How Does Rep Work?

[Mr_Ed7]

OP: Not very well.

[Greydeath]

Just like DA, Forum Rep does not work.

Disable it or ignore it are your best options.

[Girlbrush]

We do random audits of the reputation system, and as some of your friends could tell you (if discussing disciplinary action was ok, which it's not, so don't tell anyone) we have taken action on people that abuse the system.

We also understand that this system is not perfect, and that there are those that use it for purposes which it is not intended for. Unfortunately this is something that occurs with almost everything in society. 99 times out of 100, the random unwarranted negative reputation you receive will not affect your ability to post in the least. You can ignore it, or report it so that we can investigate specifically. We do have the ability to remove negative reputation hits if we feel it wasn't deserved.

Again, we understand the system isn't flawless, but from our back-end perspective we see it on the whole working the way we intend it to.

Thanks for explaining the Rep system in-depth, Tarrant.

[Josh]

Because it's often not cyclic - in that a person with high rep keeps sniping at somebody with lower Rep when they can. The other person does not have the ability to retailiate. And that is why there is little faith in the system (in part), and why many people are untrusting and unhappy with the system as it currently stands.

And, in my view, anytime neg rep is given due to the person posting and not what they said - then it is an abuse of the system. Insular and circular as it may be... it's still abuse if they are making it a personal issue instead of a post-by-post issue.

Which is why there should be 100% transparancy on giving positive or negative rep.

[Yiren]

Thanks, everyone, for all your posts. I was really surprised when I logged back on and found 4 pages of answers to my little question. (I thought it would be a 1 or 2 replies thing, since everyone seems to be quite familiar with the Rep system...)

Hi Yiren,

Aside from what everyone here has said (and thanks, +1 to all of you ), when you reach a certain threshold of negative reputation, your posts become automatically moderated until Tolero or myself approve them. This is to allow the community to exercise a degree of self-moderation, and to let you all catch anyone constantly posting inappropriate things (it has happened before) if we can't get there soon enough.

Thanks also to Tarrant for personally answering this. Err... any Rep (see bold in quote) for the OP for sparking off this healthy debate by accident...? My Rep bar is still technically a Rep dot...


Yiren.

[Girlbrush]

Thanks, everyone, for all your posts. I was really surprised when I logged back on and found 4 pages of answers to my little question. (I thought it would be a 1 or 2 replies thing, since everyone seems to be quite familiar with the Rep system...)



Thanks also to Tarrant for personally answering this. Err... any Rep (see bold in quote) for the OP for sparking off this healthy debate by accident...? My Rep bar is still technically a Rep dot...


Yiren.

As Rest wrote, go to your User CP and look under "Latest Reputation Received". If you've received any rep, it'll be displayed there. Also, you need a certain amount of points to gain the next box, and so on, so the change may not be noticeable.

[Yiren]

As Rest wrote, go to your User CP and look under "Latest Reputation Received". If you've received any rep, it'll be displayed there. Also, you need a certain amount of points to gain the next box, and so on, so the change may not be noticeable.

Thanks, Girlbrush. Yep, I checked earlier. Nothing yet from this thread... It's OK. I'm not trying to farm for some. All out of Tarrant's goodwill anyway...

[Lorien_the_First_One]

We have seen the posts about rep, and discussed them at length along with our own observations. One thing that you would be surprised about is how many people say they've received negative reputation on a specific post but actually haven't, and are in fact positive rep farming due to the outpouring of positive reputation that usually comes when someone makes a post like that. In fact, we've noticed a lot of the people claiming the reputation system is broken have never received negative reputation since the system's inception..

Since rep farming is not allowed, do you take action against such users who fake being neg repped?

[Borror0]

You can ignore it, or report it so that we can investigate specifically.

What is the preferred manner for us to report neg rep we feel is undeserved? Should we report our own post, and then invite you to investigate the neg rep received or should we send you a PM? I can see arguments for either, so I'm curious of what you prefer to us to use.

Okay, that is pretty darn interesting to know.

It's not surprising at all. I get a lot of people accusing me of giving them neg rep, when I didn't do anything (and sometimes even gave them positive rep).

I also like the idea of neg rep being linked to a name

I like the idea of positive rep being linked to a name, but I think showing who gave negative rep is creating unnecessary drama.

[Tarrant]

What is the preferred manner for us to report neg rep we feel is undeserved? Should we report our own post, and then invite you to investigate the neg rep received or should we send you a PM? I can see arguments for either, so I'm curious of what you prefer to us to use.

We'd prefer if you PM these to us. Please remember though that we get a lot of PMs and so it may be some time before we're able to investigate it. We also may not respond to your message even if we remove the rep. But PM is the way to go!

[Cyr]

We'd prefer if you PM these to us. Please remember though that we get a lot of PMs and so it may be some time before we're able to investigate it. We also may not respond to your message even if we remove the rep. But PM is the way to go!

Tarrant I would like you to comment upon this further as it calls into question the entire purpose of the reputation system.

A) What is your bar for removing a rep hit or positive rep? We have 'guidelines' for these things and the reputation system supposedly is supposed to represent the communities views on these things. As such is your bar along the lines of "No reasonable/non drunk user could consider this to fall under these guidelines" or is it more like "I don't think it falls under these guidelines". The two are drastically different. One supplants another's viewpoint for your own while the first merely protects very benign posts from random negative snipping.

B) In furtherance of this theme, you threatened infractions for 'abusing' the reputation system recently. This is a much harsher step then just removing rep given/hit. Is the bar for this significantly higher then your bar for removing rep? As in repeatedly hitting benign posts with negative rep or posting multiple times about you getting negative rep when you have not? Or does it again just come down to you disagreeing with someone's views? This is immensely important for the forum users to know as if it is the latter then the reputation system would not only just be a reflection of moderator views, but it would be a means for the moderators to punish those who do not share their views or dissent.

C) On a slightly different tract, why do the moderators find it acceptable to give positive reputation? We know they do this. They are not acting as moderators in this regard, but are using their forum powers to influence the community in one direction or another beyond just moderating. Have moderators ever given negative reputation?

D) In furtherance of (c), we know the moderators did not earn their reputation bars as confirmed by Patience. Do the moderators manipulate other Turbine employee's reputation bars? Do they remove negative reputation from their own or other Turbine employee's reputation bars? Do they add reputation to Turbine employee's reputation bars?

You will note that not a single question posed asks for specific information about an individual case of moderation and instead focuses upon the guidelines used and general practices. All these questions lie at the heart of the main question of "Is the reputation system a true reflection of the forum community as a whole and not of the moderators?"

Thank you for your time.

[Visty]

Have moderators ever given negative reputation?

jep, and im sure more then once

[stainer]

Tarrant I would like you to comment upon this further as it calls into question the entire purpose of the reputation system.

A) What is your bar for removing a rep hit or positive rep? We have 'guidelines' for these things and the reputation system supposedly is supposed to represent the communities views on these things. As such is your bar along the lines of "No reasonable/non drunk user could consider this to fall under these guidelines" or is it more like "I don't think it falls under these guidelines". The two are drastically different. One supplants another's viewpoint for your own while the first merely protects very benign posts from random negative snipping.

B) In furtherance of this theme, you threatened infractions for 'abusing' the reputation system recently. This is a much harsher step then just removing rep given/hit. Is the bar for this significantly higher then your bar for removing rep? As in repeatedly hitting benign posts with negative rep or posting multiple times about you getting negative rep when you have not? Or does it again just come down to you disagreeing with someone's views? This is immensely important for the forum users to know as if it is the latter then the reputation system would not only just be a reflection of moderator views, but it would be a means for the moderators to punish those who do not share their views or dissent.

C) On a slightly different tract, why do the moderators find it acceptable to give positive reputation? We know they do this. They are not acting as moderators in this regard, but are using their forum powers to influence the community in one direction or another beyond just moderating. Have moderators ever given negative reputation?

D) In furtherance of (c), we know the moderators did not earn their reputation bars as confirmed by Patience. Do the moderators manipulate other Turbine employee's reputation bars? Do they remove negative reputation from their own or other Turbine employee's reputation bars? Do they add reputation to Turbine employee's reputation bars?

You will note that not a single question posed asks for specific information about an individual case of moderation and instead focuses upon the guidelines used and general practices. All these questions lie at the heart of the main question of "Is the reputation system a true reflection of the forum community as a whole and not of the moderators?"

Thank you for your time.

My views -

A - I don't think they remove a + rep. I suppose they would if say a few people were repping themselves to game the system. Removing a negative rep would be subjective, but until I have proof otherwise, I would assume that this is done justly.

B - I can see giving an infraction for abusing the rep system. If I dinged you every chance I got (I wouldn't) that would be unfair, and in my mind, worth an infraction.

C - I would bet that mods have given neg rep. I would bet that they have given out far more positive rep than neg.

D - It is safe to assume that this is a yes. I did see a mod/employee post yesterday that only had 2 green boxes though.

I think that these folks have a job to do. We can hope that they do it to the best of their ability. People will get upset for whatever reasons. Blaming a moderators for a system that they have little control over, is not the best way to address this. When I was a police officer, I would sometimes have people give me suggestions, or question my intent while performing my duties. My favorite was when I was writing a ticket they would ask "Does this help you meet you quota?" and would reply "Nope, but two more tickets and I get a toaster oven.".

In any event please feel free to look around this site:
http://www.turbine.com/careers.html

[Kalari]

Really sorry for my following meta-questions on forum Rep. I tried figuring out and doing a search, but nothing useful came up...

How does Rep work?
What does Rep actually do?
How do I give someone Rep?
How much Rep do I have at the start (assume 0)?
...etc.

If someone can just point me to a page where it is all explained, I'll be very grateful too.

Again, sorry for these silly questions.


Yiren.

Question one how does rep work?

Well like everything in this forums its a matter of opinion, some say farming for it works, some say lol catz pics work, others like me who are opinionated and just seem to get agreers would say its a real mixed bag. You will get your fair share of pos and neg no matter how you post, its how you let the rep game affect you that seems to be prevelant.

What does rep do?

Currently only gets people fired up about rep, long green bars are questioned and scorned, neg rep barely goes past 3 bars before mysteriously disappearing. You cant even really say that the bars represent quality or troll posting because the system does not take in human emotions and the errors that come with it. Long story short not a damned thing..

How do you give rep?

There is a litte scales icon by every posters post that you can click on and give postive or neutral depending on how much rep you have and negative if you have over 1500 reputation. You also get a title under your rep bar depending on how much rep you have.

And to your last question I believe everyone starts out with 1 making them neutral then they can build as they post and others weigh in on their posts. I dont think your questions are silly either in fact compared to other rep threads this one was a breath of fresh air IMO.

[Kromize]

You say what somebody likes: +1. You say what they don't like: -1(If they can neg rep). You get on somebodies bad side...-1 every time they get a chance. (:

[Emili]

I think that these folks have a job to do. We can hope that they do it to the best of their ability. People will get upset for whatever reasons. Blaming a moderators for a system that they have little control over, is not the best way to address this. When I was a police officer, I would sometimes have people give me suggestions, or question my intent while performing my duties. My favorite was when I was writing a ticket they would ask "Does this help you meet you quota?" and would reply "Nope, but two more tickets and I get a toaster oven.".

In any event please feel free to look around this site:
http://www.turbine.com/careers.html

Oh? is that why I hear all your friends and family mention they're getting a new toaster oven every holiday season?

[Borror0]

B) In furtherance of this theme, you threatened infractions for 'abusing' the reputation system recently.

This is not new. Obviously, I cannot talk about it but I know of at least one user that has had his reputation reset to zero as a result of abusing the system. That was several months ago, though, and is therefore not recent. Notice also that abusing the reputation system has been considered an infraction by the guidelines since the system was added. Again, it's not recent by any standards.

C) On a slightly different tract, why do the moderators find it acceptable to give positive reputation? We know they do this. They are not acting as moderators in this regard, but are using their forum powers to influence the community in one direction or another beyond just moderating. Have moderators ever given negative reputation?

I think you misunderstand both Community Managers' job and the intent of the reputation system.

Tarrant's job is not to be a moderator. While moderation is part of his job, his title is "Community Manager." His job is to shape the community into a good community. Sometimes, it means tap dancing to keep us entertained like during the Module 9 wait. At others, it means moderating the forums so that they don't devolve into constant negativity. Giving positive rep for posts he view as good contribution to the community works toward that goal, so logically he will do that.

As for the reputation system, it's not a system used to show how well liked we are by the community. It's a system to encourage good behaviors. It's just that Turbine outsource the task to make the system work to the community rather than themselves. Believe me, if its job was to do anything else it would look much different.

[stainer]

Oh? is that why I hear all your friends and family mention they're getting a new toaster oven every holiday season?

It is my gift of choice for weddings.

[Tarrant]

A) What is your bar for removing a rep hit or positive rep? We have 'guidelines' for these things and the reputation system supposedly is supposed to represent the communities views on these things. As such is your bar along the lines of "No reasonable/non drunk user could consider this to fall under these guidelines" or is it more like "I don't think it falls under these guidelines". The two are drastically different. One supplants another's viewpoint for your own while the first merely protects very benign posts from random negative snipping.

If I feel a specific reputation (+ or -) is not in line with the intended use of the reputation system, I remove it. Yes, that means that it is at my (or Tolero's) discretion. That's something you agree to by posting on a company's official forums. We are objective when we review reputation, just like we are with reported posts.

B) In furtherance of this theme, you threatened infractions for 'abusing' the reputation system recently. This is a much harsher step then just removing rep given/hit. Is the bar for this significantly higher then your bar for removing rep? As in repeatedly hitting benign posts with negative rep or posting multiple times about you getting negative rep when you have not? Or does it again just come down to you disagreeing with someone's views? This is immensely important for the forum users to know as if it is the latter then the reputation system would not only just be a reflection of moderator views, but it would be a means for the moderators to punish those who do not share their views or dissent.

Yes, the bar for this is significantly higher than for just removing rep. As always, it comes down to our judgment on the situation. If you don't go out of your way to abuse the reputation system, you won't have to worry about it.

C) On a slightly different tract, why do the moderators find it acceptable to give positive reputation? We know they do this. They are not acting as moderators in this regard, but are using their forum powers to influence the community in one direction or another beyond just moderating. Have moderators ever given negative reputation?

We have a vested interest in the community, and the tone of the forums. This probably doesn't come as a surprise to you. In the past, we've only had a tool for telling users "this kind of post is not acceptable," and now with positive reputation we can commend someone for the kind of post we like and want to see more of. Yes, we do at times give out negative reputation. I have given out 9 negative reputation hits since July - so clearly it's not something I do often. Frankly, we have much more powerful tools at our disposal than reputation if we wanted to silence someone.

D) In furtherance of (c), we know the moderators did not earn their reputation bars as confirmed by Patience. Do the moderators manipulate other Turbine employee's reputation bars? Do they remove negative reputation from their own or other Turbine employee's reputation bars? Do they add reputation to Turbine employee's reputation bars?

I wouldn't be concerned with Turbine employee reputation bars. The amount of people that positive rep us for anything we say vastly outweighs the people that negative rep us, and we wouldn't exactly leave ourselves in the moderated status even if somehow that wasn't the case.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

My views -

A - I don't think they remove a + rep. I suppose they would if say a few people were repping themselves to game the system.

I believe early on in this system they said their would remove rep for circle-jerk threads (ie - everyone in this thread rep each other)