Negative Reputation.

[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.

[Borror0]

However, these grudges will only develop when people believe they have been given negative reputation for an ill-gotten reason

...which is most of the time. For any system which allows negative feedback.

People are very reluctant to think they did anything wrong. It's when it adds up that it may become compelling, but each event is going to be contested.

[shaolaolint]

I just noticed I had neg but no clue why , so I agree the rep system as is, is stupid.

[Quikster]

I agree some type of comment should be allowed though optional. I dont really care if its anon or not. I rarely give neg rep, and when I do 90% of the time I post in the thread with my views.

[Memnir]

I'd frankly love the ability to leave a comment with my Neg Reps, since I have good reasons for hitting the Disapprove button. I've only done so a total of three times since the Rep system when in - since I prefer to express my opinions in a more creative fashion than button-pressing. It takes a lot more than me disagreeing with a post, or not liking the person posting it to hit Neg Rep... but I'd still much rather mock, argue with, or point out logistical flaws within posts I don't like then just take the easy way out and just push a button. It's a lot more satisfying for me as well.



I disagree that the Rep system is unbalanced or unfair, however. While you may get one or two red squares from random sources for seemingly harmless posts - it takes quite the incendiary post to get a lot of reds at once. It's pretty obvious why that happens when it happens. If you find yourself on the receiving end of a lot of red squares - perhaps you need to review your posting habits before you go claiming the system is bunk. It may not be perfect, but it does work.

[Letrii]

Alright Memnir, got a little challenge for you. http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=215447 Review this thread and tell me what I did that deserved me to lose half my positive rep.

[Memnir]

I can't say since I'm not a judge of other people's actions - nor why they give the Rep they do. Can I see why? No. But I also have an admittedly higher bar for giving out Neg Rep then most who can do so.

I didn't say what I did to serve as some form of forum-wide barometer on what should be - only to explain how I personally approach the Rep system.

I can only say that I myself did not give you Neg Rep in that thread - nor at any other time.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

You have to try pretty hard to keep that red box for long. A poster with even the tiniest bit of positive contribution to the forums won't have a red box for long and can't easily be forced back into a red box.

To get that box usually you have to be rude.

[Minor_Threat]

the amount of people who can hand out neg rep is still relatively low, and it's pretty easy to make an educated guess who left it.

[Borror0]

Review this thread and tell me what I did that deserved me to lose half my positive rep.

Link to the posts that got you neg rep. It'll save people time, if they want to respond to your challenge.

the amount of people who can hand out neg rep is still relatively low, and it's pretty easy to make an educated guess who left it.

A lot of people say that, and then proceed to accuse me of giving them neg rep when I didn't or accuse someone else when I was the one who gave neg rep.

[Minor_Threat]

A lot of people say that, and then proceed to accuse me of giving them neg rep when I didn't or accuse someone else when I was the one who gave neg rep.

I'm sure that happens, when in doubt blame Borror0!

But really, the rep system can be outlined like so.

-Too much neg rep makes your posts auto-review by mods.
-Must acquire 1500 rep to leave neg rep.

Seems like a pretty pointless system to me, of course it will have people that abuse it and rightly so as there is really no consequences either way, I'm honestly surprised to see how much it was used in this community.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

I just noticed I had neg but no clue why , so I agree the rep system as is, is stupid.

Go to quicklinks, then user control panel. You will be able to see what threads you got neg rep on. (and I'll lay a bet that it was the political thread you were commenting on, people are weird about politics in the US)

[redoubt]

I think that all feedback should show who it was from. Being able to post a comment would also be nice.

Its not usually an issue leaving a positive comment and putting your name on it. On the flip side, I think many people would not want to leave a negative comment if they had to put their name on it. For that very reason, I think the persons name should go on it.

If you are unwilling to put your name on it, is your approval or disapproval really valid? I applaud all those you are willing to say it in the thread that they are giving rep. Even more so to those who explain why.

Anyone who gives negative rep with good reason would have nothing to fear even if it was reported to the moderators. Also, the system already requires you to spread rep around, so massive retaliation would not be possible. (Assuming the "spread" applies negative rep as it does positive.) Finally, someone who threw neg rep as retaliation could be reported. The moderators could easily judge the situation when the data is easily found and presented.

[Borror0]

Anyone who gives negative rep with good reason would have nothing to fear even if it was reported to the moderators.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that many people get flustered at the slight form of disapproval, even when they obviously deserved it. If you don't believe me, start a website with rules enforcing politeness and try to moderate it. A forums is an obvious pick, but anything with user interaction can work.

Another point is that anonymity encourages honesty while revealing the information tends to censor it quite a bit.

[Lorien_the_First_One]

I think that all feedback should show who it was from. Being able to post a comment would also be nice.

That would only increase flame wars. One of the advantages of this system is I can just neg rep someone being an idiot and move on. Needing to publically or privately say they are an idiot will only inflame the situation.