[rmhumphries]

(Original post by Unkempt_One)
I suppose my problem with the current system is that I can't see the merit of neg rep being given to posts that wouldn't warrant moderation in the first place, or at least vocal condemnation. It seems to me to mostly be used to lash out at users or express disapproval at styles of posting or opinions that are disliked, which doesn't necessarily mean they are bad. At least, whenever I've seen heavily negged posts in the past, they rarely strike me as being genuinely deserving of it. If the feedback given to users by neg rep is essentially 'I dislike you' as opposed to being constructive, then what I think would be best is nerfing the power of neg rep to affect a user's overall reputation count. That would at least make it easier to express more honest opinions without fear of backlash.

Firstly, posts that break the rules will often be negged before being binned - but the rep remains valid, so trolls and so-on will often have neg rep.

Beyond that, I will neg people if I feel they are being overly arrogent for instance, which isn't against the rules, but I feel is a fair use of the rep system.

[Mequa]

(Original post by EierVonSatan)
What kind of an agenda, out of interest?

Their own high rep obtained through pandering to popular opinion rather than through independent thinking and critical thought? I'd imagine those types would be most resistant to any change to the current system.

(Original post by EierVonSatan)
Not everyone on TSR is here for debate. The rep system is here to cater for the whole site - and yes it's a visual representation of opinion. As with any system that ultimately depends upon individual users making up their mind how to give out reputation (positive or negative) then it's always going to be open to the problems you've listed.

Removing the option to neg, having gained rep power by pandering, will solve a lot of the problems.

Assuming you weren't a member in late 2010, the rep system was dramatically overhauled from being one where the top rated members had hundreds of times (even thousands) as many rep points to give out everyday as newer members. Everyones reputation was recalculated based on every rep they ever had only counted for 1 point and the rep power of members now varies by far, far less. The bad blood that is presently seen is a shadow of what it once was as you could go from being a member well into the green to being in neg rep territory within a single post.

Just because the system was worse in the past doesn't mean it doesn't need an overhaul.

Okay, instead of just criticising, how would you alter the system to encourage said honest opinions and critical thought? Given that total removal of the system isn't an option.

A good start would be a trial period, say for 3 weeks, where the option to neg is removed for all except moderators. After the trial is up, the situation can be assessed (in terms of which promotes the best positive interaction between members, minimises the amount of bad blood, etc.), and a survey done on which system is preferable. Without priority of vote going to those with the most rep under the current system.

As I said: If it's broke, fix it. The current system is clearly broke. What needs to be done is to break the back of the anti-intellectual PC pandering "don't mess with my high rep" lobby, who enjoy the power to "neg and run" without arguing just because they disagree with an opinion, to make room for a more fair system where intelligently expressing and arguing less popular viewpoints isn't punished.

To give some more suggestions: Perhaps a system could be put in place where extra rep could be offered by mods for 1) independent thought, 2) well-reasoned arguments, 3) daring to go against majority opinion with a well-thought out alternative perspective, 4) mature approaches to debate (without sarcasm, snarky responses and put-downs at someone's expense), 5) on-topic posts.

That would at least offer a counterweight to the current use of the rep system.

But when I hear "the system won't change, no matter what objections we get, so forget about it", I do smell an agenda. When I hear cries to squelch all debate on this issue, I smell an agenda. It is pretty common in any social construct for those who benefit from the current hierarchical system to "throw their weight around" and strongly resist any changes to the system, even if those changes would clearly be (to a neutral observer) for the best. Such inertia needs to be dealt with, not given the upper hand to squelch dissent, if fairness is desired.

[Krov]

A system structured about thread bumps should be enough.

It's not like the plebs have any relevant opinions anyway.

[madders94]

I think it would be nicer if we scrapped the post reputation system and just had the option to give people nice personal reputation if we think they're funny or helpful or nice the current system discourages debate, why spend the time to explain why you disagree when you can just neg and run? It ruins the fun of debating on this site!

[Krov]

(Original post by madders94)
I think it would be nicer if we scrapped the post reputation system and just had the option to give people nice personal reputation if we think they're funny or helpful or nice the current system discourages debate, why spend the time to explain why you disagree when you can just neg and run? It ruins the fun of debating on this site!

It's actually a lot more fun to argue (or troll) when people downvote you.

At least you know you hit a nerve.

[EierVonSatan]

(Original post by Mequa)
Their own high rep obtained through pandering to popular opinion rather than through independent thinking and critical thought? I'd imagine those types would be most resistant to any change to the current system.

I see.

Removing the option to neg, having gained rep power by pandering, will solve a lot of the problems.

Fair enough, but people will still receive rep from the ''popular opinion'' crowd faster than those with ''independent thinking and critical thought'' and those with currently high rep will never lose it.

Just because the system was worse in the past doesn't mean it doesn't need an overhaul.

That wasn't what I was eluding to - more that the system is capable of change

A good start would be a trial period, say for 3 weeks, where the option to neg is removed for all except moderators. After the trial is up, the situation can be assessed (in terms of which promotes the best positive interaction between members, minimises the amount of bad blood, etc.), and a survey done on which system is preferable. Without priority of vote going to those with the most rep under the current system.

I'd say for best results the trial would have to be longer and negging be removed for all including mods. But that seems reasonable.

Another possibility is that rep could be turned off in one of the debate forums and the impact measured there (this is very easy to implement).

As I said: If it's broke, fix it. The current system is clearly broke. What needs to be done is to break the back of the anti-intellectual PC pandering "don't mess with my high rep" lobby, who enjoy the power to "neg and run" without arguing just because they disagree with an opinion, to make room for a more fair system where intelligently expressing and arguing less popular viewpoints isn't punished.

I'm not opposed to change, but it comes down to that any system is going to have it's flaws and that you can't keep everyone happy. It's certainly not just high rep users that ''neg and run'' I can assure you

To give some more suggestions: Perhaps a system could be put in place where extra rep could be offered by mods for 1) independent thought, 2) well-reasoned arguments, 3) daring to go against majority opinion with a well-thought out alternative perspective, 4) mature approaches to debate (without sarcasm, snarky responses and put-downs at someone's expense), 5) on-topic posts.

I'd never want to go down the route of giving mods some advantage in the rep system, we are users to and just as likely to give rep based on subjective reasons as with anyone else.

But when I hear "the system won't change, no matter what objections we get, so forget about it", I do smell an agenda. When I hear cries to squelch all debate on this issue, I smell an agenda. It is pretty common in any social construct for those who benefit from the current hierarchical system to "throw their weight around" and strongly resist any changes to the system, even if those changes would clearly be (to a neutral observer) for the best. Such inertia needs to be dealt with, not given the upper hand to squelch dissent, if fairness is desired.

Ah okay, but the site isn't run by popular demand - the only people who have the power to change the rep system are the administrators. It costs money for them to make changes to the system and they have to balance that against the benefits to the forum. There was stubborn resistance from certain high-rep users to the last change, but it happened anyway

[Mequa]

(Original post by madders94)
the current system discourages debate, why spend the time to explain why you disagree when you can just neg and run? It ruins the fun of debating on this site!

Seconded.

Also, consider the situation when you express an unpopular (though well-thought out view) and get negged by bigots who dislike the opinion expressed. Others come along who secretly agree, see the negs, and are put off giving their honest opinion. So they either abstain from contributing to the debate, or pretend to agree with the majority view.

The current system caters precisely to "neg and run". I got negged for opening a thread about the ethics of sexual deception (presumably by someone not wanting their own dishonest ways critiqued). I got negged for (anonymously) discussing some personal experiences. I got negged for expressing distaste at certain religionists' insistence that it is right for all non-believers to be tortured forever. I got around 40 points knocked off my rep for expressing my disinterest in taking out a paid subscription to the site. (Yeah, that last one really made me want to subscribe. )

I find it more enjoyable to take intelligent debate elsewhere. Perhaps anyone else dissatisfied with the current system, if faced with "forget it the rep system won't change", may be better to find another forum which doesn't punish independent thought and promote a herd mentality. Hell, I'd probably have 20 red gems if I didn't hold back from saying what I really thought in some debates on here...

[py0alb]

Anyone who complains about the rep system in principle has clearly never attempted to debate on literally any other forum on the entire internet. There are far, far more trolls out there than genuine posters.

Perhaps the rep system could be fiddled with slightly - people should somehow be encouraged to rate posts according to whether they are thoughtful/moronic rather than whether they happen to agree/disagree.

I agree that it is somewhat dispiriting when an offhand remark receives +50 and a carefully crafted, insightful and original post receives nothing at all. But who the **** really cares anyway? The rep system does its job of separating trolls and good posters pretty adequately.

[py0alb]

(Original post by Beska)
the whole point of the system is to neg people you disagree with.

It shouldn't be and it certainly never used to be. You're "supposed" to neg people who are obviously trolling/acting like *****/refusing to debate sensibly, and pos people who provide helpful, original or insightful posts/debate sensibly.

Whether or not you agree with a post should be irrelevant.

TSR algorithm:
Browse threads of interest.
If someone says what you were going to say only better: pos and move on.
If you disagree with a post: do not neg, simply quote them and start a debate.
If they then refuse to debate sensibly, now you neg and move on.
Repeat.

[Spontogical]

Nah rep doesn't need to be changed. Almost every forum has one (not using it as a point but..), tbh whether its there or not doesn't matter. Rep basically just tells other people what the community thinks about you and your opinions.. it's not like when I see someone with a bar full of neg that I'll ignore what they say; but it does help distinguish between members that have nothing better to do with their time except troll (ISA etc) and those that post stuff that is actually relevant.

I've disabled rep from being viewed on the tsr sidebars, as I couldn't really give a rat's ass about seeing green and red jpeg files..Im only interested in who has quoted me.

[Mequa]

(Original post by py0alb)
If you disagree with a post: do not neg, simply quote them and start a debate.

This will not become commonplace under the current system. What if someone is annoyed at an opinion they disagree with, consequently feels personal dislike towards the one expressing said opinion - but doesn't have an intelligent rebuttal?

The temptation is to neg and run. There's no consequence to them for that - heck, perhaps many could be forgiven for thinking that's what the neg button is for - so it will continue to happen until the system is changed/hell freezes over/the earth is enveloped by the sun (whichever happens first).


Edit: Whoever negged this, unless they follow up with an argument, only strengthens my point!

[Mequa]

(Original post by py0alb)
Anyone who complains about the rep system in principle has clearly never attempted to debate on literally any other forum on the entire internet.

Are you sure? Since I've attempted to debate on literally dozens of forums on the Internet, and I am complaining about TSR's rep system. Furthermore, most forums don't have such a system with its flaws.

Sure, they have other flaws, but not the ones specifically relating to TSR's current implementation of rep and negging. I've yet to seriously spend time on another site which has such a system - many other sites I've been on have actually debated implementing such a system of rep, and rejected the proposals on much the same grounds I've seen presented here. In particular, since penalising expression of independent views (by majority vote), and allowing for "neg and run" (for less popular views) was thought not to promote intelligent debate.

Though perhaps they were wrong; and discouraging independent thought, promoting neg and run without argument, putting many intelligent posters off the forum, and encouraging a politically-correct groupthink is the way forward.

[pinkangelgirl]

(Original post by Bellissima)
TSR would lose money because loads of people become subs so they can check on who negged them then start getting pissy with them/neg them back... lame

someone did that to me the other day. I negged him because i thought hed been rude to the OP and then suddenley i get a visitor message saying ''neg rep returned'' when i hadn even said anything. Just seemed really childish.

[xander93]

(Original post by Unkempt_One)
In essence, praise the social butterflies who can subconsciously expose agreeable and intelligent-sounding orthodox arguments, banish those who don't maintain an atmosphere of fresh, studenty Liberal-leaning psuedo-intellectualism.

Well, that's the atmosphere I got from the way rep is given out on the current affairs forum, so I guess I'll just find somewhere else I can discuss such things in my favourite manner of slightly hate-tinged but nonetheless in good humour sarcasm without burning away rep I gain from giving academic advice. I like my pretty green gems.

That's a damn sight nearer than anything I could had said, and sadly true.

[Bellissima]

(Original post by pinkangelgirl)
someone did that to me the other day. I negged him because i thought hed been rude to the OP and then suddenley i get a visitor message saying ''neg rep returned'' when i hadn even said anything. Just seemed really childish.

lol it's so lame...

[mikeyd85]

Everyone has a different opinion as to how rep should be used. I think it pretty much works right now, it allows for people to use it as they see fit.

[Tycho]

People actually care about the reputation system?

[Chrosson]

(Original post by Tycho)
People actually care about the reputation system?

Yes, some people do.

Reddit has a similar system to reputation (called karma) and people care there as well. It has been suggested that pehaps people care because it's an honest judgement of you - on the internet you're less likely to put up a facade or try to fit in, so when people are judging you through a points system on an anonymous forum like this one they're actually judging the 'real' you.

Unsure how true it is, but it's an interesting theory.

[Tycho]

(Original post by Chrosson)
Yes, some people do.

Reddit has a similar system to reputation (called karma) and people care there as well. It has been suggested that pehaps people care because it's an honest judgement of you - on the internet you're less likely to put up a facade or try to fit in, so when people are judging you through a points system on an anonymous forum like this one they're actually judging the 'real' you.

Unsure how true it is, but it's an interesting theory.

Don't think this is true because more often than not the reputation system is used when people disagree. This means that those who don't conform to the norm are likely to have negative ratings - despite being perfectly nice people and very popular. I think a lot of people on this forum take themselves (and the forum) far too seriously (including the moderation team). Most seem to lack a sense of humour on here to be honest.

Whatever happened to a bit of banter and a sarcastic debate? =]

[py0alb]

(Original post by Tycho)
Don't think this is true because more often than not the reputation system is used when people disagree. This means that those who don't conform to the norm are likely to have negative ratings - despite being perfectly nice people and very popular. I think a lot of people on this forum take themselves (and the forum) far too seriously (including the moderation team). Most seem to lack a sense of humour on here to be honest.

Whatever happened to a bit of banter and a sarcastic debate? =]

I don't think that's necessarily true. I rarely conform to the norm (I wouldn't bother posting if I didn't strongly disagree with something someone had said), I'm frequently argumentative, and I'm often accused of being arrogant, abrasive and insulting by those I disagree with. Yet I have lots of green rep.