My idea for "reputation points"

[ws1990reds]

I was just thinking about this, and thought that I would share. Instead of assigning both positive and negative reputation points, why not just assign negative points? The way I could envision such a system working is that everyone starts out as a Hall Of Famer (I got this idea from the "Dangerous Minds" movie), and that as you make posts that others disagree with, it would take 3 disagreements on a specific post before your "total" is knocked down by a point. After 3 people have disagreed with you on a specific post, the "disagreement count" for that post is reset to zero. Each week your post count will rise by 1 point. For every 7-consecutive days you refrain from posting, your post count will rise another point. Kind of like cutting back an ugly bush before it starts to grow flowers. This might be akin to taking a sabbatical to clear your head. I think this would enable everyone to feel as if they belong in the community, and only those who consistently tick others off, would find themselves without a posting job for awhle. Another advantage that I see is that it would prevent certain posters from fraternizing and helping to keep their reputation points high. I think we can all agree that it's subjective as to what is a "good post" and what is a "bad post". Why not make it easier and more enjoyable for everyone by letting all posts have equality, except for the obviously bad ones? Here's an example:

Forum Groups:
A - Miscellaneous
1 - Hall Of Fame
2 - Non-Baseball Chatter

B - Baseball
1 - Cincinnati Reds Talk
2 - Reds Live!
x - Fantasy Island

C - Archives (only readable)
x - The Archives

Ranks: (Can Post In)
100-90 Hall Of Famer (A+B)
89-80 All-Star (A2+B)
79-70 Solid Position Player (B)
69-60 Solid Utility Player (B2+Bx)
59-50 Pine Rider (Bx)
49-40 Dead Contract (nothing)

starting points: 100
01/01/05 bad post: 95 (15 disagreements)
01/02/05 bad post: 91 (12 disagreements)
01/03/05 bad post: 86 (15 disagreements), A2+B
01/04/05 bad post: 85 (3 disagreements), A2+B
01/05/05 bad post: 79 (18 disagreements), B
01/08/05 one week has passed: 80, B
01/12/05 rested 7 consecutive days: 81, A2+B

I'm thinking about trying this system on a site that I run, just to see what its affects are.

[ws1990reds]

Any comments? Not that I wouldn't want to see something like this implemented here, but I am curious what others have to say. This would only help me on my site.

[bucknutdet]

I don't think anyone should be marked down or graded negatively at all for disagreements. IMO the only time one should be downgraded would be for breaking board rules (i.e. cussing, flaming, trolling or personal attacks on posters or unsubstantiated personal attacks on players, etc.) So that would mean you could only get positive feedback for deserving posts. Just my opinion, but why should a post that is following the rules here, be downgraded b/c it goes against what many think. Also debate, confrontation and disagreement are not a negative thing if done so within the rules of the board. Just b/c someone has a stupid idea doesn't make it negative, just stupid. That is my opinion on how it could work.

[ws1990reds]

I agree with what you're saying, but this is their forum and they can cry if they want to. All I wanted to do was throw something out there that I have been thinking about. The reason I feel it should take 3 negative votes in order to cause someone to lose a point, is that it prevents a certain clique from ganging up on someone. It would take more than a clique to do any real damage. But, that would also require someone's post to very much break the TOS rules or piss the whole community off. Having said that, everyone is given a fair chance under my system to make a comeback. If folks are abusing the system by creating crap posts (which results in point drops), then they're going to have to take a break in order to post again. After awhile, the trolls would just disappear. This wouldn't require moderation, it's all up to the poster :-)