Reputation Points busted?

[RBA]

Why do we have posters with over 500, some over 600 pts? Are they that much better than us? I don't think so.

[RosieRed]

Does it really matter? :confused:

[MWM]

It's a self policing policy. There's really no way to argue with it.

[RBA]

It's pathetic. The self policing system wasn't design to reward buddies. It was design to judge post fairlly. It has failed.

[MWM]

It has succeeded enourmously, IMO. Rep points are completely irrelevant anyway. Tey mean absolutely nothing to anyone except those who haven't made into ORG.

[WVPacman]

RedBloodedAmerican,bud as long as you are over 200 it really should'nt bother you imo.Maybe they should be a limit of the points you can get like 300 or so that that they would'nt be nobody mad or jelious.


Don't let it bother you b/c you are over 200 so just have fun.

[RBA]

Must mean something to some, if the system is abused in such a fashion. Why show a number after you made the cut?

[RBA]

RedBloodedAmerican,bud as long as you are over 200 it really should'nt bother you imo.Maybe they should be a limit of the points you can get like 300 or so that that they would'nt be nobody mad or jelious.


Don't let it bother you b/c you are over 200 so just have fun.

Who says it bothers me or makes me jealous?


There has been allegations in the past of an "in-crowd" mentality. Buddies pushing other point total up is just going to alienate some posters.

I haven't really been paying attention, until I noticed a few posters with over 500 points today. I just can't see how that is, if people are suppose to be fair.

[WVPacman]

Must mean something to some, if the system is abused in such a fashion. Why show a number after you made the cut?

I don't know and I can't answer for the other posters on here but I would'nt care if I did'nt get anymore points b/c I have already surpassed the 200 mark and that was my goal.

hang in there man :beerme: you have alot more points than I do :laugh:

[WVPacman]

Who says it bothers me or makes me jealous?

I was'nt talking about nobody,I said they could put a limit on here that would KEEP people from getting mad or jealous.Im sorry if you took it that way b/c I sure did'nt mean it that way

[919191]

Must mean something to some, if the system is abused in such a fashion. Why show a number after you made the cut?

I kinda agree with that. I feel the same about post counts.

[remdog]

"...It has failed."

RBA got it right. It appears that as one garners more 'rep points' they gain more power. For instance, I got dinged the other day by someone and it cost me 3 points, not a single point for that single 'ding'. (If I'm wrong on that I'd like to see the rule in writing 'cause I looked for it and didn't find it.) From that, I have to conclude that it was someone that has a fairly high number of points, and, if that approach is carried on out, it would be only a slight while before a simple 'neg point' become a sledge hammer that carries more weight than it should entitle a member to wield.

(BTW, that coward that dinged me didn't have the 'nads to sign his/her name and that pretty much tells ya' what a great human being they are. Point being, you shouldn't be able to neg someone if you aren't standup enough to say it to their face.)

Down the road, as points are accumulated by a select few, their power grows and it throttles others for fear that they will offend 'the clique' (which we all knw already exsists). Bad policy all around.

Rem

[remdog]

The post counts became a joke during the run of the '......be the last one to post....." thread(s).

I agree that the rep points should have a small limit. If it takes 200 points to get into ORG than the limit should be 400 points. That way, admittance to ORG is mid-point and, no matter who you are, entering ORG means that you're just as close to the top and you are the bottom. You can go either way and that seems to me to be the intent of the system.

Also, everyone gets the same weight. A 'neg' or a positive is 1 point, period. No unequal points just because of what your total rep points are.

Rem

[RosieRed]

"...It has failed."

RBA got it right. It appears that as one garners more 'rep points' they gain more power. For instance, I got dinged the other day by someone and it cost me 3 points, not a single point for that single 'ding'. (If I'm wrong on that I'd like to see the rule in writing 'cause I looked for it and didn't find it.) From that, I have to conclude that it was someone that has a fairly high number of points, and, if that approach is carried on out, it would be only a slight while before a simple 'neg point' become a sledge hammer that carries more weight than it should entitle a member to wield.

Rem

IIRC, a poster's reputation has nothing to do with how many pos/neg points they can give out. It's the number of posts a person has. So each time someone with 10K posts gives rep points, it's worth more than someone with 1K posts.

Unless I'm wrong.

[Reds4Life]

IIRC, a poster's reputation has nothing to do with how many pos/neg points they can give out. It's the number of posts a person has. So each time someone with 10K posts gives rep points, it's worth more than someone with 1K posts.

Unless I'm wrong.

You are correct, it's based on post count.

[Redsfaithful]

I give rep points whenever I see someone adding something of value to the forum. Simple as that, doesn't matter if they have 20 rep points or 600.

I've also signed my name on the very rare occassions that I've given negative points (maybe 3 times), for what it's worth.

I've enjoyed the changes, and I spend way more time on the baseball side(s) now. In the months leading up to the board change I was essentially scanning the baseball side for news and spending time on the non-baseball side of the board. Now I'm back to reading just about everything, because the quality of output has increased quite a bit.

It doesn't bother me at all that some people have a ton of rep points. It doesn't bother me either that a post count is displayed. Just my opinion though, on all of the above, I feel like I should add that.

[remdog]

"IIRC, a poster's reputation has nothing to do with how many pos/neg points they can give out. It's the number of posts a person has. So each time someone with 10K posts gives rep points, it's worth more than someone with 1K posts."

If that's the case then the post counts should have been reset to zero at the transition. And, frankly, I fail to see the merit in giving someone more power just because they have the ability to post such witticisms as 'HI! :) ' or 'Have a nice day'.

Rem

[DunnersGrl44]

"IIRC, a poster's reputation has nothing to do with how many pos/neg points they can give out. It's the number of posts a person has. So each time someone with 10K posts gives rep points, it's worth more than someone with 1K posts."

If that's the case then the post counts should have been reset to zero at the transition. And, frankly, I fail to see the merit in giving someone more power just because they have the ability to post such witticisms as 'HI! :) ' or 'Have a nice day'.

Rem
Giving someone reputation points.... after 200..... it doesn't matter. The point is to get the newer people to earn their way in the ORG. Once they hit 200. Who cares after that. To be honest, I beef up people that I know's reputation because i have to pass around reputation in order to get to some of the newer people that I really like. Having your reputation go up to 400-500.... thats awesome, and its even better if its because they said "HI!" or "Have a nice day"... it's called being friendly.

[SteelSD]

Broken?

I just looked at my list of the last ten posters I gave rep points to.

I think I've disagreed with about eight of them in the past couple of days on one thing or another and only one of them knows my first name (and we butt heads all the time on the board). Maybe I have more "buddies" than I think I do. I dunno. But I sure don't see anyone burning through 5 clicks per day just so they can get to the 16th in a frenzied quest to do nothing but give me more rep points. Nor do I feel that how I choose to give out points is outside the norm for folks on the board.

I guess the way I feel is that if you put in real work, or use a real solid thought process, say something I feel is profound (even if it's profoundly funny), or even simply demonstrate consistent posting habits and a willingness to contribute, I'm going to give points to show my appreciation whether I agree with you or not. Am I that unique in having those standards? I sure don't think so.

I guess I don't see any "abuse" of the system. Nor do I see that the system is truly open for abuse considering the built-in constraints. IMHO, the primary benefit of the system itself is that it allows posters to show personal appreciation of others they don't regularly communicate with who make a contribution they admire and respect.

It also seems to me that more people are willing to put more work into what they post, whether that be objective research or well-reasoned subjective opinion articulation.

I realize that I'm probably the last person you want to hear from on this topic, RBA. But honestly, I haven't seen some contingent of posters get together in an underground effort to stuff anyone's point total "ballot box". If that's happening, they left my name off the PM message routing list.

And in the end, I sure don't think that anyone's rep point total is going to sway another poster one way or another about how credible they really are. And without some kind of associated benefit tied to rep points, comparing them is akin to bragging that you have more lint in your pocket than the next guy.

Just doesn't matter.

[RBA]

Wow, over 700 pts. Sorry Steel, you make some awesome posts, but I don't think you warrant over 700 pts as opposed to posters like Rem and 919191 who makes outstanding points themselves. The disparity is mind boggling, obviously there are some abusing the system.

[SteelSD]

Wow, over 700 pts. Sorry Steel, you make some awesome posts, but I don't think you warrant over 700 pts as opposed to posters like Rem and 919191 who makes outstanding points themselves. The disparity is mind boogling, obviously there are some abusing the system.

Why would you want to position the differential as qualitative rather than quantitative?

Not "better". Maybe "more"?

I sure don't think that anyone's point total makes them any more or less credible. That's a content-based perception to me and it lives in the lines of each post and yes, the more often you see content the more likely it is that someone will show their appreciation for it if they feel it's good content.

I view my point total as a compliment- not a popularity contest, credibility litmus test, or power mandate. You, me, and everyone else "deserve" as many points as others see fit to give us based on whatever personal criteria they use for giving it.

Honestly, I don't see how points are anything more than personal "thank you" cards to show appreciation for contribution. I don't see what's so wrong with that. It's not like if I get to 1,000 I can cash them in for my choice of fabulous prizes like a beer cooler or a hot plate.

[jmcclain19]

It's not like if I get to 1,000 I can cash them in for my choice of fabulous prizes like a beer cooler or a hot plate.

You must have missed that PM as well.

I'm saving up for a stuffed panda

[zombie-a-go-go]

Unless you feel that the overall quality of posts on this board has not improved since the system was instituted, then the system is not "busted."

You're missing the forest for the trees.

It's just a number. It means nothing.

[Chip R]

You guys want some cheese to go with that whine? Surely you have better things to worry about than the number of rep points someone over 200 gets. :rolleyes:

[RBA]

Alright it looks like the "cliche' has spoken. No more "whining" about the point system. ;)

[Boss-Hog]

To be honest, I'm so tired of discussing this topic. It comes up at least once a week. We took a poll a few weeks ago and about 70% of the board considered it a success. That's significant to me. For the 30% who don't like it, that's unfortunate, but no one is forcing you post here if you don't like how things are run. The system isn't going anywhere, so you'll just have to take the good with the (perceived) bad. Generally speaking, I think the changes have resulted in posters putting more thought into their posts and that has resulted in higher quality posts.

Finally, so that there is no confusion, the reputation 'power' (how many points you can add or take away from another poster when rating them) is as follows:

-Register Date Factor: For every 365 number of days, users gain 1 point of reputation-altering power.

-Post Count Factor: For every 4000 number of posts, users gain 1 point of reputation-altering power.

-Reputation Point Factor: For every 100 points of reputation, users gain 1 point of reputation-altering power.

As you can see from the above rule, reputation scores over 200 DO matter because a user is rewarded with an extra point of rating 'power' for every 100 reputation points they receive on their own score.

Making the poster who left the reputation comments viewable to the person they have been given to (whether they are positive or negative) is something I've always supported. I have no problem turning it on, if that's what people want.

Remember that negative ratings only account for half the points that positive ratings do.

Boss

[KittyDuran]

I only give positive points to the posters on Reds Live! [I feel like a broken record]... :bang:

[KronoRed]

I only give positive points to the posters on Reds Live! [I feel like a broken record]... :bang:

I'm going to put my positives up on ebay ;)

[Red Leader]

You mean these 462 points I have don't mean anything???

Man, I thought that was surely going to score me some cash at my redszone arbitration hearing.

My wife's going to be ticked off.

[RBA]

Thanks Boss. I didn't know that about 100 rep point = 1 more to give out. So I can easily see how the system is getting abused. Pretty soon we will have a crowd of "Super" Posters who will be able to dictate who gets into the ORG or not. Rem was right all along. So I and others have been here for ever; I have 10 pts to give out. There are now posters here that have almost 20 pts to give out. When they are using the buddy system, (and they are) they will soon approach giving out 40 pts a pop. I guess the rich gets richer. It's getting pretty interesting, you can use this as a case study on how power can be abused. We'll see how this ends up. But do we really want posters who will eventually reach the stage where they can give someone ORG privillegences at one click of the mouse? Someone will get 200 pts power, and it will come sooner than later.

I have been a fan of the system; but every system has flaws. And when you see the flaws, some adjusting might be in order.

[Red Leader]

Oh, and Steel, you're making all of us suffer from "rep point envy". Stop posting such insightful, helpful, and intelligent posts will ya?

[savafan]

I must not be part of the "cliche", whatever that means, because I never received one PM about a buddy system to gang up together to help pad someone's reputation point total.

[traderumor]

Accountability is good. This makes folks more accountable to each other. Yes, every system has its flaws, which I think are adequately addressed in the limits set so folks cannot easily bypass the system. The board has improved greatly and the sniping is now rare indeed, which to me is the goal of the process anyhow. Also, I enjoy the feedback, both positive and negative, so I'm sure others do as well. Even though I sometimes get upset when someone dings me, I do try to see if the person had a good reason to do so.

[RBA]

It comes down to this. If you are in favor of Posters giving out 200 pts a pop, than it's not busted. If you do not, it's busted.

[savafan]

It comes down to this. If you are in favor of Posters giving out 200 pts a pop, than it's not busted. If you do not, it's busted.

No one has that much power

[RBA]

No one has that much power

I'm not a math major, but some posters will have that much power in short order. It's like a snowball rolling down hill.

Please do the math.

[Redsland]

Steel can give 11.

I can give 9.

Zombie can give 5.

Those are pretty small numbers, IMHO, and most of them get sent to the Live board.

This just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. :confused:

[MWM]

This entire thread makes no sense because there's absolutely no benefit at all to having 200 vs 2000. How can something be "abused" if it doesn't render any kind of benefit whatsoever?

RBA, just so you know, you have to give rep to 15 different people before you can give it back to the same person. If there's someone you think is really insightful who isnt in ORG yet and you want to be able to give that person some rep, then you have to give out elsewhere before you can go back. So if you don't feel the need to give rep to others in Reds Live, then you have to find another outlet for your rep points so you can get back to the people you want to get into ORG. I think that's one of the main reasons why certain people are getting a lot of it.

I think you're making something out of nothing.

[Falls City Beer]

I think we should get Marlboro Miles to buy rafts and Coleman lanterns and stuff.

[RBA]

Steel can give 11.

I can give 9.

Zombie can give 5.

Those are pretty small numbers, IMHO, and most of them get sent to the Live board.

This just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. :confused:

Points start to add up. It's not a "big" deal now. But it will mushroom in short order. But I guess to some, only time will tell. So, I will gladly bump this up in a few months when my theory bores out.

[Red Leader]

I'm not a math major, but some posters will have that much power in short order. It's like a snowball rolling down hill.

Please do the math.

-Register Date Factor: For every 365 number of days, users gain 1 point of reputation-altering power.

-Post Count Factor: For every 4000 number of posts, users gain 1 point of reputation-altering power.

-Reputation Point Factor: For every 100 points of reputation, users gain 1 point of reputation-altering power.


Ok, so to get "200 points per pop" it would take:

Register date factor (site was started on Apr. 17, 2000) so max points this year is 5 points.

Post count: Most posts on the site is Krono with 30,000 (which is NOT the norm) even still, Krono's max points right now are 7 until he gets to 32,000. Next highest person is RedsBaron with 17,862 for 4 points.

Reputation points: Most rep points is 722 points (again, not the norm). Steel gets 7 points.

So, if you had a poster that joined the day the site opened, had Krono's post count, and Steel's rep points, they'd be able to give out 19 points right now. It doesn't seem likely that handing out 200 points at a time is "right around the corner" as 1) the first thing (register date) takes 365 days for your point total to increase, 2) post count takes 4000 posts to increase your point total, and 3) rep points take 100 to increase. I could see the rep point total increasing faster than the others, but really, its not like you're going to shoot up to 200 points of power overnight.

[MWM]

RBA, suppose a poster gets to 1 million points. What are you worried about? Seriously, I'm curious as to why this concerns you.

[RBA]

I could see the rep point total increasing faster than the others, but really, its not like you're going to shoot up to 200 points of power overnight.

No, not overnight. By right around the corner, I meant a few months. It will happen, but we will apparently cross that bridge when we come to it. ;)

[RBA]

RBA, suppose a poster gets to 1 million points. What are you worried about? Seriously, I'm curious as to why this concerns you.

One million pts has the power to ban anyone here? Doesn't it? Why would that not concern anyone here?

[Red Leader]

One million pts has the power to ban anyone here? Doesn't it? Why would that not concern anyone here?

Ban? There is no ban. :confused: Once you get to 200 points, it's over. You can't be "demoted" or "banned" and you can't go any higher.

[TeamDunn]

I would think 500,000 negative voting power would still need Boss approval for banishment! ;)

[KronoRed]

One million pts has the power to ban anyone here? Doesn't it? Why would that not concern anyone here?
I can see where that would be a problem, but I think it's not thing to worry about for along time..years even.

[RBA]

Ban? There is no ban. :confused: Once you get to 200 points, it's over. You can't be "demoted" or "banned" and you can't go any higher.

I don't believe that's true. If it is, I missed that part. Anyhow, should someone have the power to put someone into the ORG based on only one post?

[TeamDunn]

Ban? There is no ban. :confused: Once you get to 200 points, it's over. You can't be "demoted" or "banned" and you can't go any higher.

Yes you can. Once you get to 200 and are in ORG, if you get enough negatives to knock you down below 100 you can be removed from ORG until you build back up to 200.

If you go into the negatives you can be removed from the forum all together.

These types of things will be watched closely by the admins (and mods?). They are not going to let one person have the say over another member. For a person to go from 200 plus to a negative number then they REALLY have to be ticking several people off, not just a couple.

If it gets to a point where people have too much power then I guess it can be addressed then and levels raised as far as the amount of points you get to hand out??

[Red Leader]

I don't believe that's true. If it is, I missed that part. Anyhow, should someone have the power to put someone into the ORG based on only one post?

It is true, if I remember correctly Boss said that once you hit 200 points, you are PERMANENTLY in ORG, and cannot lose membership. Only if someone gets negative 100+ points would he "look into" banning someone, and I'm sure if all of those negative points came on one "ding", he'd take that into consideration. The people that are getting "up there" in power points are not people who abuse the system or their supposed "power". I don't think posters like westofyou, Steel, etc have even handed out a neg.

As for your second point, we've already covered that. I don't think that will come into play until at least 2007, and then, yes, maybe the system should be modified, or a cap put on "max power points". I would think the "max" should be set somwhere around 25 total points, personally. Would you be ok with that? (not that I have the power to change it, just asking)

[creek14]

The only thing I have wondered about it how someone can register one day and have well over 100 rep points two days later :confused:

And it has happened - with at least three posters.

[TeamDunn]

One more thing...regarding post counts determining how many rep points you have to give out. If the board is constantly "pruned" for bandwidth issues and old posts are deleted then post counts will go down. Someone would really have to post ALOT to be able to keep up with the ones deleted.

Many people lost thousands of posts when some of the old threads in non baseball were removed. That should help to keep it under control a little.

[Red Leader]

Sounds like (unfortunately) we need Boss to clarify all of this again for us.

[zombie-a-go-go]

The only thing I have wondered about it how someone can register one day and have well over 100 rep points two days later :confused:

And it has happened - with at least three posters.

Every person on this board, theoretically, could vote on the same first post if they liked it enough, and rocket someone straight to the (proverbial) stars on their first day on the board.

And people are more inclined to positively rate posts they like if the poster who made it has a low Rep... like, say, 10 or something. :)

[westofyou]

I don't think posters like westofyou, Steel, etc have even handed out a neg.

me?

Just 3... to inane, brow beating, moranic posts (IMO)

Anyway I'm here to talk about baseball, not rep points or abuse of powers or politics or rabble rousing ... just baseball.

If anyone wants to fret and moan over points given for talking baseball then have at it.

But if that's the case I'll have to wonder why the hell they're on Redszone then.

[TeamDunn]

The only thing I have wondered about it how someone can register one day and have well over 100 rep points two days later :confused:

And it has happened - with at least three posters.

I asked about that as well. The two that caught my eye were voted on by several different people so I guess they just had really good posts and lots of people liked the posts.

I have been really watching the dates someone has registered when handing out points. I don't think a week or two's worth of posts really tells much about the person.

[zombie-a-go-go]

Anyway, if you're worried about the power of people with twenty-billion rep points kicking others out of the forums, you must be scared poop-less by the power I and my fellow mods wield. :laugh:

And then there's Boss and GIK... :laugh:

Somebody's going to give themselves an blood clot.

[zombie-a-go-go]

If anyone wants to fret and moan over points given for talking baseball then have at it.

But if that's the case I'll have to wonder why the hell they're on Redszone then.

:clap:

[Red Leader]

me?



Sorry to single you out, woy, I was just trying to make a point that most posters with 400+ rep points aren't "abusing" the system by handing out rep points at will. I would guess 99.9% of those people don't even come close to handing out 5 reps a day. Most are here quite a bit everyday, post a lot, and don't even pay attention to how many points they have or can give out.

[919191]

Anyway, if you're worried about the power of people with twenty-billion rep points kicking others out of the forums, you must be scared poop-less by the power I and my fellow mods wield. :laugh:

And then there's Boss and GIK... :laugh:

Somebody's going to give themselves an blood clot.


I am on vacation right now. I was gonna do something fun, but I decided it was more important to stay home and work on my rep points.

Priorities, you know.... :thumbup:

[Boss-Hog]

Just for some clarification:

-Even if you started with ORG posting access, you can lose that access IF your reputation drops below 100. That has not happened to anyone as of yet, and is balanced out by the fact that negatives only account for half of the rating "power" that positives do.

-Regarding new posters receiving large amounts of points shortly after joining, there are two other basic requirements that must be met before that poster is given ORG posting access. Besides having 200+ points, the member in question must be registered for a minimum of 30 days and have a minimum of 60 posts before they gain ORG posting access.

-As I said in my original post about the system, it's likely that there will be some tweaking involved. A great example of that is that GIK and I decided to lower the amount of "power" one receives for their number of posts by increasing that to 4000 posts to get 1 extra point. We'll continue to make changes, as we see necessary, so if it did ever get to the point that someone had so much "power" that they could almost single-handedly grant someone enough points to boost their reputation score to 200, or enough to lower someone's from 200 to 100, then we obviously need to reevaluate how much "power" a user can have. As others have mentioned, I don't see that happening anytime soon (including over the new few months). I BELIEVE the maximum reputation "power" that any one user currently has is 14, which would give users that 14 points for a positive and subtract 7 for a negative.

-Mass pruning (that drops a user's post count) should no longer be an issue, as the only time we've seen a significant drop in post counts is when I deleted the duplicate "Be the last person to..." thread. Since those discussions have moved off site (for bandwidth purposes), we won't see that happen again.

Thanks for the good questions and feedback.

Boss

[RollyInRaleigh]

I think it does boil down to a "buddy system." It's no different than anything else. People who have similar likes and dislikes are going to bump each other, but, the good thing is that a lot of the ugly stuff has went away. Personally, I don't care about rep points. It's not hard to recognize the folks that really know their baseball and the folks that have a lot of buddies. It comes through over a period of time. I try, as much as I can, not to look at the Reputation, although I did take a look today and found a lot of the #'s quite amusing.

Bottom line is this is a great place to discuss Reds baseball with a lot of knowledgeable folks. Thanks again to GIK, Boss, and the Administrators for making it that way.

[Red Leader]

Thanks, Boss.

Man, I need to read things a little closer.

[wally post]

I'm going to put my positives up on ebay ;)

Funniest thing I've seen all day!

And Kitty is the coolest to only give points in RedsLive.

I can understand some folks viewing this as an inevitable buddy system developing - but I think overall, it is a GREAT system. And WHAT'S SO WRONG about knowing that it is important to "be friendly" in one's posting? It's been so civil here - I'm enjoying it.
The post amounts are intimidating to see, but it doesn't bother me in the least! Some folks live here more than others and i think it's cool that it is noted.

Everybody made good points on this topic IMO. I have sent some mods of "drummer" sites to RZ to witness a well-working way to deal with massive success and great numbers of viewers. The cats in charge deserve our praise.

thanks Redszone

[KronoRed]

Thanks Boss, I think we need that in a FAQ somewhere, this comes up quite a lot.

[savafan]

I believe that I have 13 rep points to give per each positive rating. I rarely give out my daily allotment of 5 per day mainly because I look for the best posts to rate. I'm pretty stingy with my rep, but I think it is something that posters have to earn.

[flyer85]

Change I would like to see made is that the username of the person giving the rep points is mandatory.

[TeamBoone]

Wow, over 700 pts. Sorry Steel, you make some awesome posts, but I don't think you warrant over 700 pts as opposed to posters like Rem and 919191 who makes outstanding points themselves. The disparity is mind boggling, obviously there are some abusing the system.

Yes, and no.

I agree with REM regarding post counts carrying so much clout. The never-ending thread contributed to that, of course, and so do game threads.

That being said, many really good posters write often and some less often (Steel vs Stormy for instance). Those who post well and post often get more rep points. Doesn't mean Stormy's posts are any less respected than Steel's... for want of an example; I'm sure there are others.

I don't like negative points, and it wouldn't break my heart to see them done away with nor would I be hurt if post count clout was abandoned... but all in all, the new system has improved the content of the board, IMHO.

One last point... I thought everyone is forced to sign off on all comments now (neg as well as pos) or the comment wouldn't be accepted. Has that changed or did I misinterpret the concept?"

[Red Leader]

One last point... I thought everyone had to sign off on all comments now (neg as well as pos). Has that changed?"

I believe you have to enter some verbage when leaving feedback, but you currently DO NOT have to type your name (I always do).

So I could leave a neg feedback and type in &*^*aa, and it would take, or I could leave a positive and type in "great post, very informative - Red Leader" or something similar like I do now. ;)

[savafan]

I always sign my name, not sure if it is mandatory

[TeamBoone]

When they are using the buddy system, (and they are) they will soon approach giving out 40 pts a pop.

I would absolutely love to know how you seem to have insider information regarding the use of this perceived practice, RBA.

I know a lot of people on this board; I even live with a couple... and I've even met you. If I give a buddy points, it's because I feel they deserve it.. or should I punish them for composing a darn good post just because I know them?

Incidently, I've given only three people that I know points... and each was deserved. To be perfectly honest, I haven't seen you post a whole lot. But if I see one that IMO is pretty darn good, I'll give you points too.

I don't reserve my rep points to just the Reds Live side because I don't think that's totally fair either. IMHO, the point system is not just to move people from one forum to another, but also to reward those who truly post in an intelligent manner... regardless of where they reside on the board.

And by intelligent, I mean well thought out, presented rationally and "nicely", regardless of the topic. Sometimes, it's because someone brings up a new idea that no one else has thought of; sometimes it's because they've done a lot of research on what there presenting for our benefit and learning experience. There are a whole lot of different reasons that can translate to a post that IMHO is deserving of praise via rep points.

Come on RBA, do you not trust the people on this board to be fair? Like you said, you've been around for a long time.

[SunDeck]

You are correct, it's based on post count.

That bugs me a little. I've been here since Cincy.com, but I don't have the time to post as much as others who've been around as long and it's just not in my nature to post several times a day. Does that make me less able to discern whether a poster is up to the standards that we hope this board is about, and that I therefore should assign lesser rewards and sanctions? I don't think so.

[Boss-Hog]

The comment field IS required but what I was alluding to was making the system include the user's name who left the comment and having that information viewable to the poster who received it. While it would negate the anonymous aspect of it, I'm sure some feel that is a good thing while others do not. I'd like to get some feedback on it before potentially enabling that option.

[remdog]

Two changes I'd like to see and then I think the system would be at it's maximum situation:

1. Make the maximum for rep points 400. That makes ORG entry half-way between top and bottom. What ever that calculates out to in the number of points to give out in a 24 hour period should be sufficient. It would also limit power accumulating in groups or even an individule.

2. Any points given out (positive or negative) must be signed by member giving the points. If you wouldn't say it to someone's face then you shouldn't say it.

Just my 2 cents.

Rem

[Boss-Hog]

That bugs me a little. I've been here since Cincy.com, but I don't have the time to post as much as others who've been around as long and it's just not in my nature to post several times a day. Does that make me less able to discern whether a poster is up to the standards that we hope this board is about, and that I therefore should assign lesser rewards and sanctions? I don't think so. No, it doesn't, and that's why that aspect of the formula is so lightly weighted (one additional "power" point for every 4000 points). It has very little impact on someone's reputation power.

[Boss-Hog]

I'm moving this thread to the Live! forum and stickying it so that users who don't visit the non-baseball forum can weigh in on the topic.

[Red Leader]

I'm all for making the User name mandatory.

As someone's sig says (and I'm paraphrasing) "there's nothing more cowardly than an anonymous neg." If you're going to leave a neg, at least have the guts to leave your name as to why you negativized them so they can contact you about it if need be.

I'm thinking that if this field is made mandatory people will negativize people a lot less and will think more about what they're doing when they do it.

So, ONE VOTE YAY.

[TeamBoone]

The comment field IS required but what I was alluding to was making the system include the user's name who left the comment and having that information viewable to the poster who received it. While it would negate the anonymous aspect of it, I'm sure some feel that is a good thing while others do not. I'd like to get some feedback on it before potentially enabling that option.

I always sign my initials (TB) cuz I think it's the right thing to do, even before it was suggested. Plus, as a "receiver", it's nice to see who likes what I have written (or not) and most pos points I've received also included ID.

That being said, the 2 or 3 negs I've received did not include ID, and I find that kind of cowardly. Especially when it's readily apparent that the negs appear to be merely a difference of opinion which, IMHO, should not constitute a neg. If you don't agree, debate it in the thread where I posted, not "behind the scenes" where you won't be caught.

So, if it means people will give more thought to issuing a neg, then perhaps it should be forced to include a sig.

[remdog]

I have to agree with Sun Deck. I find the post count stats interesting (it boggles my mind that someone has the time to average 40+ post/day) but irrelevent in terms of content. Why should volume be rewarded solely on volume. It's sort of like saying 50 pounds of dog food is better than a pound of filet mingon. I guess it is if you really like dog food but......(shrug)

Rem

[remdog]

Thanks for moving the thread to 'Live', Boss. That was an excellent move because many of the posters here will be posting on ORG someday and I think that their input should be considered.

Rem

[KronoRed]

I'm for making the user name mandatory as well, we don't need anonymous stuff around here, you will think if a good reason to neg someone if you have to sign it, something more then "get a clue"

[Boss-Hog]

I want to mention one other thing - I temporarily turned off the ability to anonymously leave feedback a few weeks ago. During that short time that the users leaving feedback were shown (only to the person they left the feedback for), we soon realized that turning the anonymous feature off means that this showed the person who left previous feedback. So, in effect, the user receiving feedback could see who left their last five feedback comments, even though those comments were made when the anonymous feature was enabled. While I personally think the anonymous feature should be turned off, and user names should be shown to the receiver, I agree with a lot of the PMs I received about this - we would need to set a date that it would be turned off so that there is a buffer and comments left when users were rating under the impression the system was anonymous are not going to be displayed. Only the ten most recent comments are displayed to a user receiving feedback. I hope that makes sense.

Boss

[TeamBoone]

I believe that I have 13 rep points to give per each positive rating. I rarely give out my daily allotment of 5 per day mainly because I look for the best posts to rate. I'm pretty stingy with my rep, but I think it is something that posters have to earn.

That's a really good point Sava. I rarely give out my daily allotment either. Just because they're there, isn't a good enough reason for me.

[Boss-Hog]

One last thing - if I disable the feature for the feedback to be anonymous, you won't have to sign the comment field with your name. The system will automatically include the user name of the person who left the feedback as part of the viewable fields to the user receiving the feedback.

I'm adding a poll to this thread so we can see where everyone stands.

[Heath]

To quote Lou Brown - Its coming together, Pepper.......

I NOW understand Rep Points - next up- hitting a curve ball.

I personally like the "rep points" - however, it kinda reminds me of grad assistants grading my papers in college...... :dancingco :bash: :lol:

It's interesting - this is the only forum that I go to that has that ability

[shredda2000]

Rep points or no rep points...I am just glad I can come to a forum where I can get the latest Reds news. To me, the Rep points are just Gravy Baby!!!

[MartyFan]

Who cares?

[KronoRed]

(it boggles my mind that someone has the time to average 40+ post/day) but irrelevent in terms of content. Why should volume be rewarded solely on volume. It's sort of like saying 50 pounds of dog food is better than a pound of filet mingon. I guess it is if you really like dog food but......(shrug)

Rem

Gee I wonder who you're referring to here.

Just state who you're talking about.

[OldRightHander]

I think some people have really blown this out of proportion. I don't think there's so much "abuse" of the system as some people seem to think there is. As for names on comments, I have been signing my name when I leave rep lately, along with an explanation of why I liked your post. I have yet to neg anyone because I reserve that for conduct that I feel doesn't belong here, like foul language or the like, and I really haven't come across anything that drastic yet. If I disagree with you, that doesn't warrant a neg. Like others, I don't always give out my allotment each day, but I try hard to find five good posts to give it to and I almost always give mine to people who are under 200, but I have given rep to a couple ORG members for really good posts. The quality of the posts around here has improved since this system was put in place, so while the system may not be perfect, it is working to a certain degree and we should all work within that system to make this a better environment for Reds fans. As to some people having a lot of points, most of those people usually have really good things to say or put a lot of research into what they post, so I have no problem with them having 500 points.

[Joseph]

I've negged exactly one person who I felt was making racist comments. I have not and will not neg someone just because they have a differing opinion than I do, or because they don't subscribe to the same stat beliefs. I also do not give rep just to give rep, it has to be quality.

[remdog]

So Krono, just exactly 'how' do you manage to spend enough time here to post 40 times per day? Honestly, I can't concieve of anyone actually having that much free time. Do you work, have other interests, need to walk the dog at sometime? Seriously, I'd like to know.

As for content, many (most?) of your posts seem to consist of :wave:, :clap:, :runaway:, etc. That warrants points? :dunno: ( :p: )

Personally, while I find post counts 'interesting' I wouldn't mind if the ones not on the baseball side (and I've posted there myself) were done away with. In fact, I wouldn't mind if all post counts were done away with. I dropped into the 'last person...' threads from time to time to see what you kids were up to and there was always an active race between people to see who could get the most posts. Pretty much a waste of time in my opinion but, hey, if you're into that kind of thing.....

So, actually, I would like to know how you manage to spend so much time here. You can post it here or PM me. Maybe you'll tell me something that will enable me to free up a little more time for Redszone myself. :)

Rem

[Gallen5862]

I believe that the user name should be mandatory for giving rep. points. I have enjoyed posting on this board.

[Chip R]

So Krono, just exactly 'how' do you manage to spend enough time here to post 40 times per day? Honestly, I can't concieve of anyone actually having that much free time. Do you work, have other interests, need to walk the dog at sometime? Seriously, I'd like to know.

As for content, many (most?) of your posts seem to consist of :wave:, :clap:, :runaway:, etc. That warrants points? :dunno: ( :p: )

Personally, while I find post counts 'interesting' I wouldn't mind if the ones not on the baseball side (and I've posted there myself) were done away with. In fact, I wouldn't mind if all post counts were done away with. I dropped into the 'last person...' threads from time to time to see what you kids were up to and there was always an active race between people to see who could get the most posts. Pretty much a waste of time in my opinion but, hey, if you're into that kind of thing.....

So, actually, I would like to know how you manage to spend so much time here. You can post it here or PM me. Maybe you'll tell me something that will enable me to free up a little more time for Redszone myself. :)

Rem
Since this thread is about rep points perhaps you should take your concerns private.

[remdog]

He asked. I answered. Gave him the option of PMing me. I think that qualifies as taking it private.


You guys want some cheese to go with that whine? Surely you have better things to worry about than the number of rep points someone over 200 gets. :rolleyes:

Obviously, based upon the response to the thread, this is an issue with a lot of people.

As for the 'cheese', you're already too cheesy for me Chip. :rolleyes:

Rem

[Boss-Hog]

I think that's a very good example as to how the system should be used.


I've negged exactly one person who I felt was making racist comments. I have not and will not neg someone just because they have a differing opinion than I do, or because they don't subscribe to the same stat beliefs. I also do not give rep just to give rep, it has to be quality.

[Boss-Hog]

Personally, while I find post counts 'interesting' I wouldn't mind if the ones not on the baseball side (and I've posted there myself) were done away with.

There is an option to not add posts made in certain forums to a user's post count. I know you're not talking about that exactly (I assume you're talking about doing away with the non-baseball forum completely, which we won't do) but since the number of posts does have some influence in the reputation "power" formula, (although as I said above, a VERY small amount - 1 point for every 4000 points) it might not be a bad idea to only have posts made on the baseball forums (ORG, Live!) count toward your post total.

Boss

[TeamDunn]

He asked. I answered. Gave him the option of PMing me. I think that qualifies as taking it private.



Obviously, based upon the response to the thread, this is an issue with a lot of people.

As for the 'cheese', you're already too cheesy for me Chip. :rolleyes:

Rem

Until it is an issue with the board owners then it really is no ones business how many posts anyone here makes or does not make, is it?

If they felt anyone was posting too much they can address it with them. You have been complaining about Krono for quite awhile now, if it is something personal about him that irritates you then put him on ignore. He is very friendly to everyone on this board and is the first one to offer support, friendship and just a "Hi" when someone needs it. He is also one of the first ones to offer help when out of towners (or even intowners!) need someone local to tell them about the city or event going on here.

[TeamDunn]

I want to mention one other thing - I temporarily turned off the ability to anonymously leave feedback a few weeks ago. During that short time that the users leaving feedback were shown (only to the person they left the feedback for), we soon realized that turning the anonymous feature off means that this showed the person who left previous feedback. So, in effect, the user receiving feedback could see who left their last five feedback comments, even though those comments were made when the anonymous feature was enabled. While I personally think the anonymous feature should be turned off, and user names should be shown to the receiver, I agree with a lot of the PMs I received about this - we would need to set a date that it would be turned off so that there is a buffer and comments left when users were rating under the impression the system was anonymous are not going to be displayed. Only the five most recent comments are displayed to a user receiving feedback. I hope that makes sense.

Boss

July 1st (or the allstar break) sounds good to me. The AS break will give it 3 days for everyone to complain and hopefully be done complaining by the time the 2nd half the season starts!

[OldRightHander]

If my time on here was reduced to complaining about Krono's post count, I think I would be taking a look at my life to see if I still had one. If he likes to spend a lot of time on here and make a lot of comments, I have no problem with that. He's rarely anything other than pleasant company on here anyway. People need to lighten up a bit.

[cincyinco]

Okay, time to chime in here. Talk with the big dogs.

I've never once complained about the rep system. But I have to say I think it stinks. I would love to talk ball with the rest of you at ORG, but I can't. And I do NOT believe its from my lack of trying.

You're talking to a poster here with 20 friggen rep points. I haven't made a TON of posts, granted.. but I DO feel that I have tried to post quality over quantity. Feel free to review my past posts.

I dont know what to do to get rep points around here. I keep posting, what I feel are solid quality posts about baseball. Posts that will generate good discussion. Yet I fail to be noticed.

Keep in mind I have never once complained about the system. I haven't agreed with it, I haven't liked it, but I've tried to work within it - but after reading this thread I think it stinks when you got people who continue to build their rep to stratospheric levels, and I'm stuck - toiling in the so called "minor leagues". Does anyone pay attention to Reds Live?

My 2 cents.

[remdog]

(I assume you're talking about doing away with the non-baseball forum completely, which we won't do)

Boss

Nope. Don't want you to misunderstand me here. I actually like the non-baseball side of the board, as well. I just don't think that the post count there is relevant to the baseball discussion. Certainly, if the post counts for the non-baseball side were deleted, I would lose posts too. But, I have no problem with that.

I definately would like the non-baseball side kept.

Rem

[Boss-Hog]

Nope. Don't want you to misunderstand me here. I actually like the non-baseball side of the board, as well. I just don't think that the post count there is relevant to the baseball discussion. Certainly, if the post counts for the non-baseball side were deleted, I would lose posts too. But, I have no problem with that.

I definately would like the non-baseball side kept.

Rem OK now I get what you're saying. If we were to turn that feature 'on' (to not count any posts made on non-baseball forums), it would start at that time, not retroactively. So, in effect, no one would lose posts from their post count if it was turned on. It just wouldn't count future posts made there.

[zombie-a-go-go]

Does anyone pay attention to Reds Live?

My 2 cents.

Yeah... personally, I post more in Live than ORG.

[smith288]

Good Lord this has been rehashed time and time again. GET over this system. If you dont like it then go make your own Reds forum or find another. Im so sick of this subject.

[Redsfaithful]

Does anyone pay attention to Reds Live?

Personally, I just click "new posts" when I visit RedsZone and read what looks interesting. I don't usually know whether I'm reading Live or ORG.

It makes browsing the board a lot quicker, for me at least.

[remdog]

OK now I get what you're saying. If we were to turn that feature 'on' (to not count any posts made on non-baseball forums), it would start at that time, not retroactively. So, in effect, no one would lose posts from their post count if it was turned on. It just wouldn't count future posts made there.

Yep. And that would be fine as far as I'm concerned.

Rem

[zombie-a-go-go]

Good Lord this has been rehashed time and time again. GET over this system. If you dont like it then go make your own Reds forum or find another. Im so sick of this subject.

How'd you get 346 Rep anyway, ya bum???
:D

[redsrule2500]

All I know is that I wish I could post on the main forum, and no matter how much I post I only get a few every month!

The people who hand out the points are always on the other forum giving themselves the points :(

[Falls City Beer]

I'd like to throw my two cents into the mix. I didn't like the negging and the anonymity of it at first, but when I finally got a clue, took a deep breath and realized that negs were but a mere fraction of positive feedback in terms of point value, I saw the error of my ways. I get a lot of feedback, both positive and negative, but the positive always outweighs the negative, which is exactly how the system should work. If I start making a bunch of personal attacks, the reverse will ultimately occur, which is as it should be. Whatever kinks there was or whatever kinks I suspected, have been ironed out in my opinion. I don't see my favorite posters or good contributors falling off the map due to negative feedback, so I'm good with the system. Just one person's opinion, of course.

[smith288]

How'd you get 346 Rep anyway, ya bum???
:D You got me, im hardly a politician. :lol:

[klw]

As a relatively new poster, I think the system is working pretty well. Judging from what I have read this site was created to have a certain feel to it. The system helps to maintain the feel and content for whom the site has been important to them for awhile. I like the idea of people being able to get high rep points as it should create an example of what the board is to represent and what it is to provide. It is sad to see people who helped set up a site be driven from it by it becoming something other than what was envision. I have seen that happen to other sites in the past.

The only tweak I would suggest would be to allow very limited posting privilege on ORG short of the 200 mark. My thought would be to allow one post per week or something along those lines to allow someone to post on an existing ORG thread rather than having to create a similar thread on Live. This would not allow the poster to create an ORG thread but merely the opportunity to occasionally add to one. An example is the Live thread created to thank Team Clark would have been well served with a post on the relevant thread on ORG if the thread starter been able. If this can't be done, it isn't a big deal. The system works pretty well to my eyes.

[OldRightHander]

All I know is that I wish I could post on the main forum, and no matter how much I post I only get a few every month!

The people who hand out the points are always on the other forum giving themselves the points :(

That's not always the case. I give out most of my rep on here to people under 200, but there are a lot of posts here and we only get 5 a day. It takes time.

[Red Leader]

Good Lord this has been rehashed time and time again. GET over this system. If you dont like it then go make your own Reds forum or find another. Im so sick of this subject.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[cincyinco]

Good Lord this has been rehashed time and time again. GET over this system. If you dont like it then go make your own Reds forum or find another. Im so sick of this subject.

I'm so glad someone with so much Rep gives a darn about us "bush league" posters! I'm not trying to start anything, but I have to say from my perspective - from someone who's tried to work within the system, and hasn't made any vocal complaints about it - the system stinks.


All I know is that I wish I could post on the main forum, and no matter how much I post I only get a few every month!

The people who hand out the points are always on the other forum giving themselves the points :(

This is exactly the same point I am trying to convey.

[cincyinco]

I understand that everyone is limited to giving out 5 rep points a day. So maybe that should be increased a little bit? If its the posters of the ORG who are supposed to hand out the rep to us "minor leaguers" - shouldn't they be able to dish out more than 5 a day? Theres already been more than 1 person here say they can only give out 5 a day so hang in there... Well shouldn't we be promoting a community of good, active, baseball discussion? Shoudn't EVERYONE have an equal opportunity at that? I've honestly thought about just giving up on redszone.com more than once since this change, and going back to ESPN - as much as I hate to admit that. Its a terrible place to even try to discuss baseball. Thats what I love about Redszone. I can talk baseball without name calling because someone doesn't agree with my opinion. But I've tried to work within the system, without complaining. I've tried to earn my way up, "the right way", without *****ing or soliciting rep points.. And I have to say I dont think its gotten me much of anywhere. Well, now I'm taking this opportunity to voice my concerns. So I'm sorry if all you guys who feel we're beating a dead horse, but you need to understand I've given this my best effort.

I think the system is a good idea, but I think it needs further refinement and/or tweaking. It needs for the members of ORG to be able to give out more rep points, and I think everyone in ORG needs to make a concentrated effort to give out more of their rep points to Reds live.

Might I make a suggestion if possible? Increase the number of rep an ORG poster can give out to maybe 10. If possible, maybe you can split this up to only 3 can be used in ORG of the 10, per day. The other 7, if dished out, must go to reds live.

[TeamCasey]

So Krono, just exactly 'how' do you manage to spend enough time here to post 40 times per day? Honestly, I can't concieve of anyone actually having that much free time. Do you work, have other interests, need to walk the dog at sometime? Seriously, I'd like to know.

I don't think that rude crap is necessary at all, Rem.

[919191]

I don't think that rude crap is necessary at all, Rem.

I agree. How in the world is it your business what Krono does with his time?

[Larkin Fan]

I don't think that rude crap is necessary at all, Rem.

You couldn't be more right about that, TC.

[RosieRed]

I don't think that rude crap is necessary at all, Rem.

I second that sentiment.

[OldRightHander]

I agree. How in the world is it your business what Krono does with his time?

There's an interesting pun there somewhere.

[Danny Serafini]

Even though it's got some flaws, I think the system in general has worked out pretty well. There's no denying the quality of the board, on both halves, has greatly increased since this setup went into place.

Personally I don't see the point in spending rep points on someone already in ORG. Seems more wasteful than anything. If I never went up another point it wouldn't bother me because I've already got my ORG priviledges.

It's not going to upset me if someone gets to 500, 1000, 1500, whatever, congratulations to them. But I do worry that there is too much rep power being assigned to some people. Not a personal problem with anyone in the big numbers, I just don't think any one person should have as much power as they potentially can get. It's not going to take long before 10 people can each give one post a click and that person's going to be at 200. That doesn't seem to be the point of this system. When I see someone with 15 posts and 100 rep points it sure seems odd. Is there a way to cap the number of rep points a poster can give, but not put a cap on their reputation number? That way they can still get their rep up to 500, 1000, whatever their goal is, since there are some people who are into that, but not give someone an inordinate amount of power in determining who stays and who goes in ORG.

One thing does bother me. I don't remember who posted it, is was a while back, but I believe several people said they post a bunch of rep to their pals quickly so they can hurry up and give some rep to someone in Reds Live again quickly. That's cheating the system in a couple of different ways. First the point of having to spread it out among 15 different people is so someone can't sit there and continually plug someone, instead of hurrying through your reps so that every 4th day you can bump that person, whether they've done anything in that span to deserve it or not. Plus it's artificially inflating the rep of that person's buddies. Like I said before, I don't really care about the number, but I do care that it helps some people have disproportionally more control over who gets into ORG and who doesn't. It's a misuse of the system and it's not fair.

Honestly I've hardly given out any rep over the last couple of weeks. It's not fair to the Reds Live people and I apologize for it, I'll try and be a little better about it. But there seems to be a lot of reputation inflation going on and it's turned me off a bit to the system.

[TeamBoone]

The people who hand out the points are always on the other forum giving themselves the points :(

That a very general statement about every poster in ORG... and also untrue.

[smith288]

I'm so glad someone with so much Rep gives a darn about us "bush league" posters! I'm not trying to start anything, but I have to say from my perspective - from someone who's tried to work within the system, and hasn't made any vocal complaints about it - the system stinks.

About 80% of the ORG folks posts over here so what does it really matter if you can or cant post over there? You have pretty much the same audience. In my opinion, I think its more of "I want what I cant have" sentiment than actually having the ORG permission.

I would even be willing to let Boss take my ORG permission away just to prove my point that I can live without the status.

[Boss-Hog]

About 80% of the ORG folks posts over here so what does it really matter if you can or cant post over there? You have pretty much the same audience. In my opinion, I think its more of "I want what I cant have" sentiment than actually having the ORG permission.

I think there's some truth in that. I'm not saying it applies to everyone without ORG posting access, because I know there are plenty of people I'd personally like to see with it, but have not reached 200 points yet. However, as you said, it's not as if a vast majority of ORG folks don't post in this forum, so I don't see what the major to-do is.

Boss

[OldRightHander]

:deadhorse

[SunDeck]

No, it doesn't, and that's why that aspect of the formula is so lightly weighted (one additional "power" point for every 4000 points). It has very little impact on someone's reputation power.
Thanks Boss. I was responding to the post that said it was based just on post count. Personally, I think it should be based on horticultural knowledge.

[PickOff]

I think there's some truth in that. I'm not saying it applies to everyone without ORG posting access, because I know there are plenty of people I'd personally like to see with it, but have not reached 200 points yet. However, as you said, it's not as if a vast majority of ORG folks don't post in this forum, so I don't see what the major to-do is.

Boss

The only real concern to the under 200 club should be whether those with the power to give rep points are posting on the live forum. If the ORG eligible posters are posting at Live somewhere around 35% of the time, I think that would be adequete. If there is a way to check that, that would be important info. It is also worth researching what % of ORG eligible new threads are posted in Live. I think this should be in a similiar range, because it creates more time investment in the live forum on part of the ORG eligble thread starter.

If it is found that there is somewhat poor representation on Live from ORG eligible posters then perhaps minimums should be considered to keep the Live forum at a good place and headed in the right direction. ex. 1 out of 4 new threads posted by an individual ORG member must be in Live.

[ochre]

Yeah... personally, I post more in Live than ORG.
He is "zombie" from all over after all... :)

[letsgojunior]

I think the system is good as is - it would be nice to be able to see who is giving you the rep points, but otherwise I like it. I think the quality of the posting has improved dramatically since its implementation. I don't think there's been any "ganging up" on certain posters. I use reputation on posters on the cusp of getting into ORG who I think are deserving, and I also use some on "older" posters who I think have made a good post, or have generally contributed to my enjoyment of the forum. I have never negativized someone, just because I don't like doing that. I think the positives of this system far outweigh the negatives, as we've seen an improvement in the quality of posts, and also we've been able to get feedback on our posts, and how to improve. It's a really positive change IMO.

[OldRightHander]

I think the system is good as is - it would be nice to be able to see who is giving you the rep points, but otherwise I like it. I think the quality of the posting has improved dramatically since its implementation. I don't think there's been any "ganging up" on certain posters. I use reputation on posters on the cusp of getting into ORG who I think are deserving, and I also use some on "older" posters who I think have made a good post, or have generally contributed to my enjoyment of the forum. I have never negativized someone, just because I don't like doing that. I think the positives of this system far outweigh the negatives, as we've seen an improvement in the quality of posts, and also we've been able to get feedback on our posts, and how to improve. It's a really positive change IMO.

:thumbup:

[Terry]

I have never negativized someone, just because I don't like doing that.

Well, someone sure likes to "negativize", because I'm gone from 50-something reputation points to 20-something. And it's not as if I've posted anything negative or controversial. I'm not concerned though, because I rarely post here anymore since the board was divided -- maybe that's why my points have dropped? Whose idea was it anyway to change what was already the best Reds message board on the internet? :confused:

[Red Leader]

Whose idea was it anyway to change what was already the best Reds message board on the internet? :confused:


The guy who created this site and makes the rules, the same guy that pays all of the bills for this site to exist and for everyone to enjoy, ie. Boss-Hog.

[Terry]

The guy who created this site and makes the rules, the same guy that pays all of the bills for this site to exist and for everyone to enjoy, ie. Boss-Hog.

I assumed he had a say in it, but I figured others had some input also. Thanks.

[RollyInRaleigh]

Why is remdog's reputation button not appearing?

[Terry]

And with one post I go from 24 to 34. I need to start posting in the game threads again. :D

[Red Leader]

Why is remdog's reputation button not appearing?

I was curious about that as well. Could he have been given a "time out" for his comments previously?

[RollyInRaleigh]

I tried to PM him and couldn't do that either.

[Reds Fanatic]

I was curious about that as well. Could he have been given a "time out" for his comments previously? Yes I saw in another thread he has been given a "time out". I am not sure if it is temporary or permanent.

[letsgojunior]

Just out of curiousity, my reputation power used to be 12, and now it is 10. I'm not upset at all - just wondering if the system was changed today?

[KronoRed]

He is "zombie" from all over after all... :)

He's very krispy don't ya think? :D

Other then this thread popping up every now and then I think the change has been for the best, adding in who is doing the repping would make it better, putting some accountability into it.

Also, if the fear is people with a lot of posts or rep points will use it for bad, then it's not a big worry, Boss and the Mods would see it and take care of it.

Let's trust the people running the show.

[Heath]

I just think it would be cool to add an avatar (I've got a Bob Purkey shot I just HAVE to add) :thumbup: :dancingco

I don't have "inside info", Club Level Suite Season Tickets, or even know Adam Dunn's mother. I just enjoy Reds baseball. I couldn't add anything productive over in the Old Red Guard, except my opinion. (and how productive that is, remains to be seen)

(Closest thing to 10 seconds of fame - shaking Chris Sabo's hand and giving him a discount on shoes and stuff he bought in a sporting goods store where I once worked eons ago)

Its interesting how people percieve "rights", "needs", & "privileges" however on an internet forum.

See you at the ball park.....

[Team Clark]

I got dinged for quoting... Cool! I complained about it too... LOL! (It was probably Kearns!)

I have given out quite a few points as well. I'd say I'm about 50/50 on both people I agree and disagree with. I have given out points to WOY even after I was getting hammered by him to let them know I appreciated his argument and post. I actually spend more time Giving points to posters on LIVE than anywhere. Most importantly I ALWAYS sign my REPS except my last one.

Just My two cents.

[RBA]

I'm really dissappointed that some here are intolerent of feedback. I was trying to be constructive and many other posters have been trying to do the same. But it seems "some" do not want to hear it or simply have stated they have heard it all before. I'm also dissapointed with people who I have great respect for who have taken retribution onto other posters because they felt they were being chastised.

I have been for the reputation system since it's beginning. But I recently noticed a trend of what has been going on and I did not like the direction. If I take a trip on the Titantic and notice an Iceberg approaching, I think I am obligated to sound the alarm.

If we are going to a "no sound the alarm" or no feedback policy, than let's put that in the rules. If not, please understand the criticism or feedback is meant to try to improve the site for all and not meant as a slam to anyone.

Thank you.

[Team Clark]

RBA. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. However, I'm trying to understand the trend you are talking about. You and I have been on this site for a LONG time and I certainly do respect you a great deal. 7,000+ posts says a lot to me.

I will say that while I was getting banged on for discussing Dunn and Kearns NO ONE dinged me. I appreciate that. I'm hoping they did not because they at least had respect for what I was posting. If they vehemently disagreed and thought I was fabricating, inflicting undue harm or "bashing" w/o cause then they have a right (under our rules) to ding me. They chose not too. (Dinging me because you don't like a quote I posted is a little over the edge IMO) At the same time several members gave me positive Rep points for my posts about Kearns and Dunn. Very supportive and they enjoyed what I posted. Does this shed any light on what you are talking about?

[cincyinco]

About 80% of the ORG folks posts over here so what does it really matter if you can or cant post over there? You have pretty much the same audience. In my opinion, I think its more of "I want what I cant have" sentiment than actually having the ORG permission.

I would even be willing to let Boss take my ORG permission away just to prove my point that I can live without the status.

I would disagree with this assessment. Maybe its the time of day I am here. Maybe its just how I am perceiving things. But if I see anyone from ORG on here, its the same posters. Have you tried participating in a game thread on Reds Live lately? Not to be negative, but the participation is fairly pathetic. Whenever I come to redszone, theres always about a 3 to 1 ratio of who's viewing which forum.

I dont want to make gross generalizations, but I seriously dont feel that a vast majority of the same people who post in ORG post over here with regularity.

While I agree wholeheartedly that the quality of discussion has gone up overall since this sytem was put in place, that still does not mean to me that this system is without flaws. I still believe it could be tweaked, toyed with, and made to be a better system. Why stop trying to improve a system? I think the posters in ORG should have a responsibility to make this the best Reds Discussion site on the net. I think there needs to be a concentrated effort to view Reds Live posters, and grade them as often as you can if you're in ORG. Everyone should have that chance to be a part of "the elite" discussion area.

If its "no big deal" or not a "major to do" as some have put it, then why even have ORG in the first place? Why even have a rep system? Why dont the mods just police the board to the standards they want? It doesn't make any sense to me. It obviously is a big deal otherwise the ORG and rep system would not have been created in the first place.

Take it for what its worth, but this is coming from a poster who's been here a while. Lurking for a good while before becoming an active poster in the redszone community. Someone who hasn't *****ed about the system put in place, has tried to "play ball" so to speak, hasn't solicitied rep points and still hasn't really found himself any closer to being able to discuss our beloved Reds in ORG since this system was put in place. Maybe I haven't put my mark on redszone in a way that gets me noticed. I dont know. But I've tried to bring good, quality, on topic discussion to this board. I've tried to be a good source of knowledge. And before today, I'd only gotten 1 rep in my direction, and it wasn't even for a post I felt was my best. Please dont misunderstand me. I agree wholeheartedly that the implimentation of this sytem was for the best. I just feel it could still be made better.

Bottom line is this guys: I guess I dont want a whole lot of changes to the system, maybe some minor tweaks as how rep is given out here and there. I just want a more concentrated effort, more dedication from the ORG guys to give out their rep to the Reds Live folks who really deserve it. I know a lot of you already do your best, so I'm not ripping on you. But as I said in the top of this post, I honestly don't feel that Redszone is represented as well as it could be by the ORG guys, in terms of redslive. All I have to go on is my personal experiences, so please don't take this personally.

[Boss-Hog]

It was a decision reached by both GIK and I.




I assumed he had a say in it, but I figured others had some input also. Thanks.

[smith288]

I understand the live! game threads might be a tad bare and the org one lively. But the reason behind that is the people who get permission to post there want that filtered conversation. Not to say Live! isnt good discussion but there can be some schmuck who will post something dumb and that's what the system is supposed to prevent. I think game threads are special cases in terms of who is posting where but through the week, my comment stands.

Actually, I use what I call a bookmarklet. On my IE, I have a favorite called RedsZone and instead of using the straight link, I have a javascript url that will prompt me with Live or Org.

For all folks interested, try right clicking on your redszone fav link and click properties then paste this into it:


javascript: if(confirm('ORG, pres ok. Live!, press cancel')){document.location='http://www.redszone.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7'} else{ document.location='http://www.redszone.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=24'}

[REDREAD]

For instance, I got dinged the other day by someone and it cost me 3 points, not a single point for that single 'ding'.

Rem, if it makes you feel any better, I got a negative 5 for posting that poll "Do you think DanO will blow this years' draft" :laugh: Don't let it bother you. Not that big of a deal. It won't bother me when some people have 15k reputation and I'm still in the 200's..

[guttle11]

In my short but sweet time here on Redszone, i climbed the ladder to the ORG pretty quick. in under 300 posts. What does that mean? i dont know. I guess others likeed my posts or at least thought I added something to the discussion.

As far as the "clique". I think there is one, but they dont seem to be against anyone else. Some Clique'ers gave me rep points and wrote that they disagreed but thought I added to the post.

As far as giving NEg rep points, I will not ever give a neg, unless certain lines are crossed(i.e. Racial remarks) or the obligitory "he sucks" to describe why he doesnt like a player. (I have never heard either since I have been here)

I have been to a few MLB and other forum sites, and this is the best.

[KearnsyEars]

It's pathetic. The self policing system wasn't design to reward buddies. It was design to judge post fairlly. It has failed.

would somewhat agree with this feeling. Be careful, cause some of the mods will abuse u for sharing your sentiments or tell you to post elsewhere.

[Red Leader]

That was pretty cool, smith. Thanks for the "how to" :thumbup:

[smith288]

:thumbup: Sure thing.

[RBA]

would somewhat agree with this feeling. Be careful, cause some of the mods will abuse u for sharing your sentiments or tell you to post elsewhere.

Than again. It really wasn't a really tactful way to criticize. And I do apologize for that. It was a bit "nasty" and we really should focus into positive criticism. I'm not backing down from the sentiment, but it could of been convey in a more thoughtful manner.

[KittyDuran]

I think this is a pretty good thread! Gave out my last three rep points for today to Reds Live! posters... :)

[WMR]

Krono, for my $.02, I love your posts even when they're nothing more than a smiley. If everybody had your generally upbeat demeanor then the world would be a much better place.

[WMR]

Oh yeah, also, it looks like the majority of people support the idea of showing who gives you REP (which I agree with, btw), but I would interject that even when your name is automatically added to the REP line or whatever, you should still have the ability to leave a message for the person whom you are leaving REP. Perhaps this would be the case anyway, but I feel like the "message-line" is an integral part of the REP system.

[TeamBoone]

The only real concern to the under 200 club should be whether those with the power to give rep points are posting on the live forum. If the ORG eligible posters are posting at Live somewhere around 35% of the time, I think that would be adequete.

I don't know what my percentage is, but I post on Live often.

[Chip R]

would somewhat agree with this feeling. Be careful, cause some of the mods will abuse u for sharing your sentiments or tell you to post elsewhere.Yeah, we're such horrible people that we ban people for disagreeing with us. Grow up.

[TeamBoone]

And with one post I go from 24 to 34. I need to start posting in the game threads again. :D

And now you have 74! Evidently, many have appreciated that really good post on the previous page, me included.

[TeamBoone]

I don't have "inside info", Club Level Suite Season Tickets, or even know Adam Dunn's mother. I just enjoy Reds baseball. I couldn't add anything productive over in the Old Red Guard, except my opinion. (and how productive that is, remains to be seen)

And your opinion is valued; everyone's are (by most anyway). Opinions generate conversation, pros and cons, ideas, etc. And those things are what makes this board so great.

[Topcat]

i got negated for being dumb, deserved it for not using my mind.

[TeamBoone]

i got negated for being dumb, deserved it for not using my mind.

Are you kidding?

[Ender]

I revel in my "10". It reminds me of Bo Derek runnin' on the beach.

Hubba!

[M2]

1. Why anyone cares whether they get a neg makes no sense to me, but I agree it's weasly to give someone an anonymous neg.

2. I like the idea of having all reps given automatically identified, even past ones. If you did it, you shouldn't be afraid to own it.

3. Steel's got the most points because he's ON FIRE for the past two months. Frankly, he deserves a lot more than he's got but he's posting too much great stuff to get credit for all of it.

4. I love Krono's posts and consider him a huge part of what we've got going on here.

5. IMO just because rem whines incessantly about this system is no reason to change. He also compares his own post quality to "filet mignon," which pretty much tells you how in touch with reality he is.

6. I'm giving rep points to RBA for starting this thread though I disagree with his position.

[UKFlounder]

1. Why anyone cares whether they get a neg makes no sense to me, but I agree it's weasly to give someone an anonymous neg.


If you're trying to get to the 200 mark, I could understand why getting a negative mark would be upsetting, especially if there was no reason given or it was anonymous.

[Puffy]

1. Why anyone cares whether they get a neg makes no sense to me, but I agree it's weasly to give someone an anonymous neg.

2. I like the idea of having all reps given automatically identified, even past ones. If you did it, you shouldn't be afraid to own it.

3. Steel's got the most points because he's ON FIRE for the past two months. Frankly, he deserves a lot more than he's got but he's posting too much great stuff to get credit for all of it.

4. I love Krono's posts and consider him a huge part of what we've got going on here.

5. IMO just because rem whines incessantly about this system is no reason to change. He also compares his own post quality to "filet mignon," which pretty much tells you how in touch with reality he is.

6. I'm giving rep points to RBA for starting this thread though I disagree with his position.

7. M2 stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[M2]

BTW, for all you clique conspiracy nudniks out there, here's my last 10 reps given.

1. RBA for starting this thread even though I disagree with him completely. Why? Because RBA's a great poster, been one for years and it dawned on my I hadn't tossed him any rep yet.

2. Brooklyn Redz for noting RF in Fenway is super difficult to play (and to put him over the ORG threshhold).

3. lollipopcurve for a classy look back at the whole Clement-Milton argument.

4. Krono for making the following joke, "Dunn scores after his walk..but he would have scored better if he had singled."

5. FCB for a brilliant and accurate insult of John Fay.

6. MWM for making up the word "Cowbatross."

7. halcyon for adding a comments section to the minor league boxes recap, which deserves rep even without the comments section.

8. TC81190 for making a needed concise point in one of those rolling BA/strikeouts discussions ... and welcome to The Show!

9. knuckler for suggesting a hit and run when a hit and run should have been used.

10. TeamBoone for pointing out that taking someone else's stuff is wrong, period.

For the 10 of you I just listed, I guess that makes you part of the conspiracy.

[M2]

If you're trying to get to the 200 mark, I could understand why getting a negative mark would be upsetting, especially if there was no reason given or it was anonymous.

I guess I can understand why that might bother someone, but it wouldn't bother me. IMO, you can't let yourself get caught up in trifles like that.

But I'm giving you rep points for a worthy display of empathy ... unfortunatley that will make you an unwitting part of the cabal.

[Cyclone792]

I've skimmed through this thread, not really reading it entirely, but I did come across a few mentions of there being new posters who shot up in reputation points quickly. Perhaps I was one of the people being referenced, perhaps not, but I noticed I shot up in points within about 30-40 posts. I'm just here doing what everybody else is doing, which is being a baseball fan and posting on a baseball board relating to their favorite team. If I'm a prime example for this reputation system being flawed in any way, it definitely was not my intention.

As far as my thoughts on the actual system, I don't mind it at all. After being able to reach 200 points, the points themselves aren't a big deal to me. What is nice are the comments that come along with the points. It is nice to know that if I spend 40 minutes putting together a thorough post that it's been appreciated for its content (note: that doesn't mean one has to agree), be it via the reputation system or even just responding in the thread itself. Simple human nature dictates that a sense of appreciation keeps that person coming back. I also think the system has accomplished what it was created to accomplish, which is to generate top notch baseball discussion while also trying to avoid the personal attacks. What separates this forum from others, at least to me, is the rarity of personal attacks seen on this forum.

The greatest Internet baseball forum I've ever participated in - and likely the greatest I ever will participate in - melted away due to personal attacks within it. It was such a shame too because the core posters in that forum were some of the greatest baseball minds I've ever come across. Much of my knowledge about the game I attribute to what I learned and discussed with the people of that forum. I guess you can call me a "disciple" of those guys since I was essentially a 15-year-old learning about the history of the game and discussing statistics and sabermetrics with a bunch of 40 and 50-year-olds, several years before Moneyball was even an idea in Michael Lewis' mind. Heck, Bill James even posted in that forum with regularity at one time. It was a perfect combination of statistical analysis and phenomenal baseball stories from anecdotes, first-hand observations, etc. I've read that the ORG was named after a special poster here, and the Internet forum I've described was essentially a place with a dozen guys like the Old Red Guard poster combined with another dozen guys of the Bill James mold.

But alas, the personal attacks never stopped there due to a mere handful of posters, and all those brilliant minds and fantastic stories simply vanished because every one was sick of dealing with it. It really was a case where a small handful ruined it for all. If a system could have been implemented to prevent that from happening, I surely would have supported it. Likewise, if this reputation system can prevent this forum from turning down that path, then that system will have my support.

Obviously like everyone else, I'd very much like to be able to post on the ORG, but the system was implemented with requirements and those requirements should be maintained for every person on the forum. Boss has informed me that I should be able to post in the ORG relatively soon given that I've reached the other requirements, and that is perfectly fine with me. Sure, there's a handful of threads in the ORG that I'd very much like to post in right now, but it's not a big deal. Once I reach the requirements that have been set for all new users, I'll be able to air my thoughts in threads in the ORG. Until then, I'm content in the Reds Live! forum.

Just my two cents...

[TeamCasey]

Cyclone .... you just described how Redszone came to be in the first place.

May I ask what forum you came from?

[Cyclone792]

Cyclone .... you just described how Redszone came to be in the first place.

May I ask what forum you came from?

Both were on AOL of all places, in a baseball sports talk area. They were the All-Time Best Players forum and the Hall of Fame forum, but both forums were essentially mirrors of each other. They both exist now, but are nowhere near the caliber of quality they were six plus years ago. I still check them out periodically, but haven't posted there in ages. Some dude named Tuck seemed to throw the final batch of gasoline in the fire for most of the people, and he arrived about five years ago. The last time I checked the forum out a few months ago, the same fight he started five years ago was still going on, at least with the two or three people that never left the forum.

As for myself, I discovered those forums as an ignorant 15-year-old and immediately revolted against all those fresh new ways of looking at the game in the same fashion people revolt against them today. At the time I thought all that statistical sabermetrical stuff was completely silly. In some mysterious way, a bunch of 40 and 50-year-olds were able to open up this kid's mind, and the rest as they say, is history.

[M2]

Tuck's probably the same as TeamTuck, who got flushed down the commode here in short order.

[Cyclone792]

Tuck's probably the same as TeamTuck, who got flushed down the commode here in short order.

You would know this guy if he was adamant about changing the actual formula for slugging percentage. It was the strangest thing I've ever read. :laugh:

[westofyou]

It was the strangest thing I've ever read. :laugh:

Stick around I think your paradigm on that could shift.

[Boss-Hog]

Well, based on the poll results, it's pretty obvious that the vast, vast majority of the forum (who voted, anyway) are in favor of doing away with the anonymous reputations. I'm setting July 1st as the date that we're turning that option off (in other words, anonymous comments will no longer to be left at that date). So, the 10 most recent comments that are left between now and that date are the ones that a user will see who left them when it goes into effect. Thanks again for the feedback.

Boss

[Hubba]

I revel in my "10". It reminds me of Bo Derek runnin' on the beach.

Hubba! what did I do?

[BuckeyeRedleg]

Wow, a lot of rep points have been passed around in this thread alone.

I guess the majority has spoken and like most, I think the new system has been a huge success.

Great job to all that make this place what it is! And I'm not kissing butt for points.....I promise.

[kyred14]

i don't care if i couldn't post here at all, this is by far the smartest collection of reds fans there are anywhere. i would just come here to read if that was my only choice. sure as heck beats reading mlb.com boards.

[Dom Heffner]

My only fault was that I registered 90 days after the cutoff. I was on the old Cincy board before some even registered here. I'm not a fan of the new system, but I do respect the board enough to play by the rules. I just feel a little odd trying to prove myself to everyone. Oh well.

[TC81190]

For the 10 of you I just listed, I guess that makes you part of the conspiracy.


8. TC81190 for making a needed concise point in one of those rolling BA/strikeouts discussions ... and welcome to The Show!

w00t.

[SandyD]

I'm really kind of tired of talking about rep points, but I'd like to make a couple of comments.

1. I kind of agree with RBA that there may come a time when a "power limit" may become advisable. I think we're a long way away from that. I see nothing wrong with the way the "power to give rep" is generated, though. I also see nothing wrong with only including posts on the baseball side in the value to determine "rep giving power." I'd rather not have a ceiling on rep points themselves, though.

2. I'm not crazy about automatically revealing the names of those who give rep points. But only because I fear that we'll have a lot of defensive reactions to negative rep spill over into the discussion threads.

Boss, not trying to change your decision. I'm obviously in the minority.

3. To the posters who have not reached 200: Don't worry so much about it. Be yourself. Always. Stop thinking of RL as the "minor leagues." It's just another, slightly different, even more open forum. If you see a thread on ORG you'd like to comment on, if there's not a similar thread on RL, go ahead and start a discussion. Try to find a different twist on the discussion to make it interesting, and you'll have ORG posters contributing to your thread too. And ultimately to your rep.

[Topcat]

Are you kidding?

used the word kill metaphoricly as in im gonna axe you , gut you. fire you etc. Still i agree with the negated part. last thing i want this fine site to turn into is espn freakin troll board.

[gonelong]

Cyclone792
Member

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 72
Reputation: 248

Yeah, that took WAY to long.

Give me info/insight, explain your stance, and show me why it matters. Points galore.

Tell me you like the way Ryan Freel hustles. 0 points.

Cyclone792 Posts: http://www.redszone.com/forums/search.php?searchid=29155

GL

[Larry Schuler]

I agree with gonelong.

I've been here since back before Tom Ecclesby was our third base coach (and that was long before JJ Coles stole the candied yams from Ugly Jim Hasbey's thanksgiving dinner in the winter of '65) and I have only, what, 52 rep points?? If I were a mod I've give myself at least 53 and donate the rest to a charity of my my wife Margot's choice. Maybe the KMD foundation. Then again whose to say which foundation deserves it more? Or if it really was ole JJ that stole the yams? No one found any solid evidence.

[MWM]

2. I'm not crazy about automatically revealing the names of those who give rep points. But only because I fear that we'll have a lot of defensive reactions to negative rep spill over into the discussion threads.


I agree. It's going to pretty much abolish negative reps which isn't that big a deal. But my worry would be that a negative vote would end up being brough into the thread by those who got the vote.

[M2]

I agree. It's going to pretty much abolish negative reps which isn't that big a deal. But my worry would be that a negative vote would end up being brough into the thread by those who got the vote.

My guess is that won't happen too often as anyone tacky enough to bring that into a thread is going to wind up with a pile of extra negs on top of that first one.

[WVRedsFan]

1. Why anyone cares whether they get a neg makes no sense to me, but I agree it's weasly to give someone an anonymous neg.

2. I like the idea of having all reps given automatically identified, even past ones. If you did it, you shouldn't be afraid to own it.

3. Steel's got the most points because he's ON FIRE for the past two months. Frankly, he deserves a lot more than he's got but he's posting too much great stuff to get credit for all of it.

4. I love Krono's posts and consider him a huge part of what we've got going on here.

5. IMO just because rem whines incessantly about this system is no reason to change. He also compares his own post quality to "filet mignon," which pretty much tells you how in touch with reality he is.

6. I'm giving rep points to RBA for starting this thread though I disagree with his position.

Totally agree. I've given positive rep four times for fantastic posts. I've only received one negative rep from an anonymous person. I really could care less about it. However it gives me heartburn to get the negative rep from someone and not know who it is. It's pitiful to be that way, but I am. I support doing away with negative or positive rep without signing your name.

Truth is, my negativity probably deserves worse than I have and I hate that. I think the system works well. Had we had this in place, Gallagher and others wouldn't have lasted too long, but let's just sign our names and keep this board the best baseball board on the net.

[Cedric]

I got neg points one time for saying I was excited for an IF of Lopez, Casey, Freel, and Ede. I guess someone that hates Casey gave me a neg. I didn't worry about who gave me the negative feedback, I figured I'll live.

[Ron Madden]

I believe the Rep system works. It matters little to me if I ever gain another point, I have mentioned getting dinged but it was all in fun.

RedsZone has improved by leaps and bounds from the Reds.com message board we came so close to resemble since the end of last year.

I used to read the Reds MLB board everyday just to see infoe on the Reds.
After some time I joined the board to share thoughts with other Fans. At one time there were many fans there to talk and share opinions with... Then the trash talkers took over the board and ran most of the best posters away. It was sad to see.
If this Rep system keeps trash talk, hate and foolishness away I'm for it. :thumbup:

[Jpup]

the only real problem that I have seen with the rep system is the anonymous negs. I have only received 1 neg and it was anonymous. After looking back on the post, maybe I deserved the negative mark, but I think the person should at least leave their name. I see that Boss has decided to fix that problem. Thanks.

I really appreciated the people that have given me positives and I will continue to post whether I get 200 points or not.

[SandyD]

My guess is that won't happen too often as anyone tacky enough to bring that into a thread is going to wind up with a pile of extra negs on top of that first one.

Maybe, but that could get ugly too. I think that should be a "mod-policed" issue rather than a "self-policed" issue. Should there be a rule against calling someone out for giving them negs? I suppose that would come under "personal attacks" but sometimes things need to be spelled out.

Or maybe just a statement that calling someone out publically for neg points would be considered personal attacks and dealt with accordingly.

Just thinking out loud.

[GridironGrace]

I like the system, and only hope to get enough where i can get in the members section and post. That would give me more things to do here. But for now i'll earn my way in the Reds Live section.

Points are good. But doesnt change the fact that i enjoy posting here about the reds.

[zombie-a-go-go]

Yeah, we're such horrible people that we ban people for disagreeing with us. Grow up.

I must be rubbing off on you. ;)

[OldXOhio]

This thread is entertaining - it's like being in high school all over again.

[KronoRed]

This thread is entertaining - it's like being in high school all over again.
Could you pass this note to that girl over there..tell me what she said in study hall :devil:

[Chip R]

This thread is entertaining - it's like being in high school all over again.
:laugh:

[OldRightHander]

This thread is entertaining - it's like being in high school all over again.

The only difference is that now I'm married and somewhat glad I didn't get the date I wanted from the girl who sat in front of me in Algebra.

[RBA]

Thanks for wisecracks. It's not appreciated, but a few intolerent posters got a chuckle out of it. If you find these threads beneath you, don't respond. How hard is that for you?

[OldXOhio]

Thanks for wisecracks. It's not appreciated, but a few intolerent posters got a chuckle out of it. If you find these threads beneath you, don't respond. How hard is that for you?

Come on RBA, lighten up a little. Can we not have a little fun on here?

[RBA]

Come on RBA, lighten up a little. Can we not have a little fun on here?

Excuse me, but I'm kind of upset. One of my favorite posters got a time out for this thread and possibly a ban. I have respect for the moderators on this board but it seems like they may of went too far. If they cannot moderate objectively, it maybe time to step down.

[Red Leader]

Excuse me, but I'm kind of upset. One of my favorite posters got a time out for this thread and possibly a ban. I have respect for the moderators on this board but it seems like they may of went too far. If they cannot moderate objectively, it maybe time to step down.

This is not the first time "one of your favorite posters" has personally attacked another member of the forum. I don't think the mods went too far at all, if anything, it shows me they didn't go far enough the last time it happened.

[RBA]

This is not the first time "one of your favorite posters" has personally attacked another member of the forum. I don't think the mods went too far at all, if anything, it shows me they didn't go far enough the last time it happened.

There is two sides to every story. You choose one you want.

[Red Leader]

There is two sides to every story. You choose one you want.

I truly believe that. To be honest, I hadn't read too much of what he had posted in the past, so I thought I'd take a look. The other day I searched for all of his posts and read a good majority of them (in the past couple months). When the thread is about baseball, he offers tremendous insight, intelligence, and well thought out posts. However, as I have said, he has personally attacked other members of the forum on more than one occasion, most being in threads that are non-baseball related. He seems to have sort of a vendetta against anyone who posted in the "last person threads", which I don't understand. I just wish he could avoid getting himself into those kinds of situations where he feels he has to attack people because as I said earlier his baseball-related posts are actually very, very good.

[zombie-a-go-go]

There is two sides to every story. You choose one you want.

Or better yet, choose my side, else I'll ban you.... you know, RL, what with me failing to be objective and all. :evil:

[Aceking]

My only fault was that I registered 90 days after the cutoff. I was on the old Cincy board before some even registered here. I'm not a fan of the new system, but I do respect the board enough to play by the rules. I just feel a little odd trying to prove myself to everyone. Oh well.

I'm kind of in the same boat, but I like the system. I'm realizing that I find myself posting more than I did before. Whether that's to try and get a higher score, very well may factor into it somewhere along the way. I enjoy reading the reputation comments I get on my posts. That, more so than getting a score of 200, is my favorite part.

[WVRed]

Excuse me, but I'm kind of upset. One of my favorite posters got a time out for this thread and possibly a ban. I have respect for the moderators on this board but it seems like they may of went too far. If they cannot moderate objectively, it maybe time to step down.


So Krono, just exactly 'how' do you manage to spend enough time here to post 40 times per day? Honestly, I can't concieve of anyone actually having that much free time. Do you work, have other interests, need to walk the dog at sometime? Seriously, I'd like to know.

As for content, many (most?) of your posts seem to consist of :wave:, :clap:, :runaway:, etc. That warrants points? :dunno: ( :p: )

Personally, while I find post counts 'interesting' I wouldn't mind if the ones not on the baseball side (and I've posted there myself) were done away with. In fact, I wouldn't mind if all post counts were done away with. I dropped into the 'last person...' threads from time to time to see what you kids were up to and there was always an active race between people to see who could get the most posts. Pretty much a waste of time in my opinion but, hey, if you're into that kind of thing.....

So, actually, I would like to know how you manage to spend so much time here. You can post it here or PM me. Maybe you'll tell me something that will enable me to free up a little more time for Redszone myself. :)

Rem

So I assume you found nothing wrong with that post?

[Unassisted]

Well, based on the poll results, it's pretty obvious that the vast, vast majority of the forum (who voted, anyway) are in favor of doing away with the anonymous reputations. I'm setting July 1st as the date that we're turning that option off (in other words, anonymous comments will no longer to be left at that date). So, the 10 most recent comments that are left between now and that date are the ones that a user will see who left them when it goes into effect. Thanks again for the feedback.

BossBoss, just a suggestion. You might want to put this announcement in a separate thread. I consider it important and I almost missed it.

[M2]

Excuse me, but I'm kind of upset. One of my favorite posters got a time out for this thread and possibly a ban.

That's what happens when a person gets delusional and considers 95% of this board to be a clique. Compounding the problem is that said person now does very little but take potshots at people in each and every post these days. As far as I'm able to determine, this clique involves everyone who's ever posted a statistic, ever used chat and ever posted on one of the "last person" threads. I've only done one of those things and that's gained me entrance in this exclusive group, which encompasses almost everyone on the board.

Frankly, if it takes a Unabomber list to get down the names of all the people you actively dislike on this board, then it's probably time to find a new sandbox. IMO, that person reached that point a long time ago.

[chicoruiz]

My self-imposed goal is to have more rep points than posts; not many people do. To me, that would signify that I don't post unless I have something substantial to say. But I'm not saying I'm right and others are wrong...everyone gets enjoyment from the board in different ways.

[smith288]

Out of curiosity...anyone know if im part of this exclusive group?

[princeton]

My self-imposed goal is to have more rep points than posts; not many people do. To me, that would signify that I don't post unless I have something substantial to say. But I'm not saying I'm right and others are wrong...everyone gets enjoyment from the board in different ways.

ah, but did you post anything substantial here? ;)

[M2]

Out of curiosity...anyone know if im part of this exclusive group?

I don't know. Have you ever chatted, posted in a "last person" thread or used a number in conjunction to the game of baseball? If so then you too are an Illuminati.

[TeamCasey]

I don't know. Have you ever chatted, posted in a "last person" thread or used a number in conjunction to the game of baseball? If so the you too are an Illuminati.

or come to a spring training gathering or gone with anyone else on the board to a ballgame?

True members have to eat the heart of a goat.

[shredda2000]

Originally posted by TeamCasey
True members have to eat the heart of a goat.

Yum! Yum! Give me SOME!!! :barf:

[KronoRed]

True members have to eat the heart of a goat.

Where do you find a goat at this time of day?!?

[pedro]

Where do you find a goat at this time of day?!?

In my neighborhood I have to wait until 11 am.

Then it's goat taco time.

[shredda2000]

Originally posted by KronoRed
Where do you find a goat at this time of day?!?

In the Reds Front Office!!! :D

[smith288]

I have eaten a llama heart....must have been a hazing thing... durn it.

[KronoRed]

In the Reds Front Office!!! :D
..or maybe curseing the cubs? ;)

[Boss-Hog]

The "switch" has been flipped and from this point forward, all reputation comments, positive or negative, will has the commenter's user name attached to it. That means you don't have to sign your name in the comment field, as this information is already included. Please do NOT carry over any disuputes about negative reputation into the forums; if you must, handle that privately.

Let the chaos ensue. :)

Boss

[RBA]

So I assume you found nothing wrong with that post?

Correct

[pedro]

Correct

That's too bad, because from where I sit it was a blatant attempt to degrade another poster and it pissed me off.

[RBA]

That's too bad, because from where I sit it was a blatant attempt to degrade another poster and it pissed me off.

Why? Because he asked a question of another poster? I don't see the very obvious signs of degrading, you all seem to be seeing.

[Red Leader]

That's too bad, because from where I sit it was a blatant attempt to degrade another poster and it pissed me off.


The best way to answer this post is as follows.

:thumbup: :beerme: :clap:

[Falls City Beer]

That's what happens when a person gets delusional and considers 95% of this board to be a clique. Compounding the problem is that said person now does very little but take potshots at people in each and every post these days. As far as I'm able to determine, this clique involves everyone who's ever posted a statistic, ever used chat and ever posted on one of the "last person" threads. I've only done one of those things and that's gained me entrance in this exclusive group, which encompasses almost everyone on the board.

Frankly, if it takes a Unabomber list to get down the names of all the people you actively dislike on this board, then it's probably time to find a new sandbox. IMO, that person reached that point a long time ago. :laugh: :laugh:

I'm poopin' my pants that's so funny. I'd give you rep, but I gotta love up a bunch of other people first. :laugh: :laugh:

Smilies are dumb, but I really am laughing.

[RBA]

The best way to answer this post is as follows.

:thumbup: :beerme: :clap:

I'm sorry, but I don't see it. The only thing I see is a balant attempt to marginlized (if that's the term?) other posters who have different opinions or concerns on whats going on here.

Thank you.

[pedro]

Why? Because he asked a question of another poster? I don't see the very obvious signs of degrading, you all seem to be seeing.

Stop acting like you don't understand leading questions with an undercurrent of hostility when you see them. I know you do.

[zombie-a-go-go]

Regardless of who feels how about what was done, it was done, and further conversation on the matter is not going to change it.

So I say this as politely as I can; let's stuff the talk about other posters right here before more people start getting pissed off. It's done and over.

Okay? Thanks.