Don't forget to tip your waitress....or Boss in this case. :O)
94 and winning the division and the NLCS but falling in the WS to Toronto in 6
94 Reds / 86 Cards / 85 Pirates / 76 Cubs / 72 Brewers
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.
Raisel Ghul, the Demon's Head
Make that a thing.
The rep system was abused by more than a few posters.
I can tell you from personal experience that the way a poster would accumulate a high rep score was from an extremely broad swath of people liking your posts.
The one change I think the system needed was that everybody's vote should have counted the same. I know that when my vote power got fairly high I made a conscious decision not to rep other posters with high rep scores all that often (essentially reserving it for their platinum-level posts). I thought it was important to recognize less frequent and new posters when they posted something really good, not to mention that's how you grow a community. Though I never discussed it with anyone else, it seemed that other posters in the same boat as me did the same.
Raisel Ghul, the Demon's Head
Make that a thing.
I have no confidence at all that negative rep points will be given out solely based upon trolling/acting like a jerk, as in theory they should be. Which, may in turn, if anything, actually discourage posting.
"I have just been more than a little suspect of all the trades since the Willy (Scott Williamson) cash grab. That one left such a bad taste in my mouth that even a 1985 Dom Pérignon couldn't cleanse it." -- Creek14
The rep system was hopelessly flawed. It put too much power in the hands of a few select posters who had managed to build their rep up high. Once the numbers got big enough you could almost single-handedly call someone up to ORG in a short period of time. I distinctly remember one troll getting the call up that way while perfectly good posters languished behind. On top of that, one dumb comment could get someone's rep cluster bombed into oblivion, putting them in such a hole they could never get out of it. It also led to some people just blatantly begging for rep points, which was annoying.
Not everyone was abusing the system, it was probably a small percentage, but there were just too many holes that could be exploited. And since the main purpose of the system (identifying posters who had earned their way into the ORG) is being rendered moot, there's simply no point to bringing it back.
I've gotten no indication that reinstituting the rep system is even on the table, but since it's being discussed...
The rep system was a failure because it rewarded popular thinking and penalized provocative thoughts. Back in the day, the folks with the highest rep scores were sabermetric ones who were big Adam Dunn fans. Fast forward to today and I'm sure the folks with the highest rep scores would be those that are anti-Dusty Baker. A guy who says Dusty is a pretty good manager would not get the rep points that someone would get who says "Dusty's horrible and doesn't know how to construct a lineup."
I for one am glad that we've evolved beyond the popularity contests
The rep system sucked. I remember one guy who was on the site for like a month, posted numerous pictures of onfield pictures of Reds players that he had obtained thru his job with the Reds. Within like 48 hours he went from basically no points to well over the needed 200. Needless to say if people remember him joining the ORG so soon was a big mistake.
The system also could be badly abused with the negative rep points. If someone gave a negative rep point then that person could retaliate by giving a negative rep point back. Being the vindictive person I am I was chomping at the bit to get into ORG so I could retaliate against people who had negative rep'd me. Fortunately for them the system changed before I got in so I couldn't seek my vengence!!!!
"Boys, I'm one of those umpires that misses 'em every once in a while so if it's close, you'd better hit it." Cal Hubbard
I liked the Rep system, but then again I'm a world wide idol of millions.
"But I do know Joey's sister indirectly (or foster sister) and I have heard stories of Joey being into shopping, designer wear, fancy coffees, and pedicures."
I like the idea of a rep system, just not the one that used to be here. I personally kind of like the system that Reddit.com uses. One poster = one point either way up or down and if a post gets too many negs it is removed from sight.
"I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road." Stephen Hawking
Get MLBtraderumors Reds updates on Facebook.