Kill the Rep System.

[eonfreon]

Playing devil's advocate again, I can think of two arguments that need representing. To avoid confusion, I'll attribute them to hypothetical persons Al and Bill. We're comparing the options of keeping reputation as-is versus simply removing reputation.

Your claim is that the two options are equally bad; therefore we should go with the option that affords greater liberty. Removing Reputation means one less regulation, so that's the better option.

Al agrees that we need to pick the option that affords greater liberty, but he thinks you're wrong about which option that is. Keeping Reputation means keeping our freedom to grow a greenis, so that's the better option.

Bill says you're both wrong. He maintains that, since both options are bad, we should go with whichever would be easier to implement. Keeping the reputation system would require zero implementation; therefore, that's the option we should choose.

Al's and Bill's arguments seem just as reasonable as yours, and, unfortunately, we need arguments that will convince all manner of reasonable person, not just a subset of the libertarians. There are two ways to escape this stalemate: Show that one option is clearly better than the other, or present a third option that is clearly better than the first two options.


I invite anyone wondering at Samadhi's abrasive rhetoric to look over his past posts. He consistently presents issues in black and white. I used to think he was a troll, but I'm beginning to suspect that maybe he actually sees the world like this.

Perhaps he does. And Samadhi does have a point. The folks with more Green tend to be better at giving information. But it's only a matter of time before just about anyone who has been on here a bit gets the "visual cue" as he put it that they have a high Green count since the score isn't shown, only a vague representation.

I am more on hypothetical Al's side I suppose. I initially was very much against the system, but as I've gotten more rep I have felt that newer players heed me more.

However, the more I think about it the more even that's "dangerous". I make mistakes. I mistype.
I would rather be judged and even scrutinized on each individual contribution then on an ambiguous chart of "Rep".

I guess when it all goes around, even though I initially was against this whole topic, I have to admit that I've started to come around to the "just get rid of it" mindset.

And I have to disagree with hypothetical Bill. Implementation in this case means getting rid of the system. It requires little work to disable the system The Mods themselves opted out soon after it was implemented, so I can't imagine it would require more then a few clicks to erase the system.

Still kind of on the fence, but I have to give some credence to Samahi's contention that it really serves no useful purpose.

I'm not really swayed either way at the moment, but the discussion is interesting at least.

[Memnir]

As easy as it would be to fill an entire page enumerating the ways that the system fails, the simple fact of the matter is best summed up like this: Is there a single beneficial aspect to the system as it is? If so, I don't see it, and as such I see no reason for the system to continue existing.

Looking at the system as-is, today, and giving it an honest appraisal of it's beneficial attributes... I'm hard pressed to come up with any. And until pretty recently, I was one of the more vocal supporters of the system.


I had thought in the past that the system's benefits would come from the community giving a kudo to those they see as being helpful and constructive members of the DDO forums. Perhaps this is just personal bias - but I also think that being funny counts as being constructive. People like to laugh, and laughter tends to bring communities closer together. That is in addition to being supportive of the build-posters, the new player helpers, the question answers, and the constructive feedback givers.

Sadly, that has not panned out.
When people say that a funny post will gain more Rep then a helpful one - well, I am living testimony to that. I honestly and truly feel embarrassed to be at the apex of the Rep ladder at this moment. Yeah, I try to be helpful and constructive when I can... but I look around the forums and I see so many other people with a fraction of the Rep I've gotten who have done so much more then I have. Yes I get Rep for being helpful, but the lion's share comes from people around here finding my jokes funny. I like to make people laugh, and have always posted jokes - that would not change if the Rep went away. But, I feel like the people who pour their hearts and souls into a guide or a build and get little to no Rep for it... well, I feel like that Rep going away would give them back a measure of self pride and self worth. I'm not sure if I am right about that... but I feel like before we had Rep, those folks were a lot more forthcoming and proud of their work. It's hard to keep putting that kind of effort out when the Mod-sanctioned system seems to indicate it's not appreciated half as much as the jokes I come up with.

That really makes me sad to think about.

I also thought that the idea of the community policing itself had merit. I was among those who said that it was a good thing, and it would only help the Mods with trouble makers and people who were not here to bring the community up - but to tear it down.

Sadly, that hasn't panned out either.
See, as soon as we had the ability to consequence-free attack one another, a portion of the forum population didn't hesitate to start. And as such, Rep got a really bad reaction almost from the start. Neg Repping for the most petty and vindictive reasons is a reality, and I'm not really sure how widespread it is. I've tried to be an example for how the system should be used... but I feel the fool now for having done so. For anyone familiar with the term of John Gabriel's Greater Internet Theory can look at the Rep system as a text book example of how right it is. That is the first problem with the idea of community-enforcement of rules.

The moment the Mods turned us into potential judges and jury of other people's posts... I think it sucked a huge degree of fun and trust out of the forums. People here now distrust other forum-users to a much greater degree then before. As as result the forums are less enjoyable - and I know that a lot of long-time faces I enjoyed seeing are no longer around. Forum browsing should be fun and enjoyable. Instead, it has an undertone of distrust. I hate that.

Lastly, the idea of community-enforcement has failed because the Mods have continually shifted the lines on how it would be enacted. I know a few times they moved up the number of Neg Rep it would take to move a person into Moderated Status. I think Tarrant even said so publicly at one point that they had to up the amount as more and more of us gained the ability to Neg Rep our peers. And it seems as if that threat has either evaporated or become so stupidly high as to be unreachable. What is the point in telling us to help police the forums if doing so is only an empty gesture? And when doing so is only breeding an atmosphere of discontent and unhappiness? Hell, the Neg Rep enforcement has been so neutered, that now giving somebody Neg Rep actually auto-hides their Rep boxes when they go into the red, giving the illusion that the recipient elected to turn off their Rep. This has taken away the last way we the community had to gauge if another poster is being a problem. If a rule-breaker has their Rep just hidden the moment it goes red... why bother with it in the first place? It serves no purpose what so ever.


Finally, we have the Mods. From almost Day One, they've been silent on how they feel Rep should be used. They for all intents and purposes hid and buried the only Guidelines on the system itself. It sits alone as the single post in the very bottom forum-tab at the bottom of the list. Why isn't it stickied at the top of the forums - like other important rules? In General DDO Discussion we have stickied Mod threads on how to handle Spam, illegal plat transactions, an application for the top-secret test server, and a thread on the proper use of the Report button. But no way to find the rules on Rep unless you really really dig around for them. Why not? If this system is to be used properly - why hide the rules?

Also, they need to vastly improve on their Rep Review process. In that rules post - they tell us what to do if you feel like you've been unfairly given Rep. I know I've tried several times to appeal Rep, and feel like I was ignored. I know of others who've tried and met with the same results so often they have stopped trying feeling it's a fool's-errand. This process seems to either be so backlogged it's stymied, the Mods are so busy in their other day-to-day work they just don't have time to review, or they just don't bother when they get a request to review. In any of those cases, if Rep cannot be appealed in a timely and trustworthy way... then the system just needs to go away. When everyone I'm allowed to mention has come up with nothing but silence when it comes to a Rep Review... there is a problem. Not all of us could have been wrong in every case. No way. There is a problem.



When I really thought about all this - I knew it was time to either try to get the system fixed so I could be happy with it, or just plead for it's removal. Since the Mods didn't want to talk about fixing it... well, here I am. As it is today, at this moment - the Rep System has no redeeming or beneficial value. None.

And as I said above - it makes me sad.

[eonfreon]

I have a good example of how divisive it is. I don't even remember what is was all about but it was long before I had enough Rep to be able to give out Neg Rep. I was way below that point, but I can see that someone couldn't tell if they didn't really know the rules. Yes, we don't know how many points each of us has, but I was so far below that point at that time that it really made me laugh that someone thought I gave them Neg Rep.
I must have been vocal in some thread and must have argued with this guy.

I got this email:
Thanks for the Neg Rep....I just wanted to remember your name for later, so now I will have this in my sent pile.

This was my response:
I have no idea why you think I gave you Neg Rep. I don't care about Neg Rep and I can't even give it out. Don't I need to have way more points then I have or something?
Just asking. Because I think you're jumping the gun here.
Do whatever you want with my Forum name.
I have no grudge with you. Think whatever you will.
BTW, I'm open to know why you think I "Neg Repped" you- and why it even matters- I've gotten "Negged" before as well. Matters little. But anyway, I'm way below radar of those silly rules- look at my rep- it means nothing.

That was my nice response. A couple of days later I saw that letter again and I was a bit drunk so I sent him another letter reiterating how I couldn't give out Neg Rep, therefore he was a moron for thinking I had. Not my best moment, but it ticked me off.

Long before the Rep system I've gotten into heated arguments with others and they've sent me emails too. But never to "threaten" me. Generally it was to further expand the argument without others chiming in and derailing. Or it was to prevent derailing someone else's thread.

I've been accsed of Neg Repping when I did no such thing. The anonymity of it is also a problem, I suppose. I always figured it prevented problems and vindictiveness. But Human nature being what it is, it's obvious most folks will try to figure out who gave them Neg Rep and "get even". I can almost imagine that guy getting enough Rep and waiting for me to "slip up" .

It is funny. Sort of.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

I got this email:
Thanks for the Neg Rep....I just wanted to remember your name for later, so now I will have this in my sent pile.

I've had the same thing happen. People make bad assumptions considering the rep could be for someone who never even commented in the thread. I had one user even send me multiple nasty PMs when I denied neg repping them, so I neg repped that same post I was accused of to prove it to them before I reported them for harrassment.

It was much more common in the early days when there were maybe 5-10 of us that could neg rep, haven't had it happen quite as much lately.

But yeah, its a perfect example of the problem with the system.

I remember when the system was new a jerk logged in using a trial account outside of mod hours and began to spew hate. Well before a mod could show up they were at 3 red boxes and automod kicked in. There was some purpose in the system then. Now... not so much. They probably should turn it off.

[Memnir]

I've gotten accused of Neg Rep, often very angrily accused, far more then I've ever given it out.

That was a perfect example of what I meant above in my probably-too-long ramble about Rep breeding an atmosphere of mistrust and divisiveness. Oh sure, it hasn't ruined the forums... but it's done more harm then good to them when you look at the big picture.

[PopeJual]

I've gotten accused of Neg Rep, often very angrily accused, far more then I've ever given it out.

That was a perfect example of what I meant above in my probably-too-long ramble about Rep breeding an atmosphere of mistrust and divisiveness. Oh sure, it hasn't ruined the forums... but it's done more harm then good to them when you look at the big picture.

That's because I look for posts where someone disagrees with you and then neg rep them anonymously so that you can get the blame.

(just kidding, in case anyone wasn't sure)

[Lorien_the_First_One]

That's because I look for posts where someone disagrees with you and then neg rep them anonymously so that you can get the blame.

(just kidding, in case anyone wasn't sure)

I wonder if I just neg repped you for that bad joke

[samthedagger]

Seeing how this thread is getting a lot of attention (even though the lion's share of posts is the same three people--lol), I feel it fitting to come here and give it some more of my attention.

While I am inclined to agree that the reputation system is largely unnecessary and would be happy to see it go, I would like to play devil's advocate for a moment, if for no other reason than that I am sorry to see people saying it has NO merit whatsoever. I am living proof that the reputation system works. The majority of my positive reputation on these forums has come from the guides, suggestions, and constructive comments I have made. And the majority of my negative reputation (although it has been obviously rare) has been for things that I probably shouldn't have said.

I watch my reputation carefully, and not just because it is fun to see green things grow (although it is). I want to know if I am saying things that constructive or not, and I use the rep system as feedback for this. If I say something positive, I am glad to know someone found it helpful. If I say something negative, I go back to what I said, try to empathize with whoever did it and why, and then learn something from it. As I said, I have posted a few things here that I shouldn't have, and the rep system has helped reinforce that those things were not appropriate. I don't think that I ever received negative rep for something that seemed obviously vindictive or petty. Of course the rep system only works this way for people who studiously examine their rep like I do. I see it as an important part of contributing effectively to the forums. But I have a sinking feeling that most people do not feel this way and pay little attention to their rep. Still, the rep system is WAI, for one person at least.

/devil's advocate

[Chai]

Seeing how this thread is getting a lot of attention (even though the lion's share of posts is the same three people--lol), I feel it fitting to come here and give it some more of my attention.

While I am inclined to agree that the reputation system is largely unnecessary and would be happy to see it go, I would like to play devil's advocate for a moment, if for no other reason than that I am sorry to see people saying it has NO merit whatsoever. I am living proof that the reputation system works. The majority of my positive reputation on these forums has come from the guides, suggestions, and constructive comments I have made. And the majority of my negative reputation (although it has been obviously rare) has been for things that I probably shouldn't have said.

I watch my reputation carefully, and not just because it is fun to see green things grow (although it is). I want to know if I am saying things that constructive or not, and I use the rep system as feedback for this. If I say something positive, I am glad to know someone found it helpful. If I say something negative, I go back to what I said, try to empathize with whoever did it and why, and then learn something from it. As I said, I have posted a few things here that I shouldn't have, and the rep system has helped reinforce that those things were not appropriate. I don't think that I ever received negative rep for something that seemed obviously vindictive or petty. Of course the rep system only works this way for people who studiously examine their rep like I do. I see it as an important part of contributing effectively to the forums. But I have a sinking feeling that most people do not feel this way and pay little attention to their rep. Still, the rep system is WAI, for one person at least.

/devil's advocate

This right here is how it was intended to work. If it actually worked like this most of us would have little issue with the system.

When the measuring stick for "contributing effectively" goes up slowly over a year or so then gets brought down to negative thousands of points in less than ~40 days or so, that back home is what we call a pile on. The fact that it can have negative consequences makes it griefing.

If rep was solely a measurement of the quality of contribution, then I think it *might work. The fact that it can be, and is, used for much more than that, both in a positive and negative fashion, shows us that people have used it to tread far outside its definition, and with no way to stop that or change how it gets used, the best alternative is to scrap it. Maybe they can create a system that works for everyone like you outlined, but so far the rep system in its current implementation, is not living up to that standard. /off with its head.

[Gorbadoc]

...I want to know if I am saying things that constructive or not, and I use the rep system as feedback for this. If I say something positive, I am glad to know someone found it helpful. If I say something negative, I go back to what I said, try to empathize with whoever did it and why, and then learn something from it.

I do this, too, and I find there's not much to learn. I occasionally get +repped for a post that I already knew was constructive and helpful. I learn nothing, other than that people are random about handing out +rep.

Neg rep actually makes it harder to learn. I don't know who neg repped me or why. I can usually guess that someone was upset that I criticized someone or something, but that doesn't tell me how specifically to improve, unless the lesson is that I should never criticize. That seems contrary to the spirit of a forum, though. Now suppose I say something foolish. I deserve to be criticized, and I stand to learn from some well-worded criticism. The reputation system makes decent people (the ones who SHOULD be criticizing me) hesitate, though, so I'm LESS likely to learn a lesson.

[phillymiket]

Seeing how this thread is getting a lot of attention (even though the lion's share of posts is the same three people--lol), I feel it fitting to come here and give it some more of my attention.

While I am inclined to agree that the reputation system is largely unnecessary and would be happy to see it go, I would like to play devil's advocate for a moment, if for no other reason than that I am sorry to see people saying it has NO merit whatsoever. I am living proof that the reputation system works. The majority of my positive reputation on these forums has come from the guides, suggestions, and constructive comments I have made. And the majority of my negative reputation (although it has been obviously rare) has been for things that I probably shouldn't have said.

I watch my reputation carefully, and not just because it is fun to see green things grow (although it is). I want to know if I am saying things that constructive or not, and I use the rep system as feedback for this. If I say something positive, I am glad to know someone found it helpful. If I say something negative, I go back to what I said, try to empathize with whoever did it and why, and then learn something from it. As I said, I have posted a few things here that I shouldn't have, and the rep system has helped reinforce that those things were not appropriate. I don't think that I ever received negative rep for something that seemed obviously vindictive or petty. Of course the rep system only works this way for people who studiously examine their rep like I do. I see it as an important part of contributing effectively to the forums. But I have a sinking feeling that most people do not feel this way and pay little attention to their rep. Still, the rep system is WAI, for one person at least.

/devil's advocate

If that's the way it worked for everyone then it would be fine.

There is no way to tell the difference between you and someone who has a grand greenis without contributing anything valuable or having knowledge.

It's great that you view neg rep as a cause for introspection but I suspect you are a thoughtful person to begin with.
The problem people I suspect view a neg rep'ed post as a cause for paranoia and anger judging from the posts that go something like "and to the people who neg'ed me screech scream rowr!!!" when reviewing the thread their post clearly was in violation of forum guild lines.

Wouldn't it be better if the only recourse for an argument you disagree with was a counter-argument?
The only recourse for a post in violation was to report and have the person given infractions and eventually banned?
The only recourse for a troll was to ignore?

In other words, people are doing what they do regardless of the rep system.
All the system does it provide less clarity via anonymous, unqualified and unregulated feedback.

[rezo]

To: OP

/sign it needs to go. your right about this.

Rezo

[KillEveryone]

I've been thinking about this and I finally have a opinion(usually I'm quite opinionated right away and this one made me think a bit.)

The rep system as it is currently is broken, there is no doubt about that. I'll totally agree with that.

My rep is a mixture of humor, helpful postings, and comments in a disscussion that someone agreed with. Most of my neg rep I deserved, a few I didn't but I didn't really care.

I would still like to be able to get some kind of constructive feedback on posts though so that I can improve on stuff that I've posted that people found helpful or couldn't understand what I was talking about with the example I used and maybe I should try a different approach.

When giving reputation there should be a selection of the category that the post fit into...humorus/helpful/(other categories)...and if someone looks at the posters reputation, it should state what category their reputation comes from. Of course, this does have potential for abuse since someone with friends that posts troll posts could get their friends to rep any post they make as helpful. Maybe if someone looks at the rep, it could be linked to a selection of their posts that represent the majority of their rep.

No neg rep would be able to be given though. Trolls get their posts reported and should have some kind of auto review and if the posts that are reported are not really troll posts but someone griefing that person, the griefer could get the warning. Make the mods do their job.

Either way though, I think any system can probably still be abused.

I would like some kind of feedback for the stuff I posted.

[Gorbadoc]

When giving reputation there should be a selection of the category that the post fit into...humorus/helpful/(other categories)...and if someone looks at the posters reputation, it should state what category their reputation comes from. Of course, this does have potential for abuse since someone with friends that posts troll posts could get their friends to rep any post they make as helpful. Maybe if someone looks at the rep, it could be linked to a selection of their posts that represent the majority of their rep.

I like this idea. You can have a reputation for being funny, or for being a jerk, or for being helpful, but there's no such thing as just "reputation". That's how the real world works, too. Part of my frustration with "reputation" on this forum is that it limits itself to two mutually exclusive categories-- high rep and low rep.

As a decoy for the people who want to make a game of reputation (nothing wrong with that provided the game doesn't hurt the forum), add a couple joke categories. For example, I'd love to get a reputation for Walrus Haberdashery. This could also give a light-hearted way to say you don't know what to think of a post.

One essential element is accessibility. The rating tool needs to be conspicuous, fast, and easy to use. If I take the time to read a thread, it should be a no-brainer to categorize each post as I go along-- helpful, funny, funny, unrated, helpful, walrus haberdashery. If these categorizations are visible to the next person reading the thread, they may help the person decide which posts to read and which to skip. This might even help reduce trolling-- I don't have to SAY anything to the troll; just tag the post as something other than "helpful" and move on.

[Scraap]

For example, I'd love to get a reputation for Walrus Haberdashery.

Warg Taming Farmer. Must have.

Seriously though, if they replace it with something more targeted, and again, my personal preference would be on a per-post basis, with no hiding the reaction it gets, aside from perhaps auto-hiding the thing if it goes that far in the red, that would at least serve to emphasize good notions regardless of poster. Not unlike the whole /signed /not-signed bit seen a lot on this particular sub-forum.

Still amounts to killing of *this* system as it exists.

[joneb1999]

Disagree The reason is that forums of any kind including these ones have so much nasty behaviour running through them that can turn people off from ever posting. These forums are full of name callling people with the right to make a complaint about the game just like anyone else a cry baby or whiner or downright flaming other users to the extent it is intimidating and aggressive.

You may say that doesnt figure into the rep equation as its all exploitation by guildies and friends giving each other good rep for no reason. You dont need to be an exploiter or bootlicker to have decent rep in my experience. I still wonder why my rep got so high under this system because I have made no such exploitation pact and I have made some pretty negative comments about the game many have diasgreed with or have been reallly annoyed with. The only thing I can think of is having some manners and holding back from insulting everyone must make a difference.

I do think people should not be allowed to give negative rep and that positive rep should be given once. However I think anyone getting an infraction or warning only through reports of bad behaviour made by users should get negative rep assigned by the mods. Infractions made for breaking Turbine t&cs other than those aimed at abusing other users should be only part of the infraction system in itself. The reason being is it should encourage good behaviour between users on the forums only leaving the infraction point system for taking all kinds of abuse further.

IMO with this sort of change the reputation system will become less confusing simply because it can only represent a persons popularity across a large spectrum of users, even if it does include guildies and friends who just give rep for that reason. It cant be abused by people who dislike a person who just disagress with them. A decent sized reputation under this system with a corresponding post count should eventually represent someone who is a recognisable and decent forum user taking into consideration his or her involvement with the forums. Not having this rep doesnt mean a bad forum user however it can just mean a forum user who doesnt make big sweeping posts like this or get others attention for good or bad.

[penumbra]

If we do away with it there will be no way for you to tell how great a poster I am.

they can just make you a forum title out of your greenis!

[Gorbadoc]

I still wonder why my rep got so high under this system because I have made no such exploitation pact and I have made some pretty negative comments about the game many have diasgreed with or have been reallly annoyed with. The only thing I can think of is having some manners and holding back from insulting everyone must make a difference.

I wonder, too; I can't even tell what your first paragraph is supposed to say. I think you're saying people have a right to criticize the game (I'm not sure whom you think you're disagreeing with on this point), but I'm not sure about the rest. Rather than speculate, I'll just ask-- what did you mean to say?

[NadgersFishtoaster]

The most constructive way to demonstrate the "broken" nature of this system is to turn off your reputation. If enough people do it, the system is effectively ended.

I expect people that have signed this proposal to have undertaken that step already, for their support to be taken seriously.

I am ambivalent to these suggested changes, for a number of reasons.

1. Some degree of rep is useful for spotting people who either have set up "sock puppets" to agree with themselves or as a shill to promote a scam.
2. Advising and helping new players goes largely unrewarded with this system as new players can't thank an advisor distracted by this system.
3. Neg rep seems to cause problems but it also seems that some people perversely want them to be substantial.
4. Green squares tend to represent, on average, time spent on the forum by people who have not been targeted by people who can give out negative rep.

The answer therefore, in my books, is for people to not become overly distracted by this system.

On balance it is probably more of a help than a hindrance.

[Talias006]

I've handed out well more than a handful of +rep to many worthy postings, and even to some comically amusing ones too. But if I have ever handed out -rep, which would be amazing with my ridiculously low rep, it was most likely warranted because it fell to far astray of (my) common sense and/or D&D logic.

I have my rep disabled and stuffed in a box. Just waiting for the whole thing to go away.

I do have one interesting thing to note. I'm fairly certain the Mod's would have figured out a way out of this predicament had the +/- rep system been in place during the whole Evasion (from a ring) in heavy armor period. Let me tell you there were many battles in the lower planes when that whole thing crashed out into the open forums. I can still feel some of the scarring from the not fully healed burnt avatar flesh.