Nick Against the World (45 Viewers)

[Tom]

, however looking at who is on top of the rep chart, Greg and Paul specifically, the ratings have not gone too far off the mark.

The only other way to do this is just have Marty give rep to members..

Can't argue with the first bit really

The only thing I can think of is for there to be a ranking system for how much members can affect your rep. This could be established by having all the mods decide on each individual poster with over x amount of posts, then all the newbies having virtually no power.

And you could have a limit whereby no one poster can add negative rep more than x amount of times to the same person. At present its once per post - I don't think poster is taken into account

But perhaps I'm being picky

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

Didn't work for me, I lost rep points after about 5 minutes. I think there should be a system where people widely regarded as twats, like tifoso lou for instance, should not be eligible to alter the rep of any given individual. Not that I'm bitter or anything

I agree, especially about the Tifoso Lou part.

 

[Seven]

Perhaps we should just drop it. Real reputation isn't something you receive from others, it's an impression you leave behind.

 

[Respaul]

You also have new members who dont know people and dont know the way they post and as such are offended by something that is normal etc...

Its also wrong to start everyone from scratch at this point... Those that are established members who have helped shape this forum should have started on a much higher rating in the first place... So meaning that newer posters and the initial pointless rep adding / taking among friends / enemies actually would have less effect on that persons overal rep, thus their overal contribution to the years this forum has run would still be recognisable to new members

 

[Slagathor]

Where is the list anyway?

 

[Respaul]

Can't argue with the first bit really

This could be established by having all the mods decide on each individual poster with over x amount of posts, then all the newbies having virtually no power.

But then if going by posts, that is also unfair... eg. is denco or greg lesser posters than some who have 3 or 4 times their post count... not at all

 

[Bjerknes]

Can't argue with the first bit really

The only thing I can think of is for there to be a ranking system for how much members can affect your rep. This could be established by having all the mods decide on each individual poster with over x amount of posts, then all the newbies having virtually no power.

And you could have a limit whereby no one poster can add negative rep more than x amount of times to the same person. At present its once per post - I don't think poster is taken into account

But perhaps I'm being picky

Good points, however there will undoubtedly be controversy over who the mods select as their primary rating provider..

 

[Seven]

You also have new members who dont know people and dont know the way they post and as such are offended by something that is normal etc...

Its also wrong to start everyone from scratch at this point... Those that are established members who have helped shape this forum should have started on a much higher rating in the first place... So meaning that newer posters and the initial pointless rep adding / taking among friends / enemies actually would have less effect on that persons overal rep, thus there overal contribution to the years this forum has run would still be recognisable to new members

But what would you do with someone like me for example? I did help shape this forum but there probable aren't more than four or five posters who actually like me and with me what I write.

What can be done is give more power to people with more posts. For example if someone with 2000 posts gives rep that'll be more of an impact than someone with 20 posts taking rep away.

 

[Seven]

But then if going by posts, that is also unfair... eg. is denco or greg lesser posters than some who have 3 or 4 times their post count... not at all

Though it's the only way that comes close to being fair and objective.

 

[Bjerknes]

You also have new members who dont know people and dont know the way they post and as such are offended by something that is normal etc...

Its also wrong to start everyone from scratch at this point... Those that are established members who have helped shape this forum should have started on a much higher rating in the first place... So meaning that newer posters and the initial pointless rep adding / taking among friends / enemies actually would have less effect on that persons overal rep, thus there overal contribution to the years this forum has run would still be recognisable to new members

Exactly Paul. That is basically my whole point with my original comment.

Posters such as Tom, Erik, etc. should not be languishing behind many posters in the top 20. Very unfair to them IMO.

 

[Slagathor]

Exactly Paul. That is basically my whole point with my original comment.

Posters such as Tom, Erik, etc. should not be languishing behind many posters in the top 20. Very unfair to them IMO.

Actually, I think a good reputation is about the last thing I deserve on these boards

 

[Bjerknes]

Actually, I think a good reputation is about the last thing I deserve on these boards

Well, you certainly helped to shape the forum, and I can't remember you on the brink of being banned, so..

 

[Seven]

Still, reputation isn't something based on points. It's based on what people think when they see you just posted.

 

[Seven]

Well, you certainly helped to shape the forum, and I can't remember you on the brink of being banned, so..

Being banned shouldn't cause bad reputation .-

 

[Respaul]

Though it's the only way that comes close to being fair and objective.

How is it fair and objective... a poster that has posted 20k average posts in the space of a year or so is more worthy than someone who has been here 5 years and been a real part of the progression of this forum but has only made quarter the post count... No way is that fair or objective

 

[Bjerknes]

Paul, I will pay you 100 in vCash if you give me another hint on your crossword puzzle.

 

[Seven]

How is it fair and objective... a poster that has posted 20k average posts in the space of a year or so is more worthy than someone who has been here 5 years and been a real part of the progression of this forum but has only made quarter the post count... No way is that fair or objective

What you consider an average post can be considered a quality post by someone else. If you're going to base the system on opinions, it's quite obvious you're not being objective.

And TBH if someone has 20k posts I consider average he still shaped the forum.

 

[Respaul]

Paul, I will pay you 100 in vCash if you give me another hint on your crossword puzzle.

lol... what you stuck on ?

 

[Seven]

That George Best quote is historical by the way, Paul.
And in all reality, there's some truth in it as well.

 

[Bjerknes]

lol... what you stuck on ?

Well, there are only three I did not get and one of them was the Station Master. It sounds very familiar and I'll probably look like an idiot for not getting the answer.

Other than that, it was pretty fun.