Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lustawny)
    Thinking about it, I actually feel that the rep system needs to be completely revitalised. I don't like the idea of just having rep gems, they're not specific enough, and I don't think people actually care about them anymore. There's so many types of posts, and those doing the posting. I think they both need to be described in more detail - a user with a high amount of rep gems could mean anything.

    I would propose scrapping rep gems, and the whole 'thumbs up'/'thumbs down' option for posts, in favour of a system where you get the option to describe each post in more detail. For example, you could have certain options to select on each post, such as 'helpful', 'unhelpful', 'comedic', 'trollish', 'creative', 'well-rationalised' and so on. The option that is most popularly selected on each post, would be how that particular post is branded. For example, a post that has the 'creative' option selected the most, would be branded clearly on the thread as 'creative'. This would then feed into the badge system that's recently been implemented, and you would get a badge every time you reach a certain amount of posts that have been branded in a particular way.

    I don't know if this has been suggested before, but I think it's a pretty good idea.
    Absolutely disastrous troll's charter.

    You would basically be embedding the function to "lol" spam any post.

    I guarantee you any given post about Israel/palestine or people being killed would have a few "funny" votes. This is before you even start on "I failed my a-levels"
    Offline

    5
    (Original post by Clip)
    Absolutely disastrous troll's charter.

    You would basically be embedding the function to "lol" spam any post.

    I guarantee you any given post about Israel/palestine or people being killed would have a few "funny" votes. This is before you even start on "I failed my a-levels"
    Exactly, what harm is a 'few' funny votes? How many is 'few', anyway? Only the most popular selection would show up on posts under this idea, and I don't think many people would simply brand all posts on threads like that as 'funny'. Under the old rep system that we had, I don't think the majority of users with high amounts of rep liked to neg for fun. The majority of them had some kind of reason behind negging a user. I think most people are pretty honest when it comes to stuff like this. The people who complained about being bullied because they were being negged, just couldn't take being negged in the first place. There was most likely some kind of reason behind them being negged.

    It really does depend on the content of each post, as well - I don't think all posts on debating threads are going to be funny, it's usually only a small minority that are. Most people on here like to give serious replies on threads like that. What would be the point of selecting the 'funny' option for posts that are quite serious and well-reasoned, anyway, for example? Under the rep system that we have now, there's a lot more power involved - you could add or take away points from a user by repping them. Under this system, there's less power given to users. All they're doing under this one is selecting options for posts so that that particular user can eventually get a badge. It puts more emphasis on the recognition aspect of a rep system, and less emphasis on how much damage you can do to a particular user. So I really don't see what kind of motive somebody would have for branding a post the wrong way under this idea, to be honest.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    if bringing back neg-rep is a non-starter, and I sense it is, then how about bringing back the option to neg but having this show on the board only where the the value of the neg amounts to, e.g. 20? Perhaps getting that far could cost you 10 points.

    So a post should have to be negged by 10 and 10 or by 9, 7, and 4 or by 10x2 or 20x1 or whatitis. This allows the community to say 'this is offensive' or 'this is bad advice'.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambio wechsel)
    if bringing back neg-rep is a non-starter, and I sense it is, then how about bringing back the option to neg but having this show on the board only where the the value of the neg amounts to, e.g. 20? Perhaps getting that far could cost you 10 points.

    So a post should have to be negged by 10 and 10 or by 9, 7, and 4 or by 10x2 or 20x1 or whatitis. This allows the community to say 'this is offensive' or 'this is bad advice'.
    So instead it becomes a generic "I disagree with this post" button?

    I could see the use of it. Would you limit the number of times you could do this per day as you can with +rep?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikeyd85)
    So instead it becomes a generic "I disagree with this post" button?

    I could see the use of it. Would you limit the number of times you could do this per day as you can with +rep?
    I dunno. The point is that there should have to be a minimum of 2 posters negging for it to mean anything or even to show, and for it to be just two they should have to have 10 rep points each.

    This would allow the community to express disapproval but would as well mitigate at least two issues that were cited in the removing of neg rep -

    1. 'bullying'
    2. the notion that people were fighting shy of disagreeing with those with high rep. If you disagree with me, I'm 11 points shy of being able to do anything about it. I'd need to round-up at least two more posters to have my preposterous vengeance.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lustawny)
    Exactly, what harm is a 'few' funny votes? How many is 'few', anyway? Only the most popular selection would show up on posts under this idea, and I don't think many people would simply brand all posts on threads like that as 'funny'. Under the old rep system that we had, I don't think the majority of users with high amounts of rep liked to neg for fun. The majority of them had some kind of reason behind negging a user. I think most people are pretty honest when it comes to stuff like this. The people who complained about being bullied because they were being negged, just couldn't take being negged in the first place. There was most likely some kind of reason behind them being negged.

    It really does depend on the content of each post, as well - I don't think all posts on debating threads are going to be funny, it's usually only a small minority that are. Most people on here like to give serious replies on threads like that. What would be the point of selecting the 'funny' option for posts that are quite serious and well-reasoned, anyway, for example? Under the rep system that we have now, there's a lot more power involved - you could add or take away points from a user by repping them. Under this system, there's less power given to users. All they're doing under this one is selecting options for posts so that that particular user can eventually get a badge. It puts more emphasis on the recognition aspect of a rep system, and less emphasis on how much damage you can do to a particular user. So I really don't see what kind of motive somebody would have for branding a post the wrong way under this idea, to be honest.
    It's troll spam, which is prohibited on TSR - yet this would be a system which basically provides the legit tools to do it all the time.

    If someone posts "I am really unhappy at school because I get bullied every day" and someone in reply posts "Lol" - that person will get carded and warned for spamming and trolling.

    However, if there is a post rating system which has "Funny" or "lol" as an option - you are expressly providing the tools to make exactly such a comment without fear of reproach. Then you're going to have people upset because 5 people found the fact that their dog died funny.

    I can easily see exaggerations of the flame wars you get now. "130 Muslims killed by Boko Haram" - you are going to get several "funny" clicks. That's just how people are - and what will that lead to? Loads of "disgustings".
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    I think the rep cap is fine, but it would be nice to be able to rep individuals more frequently. Also I think the idea of rep comments is really great!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Very quickly, how many posts do I have to rep before I can rep someone again?

    I literally visit one or two threads and there's a member who keeps helping me and others, but I can't seem to rep them for about 6 months now.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.