Important: Merging of the Baseball Forums

[M2]

Originally Posted by Brutus

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.

Apologies for not covering this in my first response.

Of course you'd rep posts you agree with. I sincerely doubt anyone is going to rep something they disagreed with. "Hey, your logic is faulty, you've ignored important facts and your general philosophy on this issue is 100% wrong ... so here's some rep!" Not going to happen. It was a rep system, not a congeniality recognition system.

If somebody made a persuasive case or had a particularly interesting take or wrote something well, that got rep. Nobody who had a high rep thought they were popular (except Raisor, who knew he was popular), just that people liked various thing they had written/posted. Neg rep was a tiny sliver of the pie.

The upside of the system is that if you posted something you thought was brilliant and it landed like a dud, the zero rep you got for that post would sort of clue you in on that. The biggest problem post-rep, IMO, has been the influx of "nobody cares" posts. Clearly some folks think their personal borefest has some sort of constituency. I can guarantee you that if we had a rep system they'd be disabused of that notion.

I'm hopeful the new system will give rise to more interesting people posting here. The board needs it.

[Boss-Hog]

Re-instituting the rep system is NOT on the table, but if you're interested in my two cents, I'll provide them. I think it was a good idea, but it more or less failed for the reasons Danny Serafini mentioned. People that had high reputation scores and/or had been members for a long time were easily able to affect the scores of other people due to their reputation power. This was made even worse by the fact that there definitely were organized efforts to use that power to get some people in the ORG and leave others out.

I'm not familiar with the reputation system Caveman Techie mentioned, but speaking only for myself, I'd potentially be interested in at least exploring it. As was stated above, the need for a system like this should be reduced since everyone will be sharing the same sandbox. However, I do understand the reason(s) why some people are in favor of one in order to identify the "good" and "bad" posters.

A few people have suggested something along the lines of the "Like" button Facebook uses. I like that idea (no pun intended), but unfortunately, the only way I've found to implement something like that involves tying your RedsZone account to your Facebook account, and we do not want to do that. If we could find a way for posters to recognize a post they find to be "good" or "bad" that does not involve an external site, I would definitely be interested in it.

[Blimpie]

Boss:

Please allow me to be the first to thank you for avoiding the concept of a Facebook tie-in.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

If we could find a way for posters to recognize a post they find to be "good" or "bad" that does not involve an external site, I would definitely be interested in it.

That strikes me as the way to go, if possible. It doesn't need to be cumulative either, just something that would enable the community to set its own standards a little bit. It would help separate the signal from the noise.

[Boss-Hog]

Here's one potential option, but it only allows for positive feedback:

http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=165673

Feel free to provide your thoughts.

[Boss-Hog]

Originally Posted by M2

That strikes me as the way to go, if possible. It doesn't need to be cumulative either, just something that would enable the community to set its own standards a little bit. It would help separate the signal from the noise.

I agree with that.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

Here's one potential option, but it only allows for positive feedback:

http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=165673

Feel free to provide your thoughts.

IMO, looks all right. Negs create more trouble than they're worth. Plus, the mods can handle pure trolls.

It does have a cumulative feature, though the accumulation of thanks doesn't seem to mean anything. It's just a pure counter.

[Boss-Hog]

Originally Posted by M2

IMO, looks all right. Negs create more trouble than they're worth. Plus, the mods can handle pure trolls.

It does have a cumulative feature, though the accumulation of thanks doesn't seem to mean anything. It's just a pure counter.

I'll keep looking, but if we decide to implement something like this (I'd definitely need to confer with GIK, too), perhaps this is what we do (though it's not exactly what we're looking for).

[Brutus]

I guess my question is, what is the purpose? If we're integrating the forums regardless, I don't see what a rep system will accomplish. Is there reward for being 'good?' Is there repercussions for being 'bad?' Will people gang up on folks they disagree with opinions in order to penalize those individuals?

I guess I'm not seeing what the point of a rep system is supposed to accomplish.

[Boss-Hog]

Originally Posted by M2

IMO, looks all right. Negs create more trouble than they're worth. Plus, the mods can handle pure trolls.

It does have a cumulative feature, though the accumulation of thanks doesn't seem to mean anything. It's just a pure counter.

A "thanks" actually can be set in the options to add to your reputation level. If we were to implement that, your reputation would be for informational purposes only and it would not allow you to do anything you can't normally do (i.e. affect another person's reputation level).

I guess that's pretty much what you just said, though. I can't think of anything I'd want your reputation level or accumulation of thanks to mean; otherwise, we start getting in to something very similar to the old reputation system, and I definitely am not in favor of that.

[Boss-Hog]

Originally Posted by Brutus

I guess my question is, what is the purpose? If we're integrating the forums regardless, I don't see what a rep system will accomplish. Is there reward for being 'good?' Is there repercussions for being 'bad?' Will people gang up on folks they disagree with opinions in order to penalize those individuals?

I guess I'm not seeing what the point of a rep system is supposed to accomplish.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but my take is that those in favor want a clear, displayable way to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

I'm not even saying I'm necessarily for that - I'm just providing potential options if something like this were to be implemented.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

I don't want to speak for anyone else, but my take is that those in favor want a clear, displayable way to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

I'm not even saying I'm necessarily for that - I'm just providing potential options if something like this were to be implemented.

It just seems to me that people already have their opinions of other posters with or without a reputation system. I just doubt that anyone will have an opinion about a poster that is going to be influenced by their reputation rating.

I'm not vehemently opposed to such ideas if there are legitimate reasons to implement them. And if people decide they want a rep system, I'll go along with. I just don't see what it will accomplish. It just seems more about trying to embarrass people they don't like than anything else.

[Boss-Hog]

Originally Posted by Brutus

It just seems to me that people already have their opinions of other posters with or without a reputation system. I just doubt that anyone will have an opinion about a poster that is going to be influenced by their reputation rating.

I'm not vehemently opposed to such ideas if there are legitimate reasons to implement them. And if people decide they want a rep system, I'll go along with. I just don't see what it will accomplish. It just seems more about trying to embarrass people they don't like than anything else.

I understand all that, and I certainly don't disagree. What are your personal thoughts of the "thanks" implementation when someone likes/appreciates a post another makes without any sort of visible counter of the number of "thanks" one has accrued? If I understand your stance, you don't think this is needed, either, right?

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

I understand all that, and I certainly don't disagree. What are your personal thoughts of the "thanks" implementation when someone likes/appreciates a post another makes without any sort of visible counter of the number of "thanks" one has accrued? If I understand your stance, you don't think this is needed, either, right?

I'm not entirely opposed to any reputation system if loopholes could be closed and it served a legitimate function beyond simply reputation. But obviously the loopholes are enormous and I'm nut sure with the upcoming merger, it will serve a purpose. I just worry there would be too much biting an clawing at one another if we start handing out rep points again, as people start being consumed with ratings.

That said, to answer your question, while a 'like' system might be unnecessary, I do think there's at least a little more redeeming value in that system as it's only based on applauding good posts rather than trying to denigrate unpopular opinions/posters. It seems to me like it would be about propping the good posts/posters up rather than trying to tear others down. I think that would be a more conducive system if we implement any sort of rep.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Boss-Hog

I can't think of anything I'd want your reputation level or accumulation of thanks to mean; otherwise, we start getting in to something very similar to the old reputation system, and I definitely am not in favor of that.

Ideally you don't want it to mean anything. I only mentioned it in case people might take issue with the accumulation even though it meant nothing.