Originally Posted by Brutus
My recollection was that the rep system was an unmitigated disaster. I recall that it created a lot of hostility and people ganging up on one another.
The other issue I seem to remember was that people were giving negative rep points or positive rep points on whether they agreed with a post and it became more about popularity than rather someone was abiding by the rules and being nice to one another.
I thought the board went significantly downhill after the rep system got scrapped. Fun went out the window. Too many dreary posters posting dreary stuff, never realizing that they were engaging in the online equivalent of lecturing the walls (and the walls don't care).
The rep system provided feedback and gave the community some say in what kinds of posts it actually valued. We liked a little bit of artful phrasing. We liked it when someone made a call on something and got it right. We liked when someone offered a creative take that went beyond the monochromatic mindset of the local sportswriter clan. We didn't like metacomplaints. Empty appeals to authority didn't find many adherents.
And the board grew under the rep system. Without getting into a deep historical dive, there was a small faction of posters who made a lot of noise prior to the rep system and were real political on the back channels (e.g. PM) who discovered just how much nobody cared about their agenda. With the rep system, the content of your posts mattered. Quality mattered. Inventiveness mattered. As a direct result, the board thrived.
Note your join date. If the rep system was an unmitigated disaster I sincerely doubt you'd have wanted in. The reality is RedsZone became a highly desirable place to be in those years. Rep served the community well and we'd do well to have it back.