Reputation System Explained

[GIK]

I think it's OK to rate each other within CRT - but Boss and I will discuss the point of "booting" members who drop below 100 points. IMO it'd be hard to reach that level (as negative points are assessed at 50% of positive, i.e. it'd take a long time). Again, this just started yesterday and if the system needs editing it will be modified.

[RBA]

Also, each member may only make 5 rankings per day and cannot rank the same member twice until they rank 15 other members first.

How come I only was allowed to rank two posters in the 24 hour period? I did rank some others, but that was before GIK reset everyone. Was this a temporary glitch or do I only get to rate 2 a day?

[GIK]

It's 5 per day, RBA. Not sure why you were stopped at 2. It's a global setting to so it'd be impossible to set it user-specific.

[Red Thunder]

Originally Posted by TeamCasey

I agree. The potential is mind-boggling. I foresee gang warfare.

To make something like this more uncomfortable (I guess you can't prevent it), it should not be possible for someone to rate other posters who are on his/her ignore list. If you prefer not to read other peoples post, you also don't have the foundation to rate them fairly.

[Redsland]

Can we up the daily vote total to 10?

Particularly in the early going, we're going to want to spread around lots of love. Or whatever.

[Red Thunder]

Another Point:

I think it would be a good idea, that everyone who already posts on CRT (Cincinnati Reds Talk) is able to see who graded him (positive or negative). Especially in the case of negative feedback due to some kind of childish retaliation this could prevent posters to anonymously satisfy their desire to downgrade the reputation of other posters on a daily basis. And even if someone feels he has to do something like this, then he should have enough guts to stand to his feedback.

In my opinion it's better to solve personal dissent via private message instead of trying to bring down other posters reputation with negative votes on a daily basis.

[TRF]

Shouldn't TMos and ORG have the highest possible ranking?

I mean really.

[Ryan the Reds Fan]

A couple of thoughts that come to mind after reading through this:

1. it would be nice if your "rating" was viewed in the post like under your avatar or in that box somewhere. Just nice to see what others rankings are quickly if they are close to get them in or maybe the opposite as well, if they are far and you feel they should be closer.

2. I don't feel post count should be included in power, it should be rating only. I could post 6 million posts with one letter, or could have a bunch of posts that aren't valuable just to get more power. Just because you have a bunch of posts doesn't mean you should have more power. Just my thoughts, I'm not saying that in most cases the people with more posts do always have very valuable input, just from an objective view point seams you may be giving incentive for less valuable posts and just upping your post count.

[Spring~Fields]

Originally Posted by pedro

Would it be possible to make it easier to give people the thumbs up? Like a link from the members list? It's a pain to search for posts by user and then rate them. MWM made a list of people we need to rate and it's a little tedious to follow his orders, as correct as they might be, help me be lazy. please.

GIK, BOSS

Where is the integrity in this when a poster actually lobbies the group to vote for or against?

Your voting system is now very dubious. Objectivity has been a term that GIK was using, where is the objectivity if the above is occurring ?

[princeton]

Originally Posted by GIK

I think it's OK to rate each other within CRT - but Boss and I will discuss the point of "booting" members who drop below 100 points. IMO it'd be hard to reach that level (as negative points are assessed at 50% of positive, i.e. it'd take a long time).

I love a challenge

[Ryan the Reds Fan]

Originally Posted by SpringfieldFan

GIK, BOSS

Where is the integrity in this when a poster actually lobbies the group to vote for or against?

Your voting system is now very dubious. Objectivity has been a term that GIK was using, where is the objectivity if the above is occurring ?

I have to agree with Springfield here. This should be individuals rating their peers, not lobbying to get "friends" into "the Gang". I'm not saying there is a gang, I'm just saying that this makes it look like that, and we all know that this will just add to the negativity. I think that our goal should be to get away from the talk of cliques and get to one group of fans.

One other thing I wanted to add to my previous post was that along with showing current rating status could you show if they are a member of CRT or not. I may not want to rate a CRT member in the live forum, and save my rating for someone who truly needs it.

[Ryan the Reds Fan]

One more thing, did those of us "grandfathered" into CRT start with the base 200 points?

[Spring~Fields]

Originally Posted by Ryan the Reds Fan

This should be individuals rating their peers, not lobbying to get "friends" into "the Gang".

This whole thing has been exposed for what it is. If it walks like a duck.....talk about biased, slanted, rigged, fixed...............no integrity at all.

MWM, shoot me that memo, so I will know who to vote for and not against.

[919191]

I think so- I did.

[GIK]

Originally Posted by Ryan the Reds Fan

One more thing, did those of us "grandfathered" into CRT start with the base 200 points?

Yes.