit silly as it is right now, people can neg rep anywhere they want for no good reason, and that causes unbalance, and a reputation system that is inaccurate.

Make it so that you have to leave a reason for giving negative reputation(over 15 characters worth).



http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=210050

The better question? Why do you care:

I watched the rep system for about a month before I deigned to op out of it. Things I noticed were:

1) A poster with something like 9 posts total, skyrocket to over 1000 rep points, with one extremely sappy "ode to ____" type post.

2) A poster skyrocket to Borr's level with absolutely no insightful comments on any post, but merely by spamming nonsense in every thread that came up. (not even humorous nonsense, please note, although from personally experience my "humor posts" bring in far more rep than my analytical posts ever have).

The idea of the system is decent. If I was a new player, and I see some fool poster with minimal rep trying to post that empower is a worthless metamagic and backing it up with biased math, and then another poster - with piles of rep - saying he was wrong; it would be nice to have that available tool to say "ok, gonna go with established guy on this one." The actual implementation, however, pretty much destroys any actual value in what the number of rep points means. Long story short - amount of rep usually equates pretty much only to 1) ability to post a lot and 2) ability to post comedy.

That being said, the ability to leave a comment with the neg rep is a good idea that I can see considerable value in.