PDA

View Full Version : Rep Points



butlerbulldogs
07-31-2005, 09:29 PM
I was wondering if they are still being given out, I have been @ 94 for a long time, I was getting them quite frequently for the first few weeks, and then i haven't gotten any positive/negative...just trying to get over to the big board, have been a member on Redszone for a longtime

(I am being serious, this isn't a post to make people mad)

Sea Ray
07-31-2005, 09:47 PM
Yep, they're still giving them out

REDREAD
07-31-2005, 09:47 PM
All I can suggest is that you try to post more often. I give out all five of mine on Live every day, but I got to see you post to give them to you :)

Garrett
07-31-2005, 09:51 PM
I think you get more if you get an angle that nobody else has thought of, and you write about it, and you get some attention.
If you take the time to do research, you can really score big, like the recent guy who did an analysis of whether GAB is really the bandbox everybody says it is. He zoomed to over 200 so fast he didn't stop to smell the roses.
Personally, I'm going to do an analysis on Petco Park: a new Bandbox is created!

Ben from Cincy
07-31-2005, 09:58 PM
I'm sure this has been explained multiple times, but what are the purpose of the rep points?

butlerbulldogs
07-31-2005, 10:03 PM
purpose of rep points, if you reach 200 points, you are able to give others positive/negative rep points, also, you are able to post in the "Old Red Guard" forum (this forum is dedicated for posters with 200 or more rep points)

smith288
07-31-2005, 10:29 PM
I will freely admit that I have been bad about giving any out lately. I have been busy doing other things but there also hasnt been any attention getting threads made by any Live! folks. Not saying that the place is filled with nonsense, its definately not...just that I havent been very impressed with the dialogue lately from a deep thought standpoint.

Look at trends, stats, minor leaguers, rookies, veterans, etc etc etc...post your opinions on any of that based on the subject you pick and ask for some debate, opinions or agreement. Do it with quality and ill be giving it out. :D

Ben from Cincy
07-31-2005, 10:32 PM
this forum is dedicated for posters with 200 or more rep points
As it should be, because those are all the established and superior posters on this site whom we can only hope to some day be on the same level as and share the same sort of brilliance ;).

Rex Argos
07-31-2005, 10:44 PM
As it should be, because those are all the established and superior posters on this site whom we can only hope to some day be on the same level as and share the same sort of brilliance ;).

That's a 15-yard penalty. Excessive Brown-Nosing. We'll mark it off from the spot of the foul. Oops, wrong season.

KronoRed
07-31-2005, 10:50 PM
Just a note, you don't ALWAYS have to give out your 5 rep a day :D

Guess this thread is a good thing..he went from 94 to 158 ;)

Gainesville Red
07-31-2005, 10:54 PM
I found that a good way to get rep points is always check and see if anyone was on CHAT during gamethreads. It's easier to sort of establish a rapport w/ everyone there. That way when you post, they'll recognize your name, and say "Hey, I like that guy." That's how I did it anyways. As it is in life, it's all about getting your name out there.

ghettochild
07-31-2005, 10:59 PM
hay guys whats going on in this thread :cool:

hhahahah

redsrule2500
07-31-2005, 11:13 PM
Ahhh Now why didn't I think about making a thread just to get me some points??

*hint hint*

Tommyjohn25
07-31-2005, 11:31 PM
I give rep for two things mainly, being insightful and sticking to your guns when someone disagrees with you. And sometimes I'm just in a good mood and someone is the lucky recipient of some rep (like the other day someone got some when I was showing a friend how it worked). I also tend to give them out to people who do play-by-plays in the game threads.

smith288
07-31-2005, 11:43 PM
You owe me...I put you over the top. :lol:

REDREAD
07-31-2005, 11:45 PM
I really have no problem finding 5 quality posts per day on "Live!"
I wish I could give out more than 5 per day.

I'm not complaining about the system, but I kind of wish some more ORGers would be a little more generous. It seems that after the first month, people have lost some enthusiasm in giving out rep. There's plenty of quality discussion going on here.

MWM
07-31-2005, 11:53 PM
I'm not complaining about the system, but I kind of wish some more ORGers would be a little more generous.

I'm sure this will sound bad, but I think some ORGers are being a little TOO generous with their rep points.

Gainesville Red
07-31-2005, 11:57 PM
I've never really given out a whole lot just because I never think about it. I've been doing it a lot more often lately since the gamethreads are in Live. Makes me come to the bad side of town more often.

REDREAD
08-01-2005, 12:01 AM
I'm sure this will sound bad, but I think some ORGers are being a little TOO generous with their rep points.

No prob. That's whats nice about the system. Everyone makes their own call.
I didn't want to make it sound like I was mad or anything. If people don't think something is rep-worthy, by all means withhold it. Naturally everyone has different definiton of what a worthy post is.

Gallen5862
08-01-2005, 12:03 AM
I give mine out every day. I think it is important that posters who were called up like me give out their points. It will help make the board grow.

REDREAD
08-01-2005, 12:10 AM
Guess this thread is a good thing..he went from 94 to 158 ;)

He'll have a nice surpise when he logs in tommorrow :)

Caveat Emperor
08-01-2005, 12:17 AM
Just a note, you don't ALWAYS have to give out your 5 rep a day :D

Guess this thread is a good thing..he went from 94 to 158 ;)

It kinda makes me want to ding him just to inject some reality into all of this. ;)

In all seriousness, I think it defeats the purpose of the reputation system to dole out points to anyone who wants them and/or to anyone who creates a thread whining for more points.

If you're on RedsLive or ORG, the principle is the same: contribute positive conversation about the Cincinnati Reds. Let the reputation stuff take care of itself. On either side, this is still the best sports discussion board I've ever come across.

Just IMHO.

Gainesville Red
08-01-2005, 12:21 AM
[QUOTE=Caveat Emperor]
In all seriousness, I think it defeats the purpose of the reputation system to dole out points to anyone who wants them and/or to anyone who creates a thread whining for more points.
QUOTE]

Does it remind you of a certain whining over the hill shortstop currently employed by the Reds?

Are we no better than Jerry Narron for giving into his demands? ;)

Rex Argos
08-01-2005, 12:22 AM
If you give in, then the terrorists have already won.

REDREAD
08-01-2005, 12:23 AM
Well he's been a longtime poster that just doesn't post sheer volume. I think that's why he's gotten a lot of rep on this thread. People know who he is, he just normally flies under the radar. It's not like he's some new guy that just showed up last week, begging for rep.

redsrule2500
08-01-2005, 12:27 AM
Thanks Guys, I'm now in the Majors!!! :jump:

REDREAD
08-01-2005, 12:29 AM
welcome to the big board redsrule2500 :)

KronoRed
08-01-2005, 01:59 AM
If you give in, then the terrorists have already won.

Terrorist posters :help:

Larkin Fan
08-01-2005, 02:03 AM
Well he's been a longtime poster that just doesn't post sheer volume. I think that's why he's gotten a lot of rep on this thread. People know who he is, he just normally flies under the radar. It's not like he's some new guy that just showed up last week, begging for rep.

The point of the reputation system is quality over quantity. I really don't understand why that point keeps being overlooked. Just because someone is a longtime poster shouldn't automatically grant them a free pass. Rep is something that needs to be earned by posting quality material, which is the exact point of the reputation system. And jumping from 94 to 184 or whatever he did just because he made a post about it isn't earning and completely defeats the whole purpose of this system. Just my opinion.

KronoRed
08-01-2005, 02:26 AM
I agree with LF.

IMO there are 3 things that should be changed

1) New posters should have a probationary period before they get get called up, maybe 1-3 months? seems to me that people can come here and Hail Dunn ;) and the popular stuff and get repped up quickly then turn into a board problem real easy.

2) Rep points should be invisible..only a sign that you're either above or below the magic 200 mark, they would still accumulate, you would still be able to see if you've gotten positives or negs recently and from whom, but nobody but admins could see what the actual numbers are..if this is possible?

3) Negatives should count the same as positives.

Just some thoughts I've had, I think we can all agree that since the rep system has gone into effect that discussion has improved board wide and I have no interest in ORG turning into a "clique" :rolleyes: but I also worry that every thing will go back to how it was if we continue as normal

Just thinking out loud.

zombie-a-go-go
08-01-2005, 06:57 AM
The ORG forum isn't an ice-cream truck, and you're all too old to be begging mommy and daddy for their spare change, anyway.

:rolleyes:

butlerbulldogs
08-01-2005, 09:40 AM
this thread wasn't supposed to make people mad, I appreciate the posters that have given me rep points and yes, some have voiced their displeasure with dinging me.

i was just confused because i hadn't received any pos/neg in over a month and a half

thanks again, everyone

Love the board and will continue to post, I read everyday, just don't post much

Boss-Hog
08-01-2005, 09:44 AM
The point of the reputation system is quality over quantity. I really don't understand why that point keeps being overlooked. Just because someone is a longtime poster shouldn't automatically grant them a free pass. Rep is something that needs to be earned by posting quality material, which is the exact point of the reputation system. And jumping from 94 to 184 or whatever he did just because he made a post about it isn't earning and completely defeats the whole purpose of this system. Just my opinion. Well said.

Crash Davis
08-01-2005, 10:04 AM
I've had some issues with the rep system lately. I'll be honest. I'm fairly stingy with rep points because I think the system was set up for a reason...to earn your way to legit baseball discussion. It wasn't set up to rep your buddy to the other board, or to hand out gobs of rep points to others just because you finally made it.

The problem is I can't reward the best posts. The majority of the time I get a message that says "You must spread some reputation around before giving it to so and so." I try to give rep points on quality. If someone happens to have the two best posts in a week, I can't acknowledge that. It's getting to the point where I've just about stopped giving away any rep at all...why bother if I'm going to be rebuked by an automatic message everytime?

I realize it's set up this way to put a stop to shenanigans. But maybe there's a way to tweak this?

REDREAD
08-01-2005, 10:08 AM
I thought the major reason for the rep system being created was to increase the quality of the posts on this board. It was to prevent the board from being flooded with "Rich Aurilla sucks" threads on a daily basis.
And it's been a resounding success in that regard, so I'm glad Boss and GIK did it.
I don't think it was ever intended to be a status symbol. I was one of the people that gave Butler some rep, because I know that after reading his posts for 3 years, that he's not the type that's going to flood with the board with crap. He contributes, just not in huge quanities.

Krono, IIRC, there already is a probationary period. In order to get into ORG, you have to have 200 points, a certain number of posts, and you have to be registered on the board for a certain time period. I forget the exact numbers, but they do exist. I'm not trying to call you out or start a fight or anything, but I was just pointing out that the probation period does exist :)

GIK
08-01-2005, 10:10 AM
I also worry that every thing will go back to how it was if we continue as normal

I've been thinking about this for a bit now, Krono, and am always open to opinions on how to tweak current settings.

REDREAD
08-01-2005, 10:16 AM
I've been thinking about this for a bit now, Krono, and am always open to opinions on how to tweak current settings.

I'm just curious if anyone thinks the quality of the board has gone down since ORG was created. Initially, there was an influx of people from Live, but now it's slowed down to what seems to be one or two people per week.

I guess I don't see quality degradation, but maybe other people have.

I'd rather keep the system as it is, and if someone with 200 points turns into a problem, let the moderators handle it.

If the system is tweaked to make it harder to get into ORG, it's really not going to have much effect on ORG. It will just take people two or three times longer to get in, but eventually the same people will get in (assuming they're willing to wait long enough to get in).

GIK
08-01-2005, 10:21 AM
RR, I think the quality has definitely improved. I'd just rather stay proactive than reactive if there is an identifiable negative trend.

Boss-Hog
08-01-2005, 10:30 AM
I think the system has worked very well, in terms of improving the quality of the overall site. However, my only issue (and I think it's a significant one) with the system, as is, is that posters with the ability to give reputation points to others are doing so for reasons other than the SOLE purpose of giving rep: for making quality posts that add value to the site. I've sent out reminders, including a mass email to those with the ability to rate others, to remind everyone what the purpose of the system is, but still, I notice that it continues to happen. That's my two cents.

Heath
08-01-2005, 10:37 AM
It seems to me that the ORG has more of a feel of baseball discussion and some speculation. It seems to me that the Reds Live! is more speculation and rumors. I understand that July is a time for that, but I like the ORG part for not piling on the speculation part.

If a thread in Reds Live is started and is not very good, most people won't acknowledge it. If it is good, people will respond and rep points are earned. I think this system in its current state is fair. I got a lot of my rep points on three threads I started in Reds Live. I also got a few rep points on some of my opinions. I've also recieved points because I made a joke or a comment. I've got "neg-ed" for making a joke that some people thought I piled on.

I think the switch to the Reds Live for game threads has been fairly interesting. The same people who are doing game threads are going to do game threads whenever. I do a game thread now and then just because of time.

FWIW - I give out my points as I see necessary - I can only give out 3 points at a time to one poster on one thread. I try to give out my points the way I was given points. It sounds hokey, I know.

Just some random thoughts........

REDREAD
08-01-2005, 10:41 AM
RR, I think the quality has definitely improved. I'd just rather stay proactive than reactive if there is an identifiable negative trend.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with being proactive. I was just curious if people had a perception that the system was broken, because I see it as working well. I hope it didn't come off in the wrong way. You and Boss continue to have the best sports board I've ever seen.

Caveat Emperor
08-01-2005, 11:01 AM
I've been thinking about this for a bit now, Krono, and am always open to opinions on how to tweak current settings.

Just a couple of "off the top of my head" thoughts:

1. As more people join the ORG, the total amount of "Rep" points that can theoretically be awarded on any given day increases, as each new poster gets (along with his ORG Value Club Card and complementary Fruit Basket) the ability to give 5 reputation points per day. Thus, the total "points available" is on a steep growth curve.

However, the growth of New Posters on RedsLive is not matching pace. Thus, in a sense, there are now FEWER members on RedsLive than there were when the split initially occured (since many have been "Called Up") but MORE reputation points floating out there. Thus, there are more people (with ever growing reputation power) issuing points to a smaller pool of individuals. The solution is to normalize the overall aggregate Reputation by reducing reputation power according to board growth (giving everyone less power to compensate for more people having power to begin with) or by reducing the number of reputations a person can give.

Limit the amount of Rep that can be given per day from 5 to 2 or 3. I may be in the vast, vast minority here, but I rarely find cause to use more than 1 or 2 positive rep points per day anyway.

2. Along the same line of thought, with more people rating, the ability to get points becomes much easier than it initially was...the other way to handle things is to raise the amount of points required to get into ORG. If the last solution was a "Reputation Socialism" (dividing a static amount of Reputation Awards evenly among all posters), this is more of a "Reputation Inflation" strategy, since more reputation out there means the "purchasing power" (the ability to buy someone into ORG) should decrease and it should require more reputation in order to do the same thing that used to cost less. Instead of 200, the new number could be 300 or 350. With more people rating, the amount of time to achieve that goal should remain relatively constant.

Just some quick thoughts from work.

(Edit: Woo...post 999)

REDREAD
08-01-2005, 11:06 AM
Just a couple of "off the top of my head" thoughts:

1. As more people join the ORG, the total amount of "Rep" points that can theoretically be awarded on any given day increases, as each new poster gets (along with his ORG Value Club Card and complementary Fruit Basket) the ability to give 5 reputation points per day. Thus, the total "points available" is on a J-Curve growth (exponential).
.

IMO, in practice though, I bet there's actually fewer points being given out on Live! then there was in the first month. For example, you were a very quick callup. IMO, you deserved it, but I think after the initial tidal wave of points that were given out, it's slowed quite a bit. Of course, I don't have access to the real data. I am only guessing, based on my observations.

I will say again though. If you make it harder to get into ORG (reducing the points people can give out per day, or upping the threshhold to get in), the same people will eventually get in, it will only take longer.

Boss-Hog
08-01-2005, 11:29 AM
1. As more people join the ORG, the total amount of "Rep" points that can theoretically be awarded on any given day increases, as each new poster gets (along with his ORG Value Club Card and complementary Fruit Basket) the ability to give 5 reputation points per day. Thus, the total "points available" is on a steep growth curve.

However, the growth of New Posters on RedsLive is not matching pace. Thus, in a sense, there are now FEWER members on RedsLive than there were when the split initially occured (since many have been "Called Up") but MORE reputation points floating out there. Thus, there are more people (with ever growing reputation power) issuing points to a smaller pool of individuals. The solution is to normalize the overall aggregate Reputation by reducing reputation power according to board growth (giving everyone less power to compensate for more people having power to begin with) or by reducing the number of reputations a person can give.

Limit the amount of Rep that can be given per day from 5 to 2 or 3. I may be in the vast, vast minority here, but I rarely find cause to use more than 1 or 2 positive rep points per day anyway.


I think this has a lot of validity; I'd like to hear others' thoughts on it, particularly the admins/mods.

zombie-a-go-go
08-01-2005, 11:38 AM
I think this has a lot of validity; I'd like to hear others' thoughts on it, particularly the admins/mods.

I say we nuke the site from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.

In all seriousness, "normalizing the aggregate," as CA so eloquently put it, makes sense to me.

Oh, and banning people who troll for rep points. That makes sense to me too. Nobody likes a whiner. ;) :evil:

ochre
08-01-2005, 11:42 AM
I think this has a lot of validity; I'd like to hear others' thoughts on it, particularly the admins/mods.
That would be more effective than raising the entry cap. Puts more value on each particular vote, hopefully encouraging people to be more judicious with their points.

I also think there is some merit in establishing a minimum membership period before rights to ORG are gained. There is still plenty of opportunity for discussion on the Live board, with most key issues having parallel threads on either forum.

As a well respected poster has pointed out time and again, its about the noise. The more people that are added to the ORG, the more 'noisy' it will become. As long as the quality of the discussion doesn't deteriorate, this noise can be music.

ochre
08-01-2005, 11:42 AM
I say we nuke the site from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.

In all seriousness, "normalizing the aggregate," as CA so eloquently put it, makes sense to me.

Oh, and banning people who troll for rep points. That makes sense to me too. Nobody likes a whiner. ;) :evil:
quit whining...


:thumbup:

wolfboy
08-01-2005, 11:57 AM
I think the system, for the most part, has worked. The quality of posts/topics on the board has improved quite a bit. I don't post that often on this board, or any message board for that matter. I read several regularly though. Sometimes, the only threads I want to reply to are in the ORG. Even though I can't reply to them, it's nice to read quality threads that aren't littered with "this player sucks" once in a while. Also, butler never asked for points or whined that he wasn't getting his fair share. Anyone who made the decision to give him points did it on their own.

savafan
08-01-2005, 11:58 AM
I think this has a lot of validity; I'd like to hear others' thoughts on it, particularly the admins/mods.

It makes a lot of sense to me, I think it is something worth looking into further...not that I'm an admin/mod, but I thought I'd share my $0.02 as well. :)

savafan
08-01-2005, 12:02 PM
Sometimes, the only threads I want to reply to are in the ORG. Even though I can't reply to them, it's nice to read quality threads that aren't littered with "this player sucks" once in a while.

Never one to tell people what to do, but situations like this is where you should take the initiative to reply to those topics by starting a thread on Reds Live! Chances are, you're not the only one who would like to comment but can't, and by seeing more constructive and thought out posts on Reds Live, makes for better conversation there as well, and allows for those on the ORG to pass out rep points to users, such as yourself, who we may not notice if you don't post.

wolfboy
08-01-2005, 12:16 PM
Never one to tell people what to do, but situations like this is where you should take the initiative to reply to those topics by starting a thread on Reds Live! Chances are, you're not the only one who would like to comment but can't, and by seeing more constructive and thought out posts on Reds Live, makes for better conversation there as well, and allows for those on the ORG to pass out rep points to users, such as yourself, who we may not notice if you don't post.

It wasn't a complaint. I guess the point I was trying to make, as more of a lurker, is that I might not be able to reply to all of the threads I'd like, but that doesn't bother me if the overall quality of the posts has elevated. To be honest, the 200 reputation points isn't a goal for me. I'm on this board almost daily, but I don't start threads, and I don't post replies often. Some members just prefer to read the discussion. For that group of members, the reputation system is great for the collective discussion, but not something we worry about individually.

Johnny Footstool
08-01-2005, 12:23 PM
I still think it's more trouble to have two separate message boards to look through than to have all the threads on the same board. That's my only gripe.

savafan
08-01-2005, 12:27 PM
It wasn't a complaint.

Oh, I know. I could tell by the tone of your post that you weren't complaining. I was mostly making a blanket statement, not necessarily targetted at you wolfboy, in case there were others who felt that way.

KronoRed
08-01-2005, 12:42 PM
I will say again though. If you make it harder to get into ORG (reducing the points people can give out per day, or upping the threshhold to get in), the same people will eventually get in, it will only take longer.

True, but a slower growing board is the best plan.

REDREAD
08-01-2005, 12:52 PM
True, but a slower growing board is the best plan.

I guess I don't remember that the intent was to slow down people from gaining access. I thought the intent was to improve the quality of posting (which has worked). There's already a probation period of I think 30 days.

How long should new posters have to wait? 3 months? A year?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't think the intent was to have two classes of posters. I thought the intent was to keep the "Rich Aurillia sucks" topics and other trolling off the board, not to make it difficult for someone to achieve ORG status.

Chip R
08-01-2005, 12:57 PM
I think a lot of the problems we had were due to people showing up here at the beginning of the season and acting like they would on a regular board. After the bad start and the loss of the novelty, I think a lot of those people left. Even on the Live board we don't see many comments any more about how so and so sucks and all that other nonsense. So I think it has served its purpose.

KronoRed
08-01-2005, 12:58 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't think the intent was to have two classes of posters. I thought the intent was to keep the "Rich Aurillia sucks" topics and other trolling off the board, not to make it difficult for someone to achieve ORG status.

But it's not difficult to get to ORG, just start a thread about it :evil:

I'm not advocating keeping people out, but slower growth is always the best policy.

IMO

REDREAD
08-01-2005, 01:07 PM
But it's not difficult to get to ORG, just start a thread about it :evil:

I'm not advocating keeping people out, but slower growth is always the best policy.

IMO

Maybe one of the admins can tell us how many people per week get into ORG. It seems like the average is maybe 2 or 3. That's not a whole lot when you consider all the potential reputation points that could be given out.

I guess I don't see why slow growth is good. Using bandwidth on Live or ORG taxes the server just the same.

remdog
08-01-2005, 01:09 PM
I guess I don't remember that the intent was to slow down people from gaining access. I thought the intent was to improve the quality of posting (which has worked). There's already a probation period of I think 30 days.

How long should new posters have to wait? 3 months? A year?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't think the intent was to have two classes of posters. I thought the intent was to keep the "Rich Aurillia sucks" topics and other trolling off the board, not to make it difficult for someone to achieve ORG status.

Gotta' agree with RR here. And, personally, I'm still of the opinion that there should be one board.

Rem

KronoRed
08-01-2005, 01:42 PM
I guess I don't see why slow growth is good. Using bandwidth on Live or ORG taxes the server just the same.

But..as ORG grows Live doesn't get any smaller, slower growth allows new people to see how the board works (because no 2 boards work the same)

We'll have to agree to disagree :)

ghettochild
08-01-2005, 01:49 PM
i really like the setup you got here. i mean yeah the live people can't comment on ORG threads, but you still get to talk the same baseball with the same guys, and the ORG people can still post on live to post their opinion.

the only thing i was opposed to was the "be the last person to..." threads, those hogged the most bandwidth IMO and i'm sure the admins have noticed a great amount in bandwidth drop since they've stopped those.

Larkin Fan
08-01-2005, 01:54 PM
Maybe one of the admins can tell us how many people per week get into ORG. It seems like the average is maybe 2 or 3. That's not a whole lot when you consider all the potential reputation points that could be given out.

I guess I don't see why slow growth is good. Using bandwidth on Live or ORG taxes the server just the same.

Bandwidth isn't the issue. It's the quality of the posts on ORG.

There are detractors to this policy, even though they are in a minority. But it's hard to argue that the quality of the discussions occurring on Redszone has greatly improved since this policy was instituted. And there's a whole lot of us here that would like to see that continue.

I have nothing against new people getting into ORG, but I want them to do so on the sole basis of the quality of their posts. They shouldn't get in there because there are some here that are handing out rep indiscriminately based on posts asking for rep/about rep or because of the quantity of posts they have or how long they've been here. Quality over quantity has been the basic principle of this all along.

If things keep continuing the way that they are, the policy fails and we're back to square one. I just wish some would use more discretion when giving out reputation points.

KittyDuran
08-01-2005, 02:05 PM
Bandwidth isn't the issue. It's the quality of the posts on ORG.

There are detractors to this policy, even though they are in a minority. But it's hard to argue that the quality of the discussions occurring on Redszone has greatly improved since this policy was instituted. And there's a whole lot of us here that would like to see that continue.

I have nothing against new people getting into ORG, but I want them to do so on the sole basis of the quality of their posts. They shouldn't get in there because there are some here that are handing out rep indiscriminately based on posts asking for rep/about rep or because of the quantity of posts they have or how long they've been here. Quality over quantity has been the basic principle of this all along.

If things keep continuing the way that they are, the policy fails and we're back to square one. I just wish some would use more discretion when giving out reputation points.The third paragraph is not necessarily true because some on ORG at the beginning were "lobbying" others to give rep points out to a few on Reds Live! based more on their "reputation" not on their quality of post(s) or at least IMHO. I wish I could find the thread were this was addressed.

FWIW, I usually give out my rep points based on single posts - not a succession of posts by a certain poster. And I don't even have to agree with the post - if it's thought provoking it's worthy of a rep point. Heck I've given a few rep points to BF even tho' I disagree with him about 95% of the time. ;)

KittyDuran
08-01-2005, 02:08 PM
I've had some issues with the rep system lately. I'll be honest. I'm fairly stingy with rep points because I think the system was set up for a reason...to earn your way to legit baseball discussion. It wasn't set up to rep your buddy to the other board, or to hand out gobs of rep points to others just because you finally made it.

The problem is I can't reward the best posts. The majority of the time I get a message that says "You must spread some reputation around before giving it to so and so." I try to give rep points on quality. If someone happens to have the two best posts in a week, I can't acknowledge that. It's getting to the point where I've just about stopped giving away any rep at all...why bother if I'm going to be rebuked by an automatic message everytime?

I realize it's set up this way to put a stop to shenanigans. But maybe there's a way to tweak this?Same here... :(

MWM
08-01-2005, 02:14 PM
No need to go search it out. It was me who suggested a few names once the new system was introduced. I sure wish I wouldn't have because it wasn't worth the grief I've taken from it. There were 4-5 people who had been around a long time but didn't make the cut for the original ORG board, who I had the impression were well respected by the masses on the board, not just me. I suggested to some people that they would be a good place to start. The quality of their contribution over the years really wasn't a question, so I didn't think it violated the spirit of the quality over quantity principle. I didn't realize this would be received with such indignation by a few people. I haven't done it since. I learned my lesson. And I haven't seen anyone else who's lobbied for others since then either. So, it's not been a problem since those first few days, so I think LFs paragraph was perfectly valid.

Chip R
08-01-2005, 02:15 PM
The third paragraph is not necessarily true because some on ORG at the beginning were "lobbying" others to give rep points out to a few on Reds Live! based more on their "reputation" not on their quality of post(s) or at least IMHO. I wish I could find the thread were this was addressed.
That is very true. To me, that's defeating the purpose just as much as giving positive rep to posters who complain about not getting positive rep. I don't know if it's actually been addressed on any specific thread on this board but I have seen it done elsewhere.

REDREAD
08-01-2005, 02:39 PM
I have nothing against new people getting into ORG, but I want them to do so on the sole basis of the quality of their posts. They shouldn't get in there because there are some here that are handing out rep indiscriminately based on posts asking for rep/about rep or because of the quantity of posts they have or how long they've been here. Quality over quantity has been the basic principle of this all along.
.

It's something that should be watched, but I think the system is working.

I can't think of one person that's been "promoted" and been a serious detriment to the quality of ORG. I don't want to call out names, but I did notice one poster that got negged down to almost 100, after getting into ORG, but isn't that evidence that the system is working as is? That's why I asked GIK if there's been a problem with any of the new enterants.

I would just hate to see a the entrance restrictions for ORG made a lot tougher just because of this thread. Is it really that big of a deal if ButlerBulldogs gets into ORG a month or two earlier because of this thread? He doesn't post that much, and when he does, he contributes.

It's just kind of odd that it bothers people that he got a huge rep increase due to this thread. I noticed that someone gave him negative points on this thread, as his score was lower this morning than it was when I went to bed last night. Why does that bother people that he racked up points on this thread?

remdog
08-01-2005, 02:50 PM
Bandwidth isn't the issue. It's the quality of the posts on ORG.

Ahh, but bandwith WAS an issue when it meant that the 'Last person...' thread ate up resources and kicked off a funding drive that, essentially only benifited those posters that had turned that thread into a chat room instead of a bulletin board.


By Larkin Fan: There are detractors to this policy, even though they are in a minority. But it's hard to argue that the quality of the discussions occurring on Redszone has greatly improved since this policy was instituted. And there's a whole lot of us here that would like to see that continue.

I would agrue that they are not in the minority---they are simply being pragmatic since they know that there are several moderators here that will slap down opposing opinions because it threatens their authorithy even while they themselves break the rules they are supposed to enforce. If, in fact, you think that discussions have improved (which I'm neutral on at this point) is it worth the tacit censorship that goes along with the new policy? Should not all voices/opinions be equal? Should a selected group be subjected to discrimination and second-class citizenship? Personally, I think not, but....


By Larkin Fan: Quality over quantity has been the basic principle of this all along.

I don't have a problem with that idea. However, a new poster that posts quality from day one should be acknowledged. Yet we have posters on this board that post 20+ posts per day that consist mostly of :) and :mooner: and they are in the ORG. (Shrug) So, now :) and :mooner: are quality?


By Larkin Fan: If things keep continuing the way that they are, the policy fails and we're back to square one.

Actually, square one was pretty damn good. On any board you're going to wade through some garbage. And, personally, I'd rather be the one to decide who, what and where I read than having a two-class system. So, LF, if this system is so great would you willingly give up your ORG status to go back to zero and and start in Reds Live! and work your way up?

LF: we've been friends on this board from the the beginning and I'm not trying dump on you here but the above statements are my honest viewpoint(s) on this isuue. I won't have any problem with you if your viewpoint differs.

Rem

Unassisted
08-02-2005, 09:14 PM
I like Caveat Emperor's growth-slowing ideas. Either or both of them are fine by me.

LoganBuck
08-03-2005, 01:17 PM
I don't post like crazy, and it took me 6 weeks to get called up to ORG. Like Rem says I wouldn't want to give up my ORG status, because I feel that the better discussions are on ORG. Yet since I have been called up I don't give to many points one way or another. It has to be something that makes me take notice. I probably hand out a couple of reps a week. I have never given my full allotment in a day. I feel that people were fairly choosy giving out rep to me, so I should respect that manner of rep when giving it out. Quality should breed quality.