Fake repuation system

[Kriminal99]

In short:

The system attributes weight of rep contributions based on post count, which is fallacious and wrong.

The system allows mods and admins to affect rep, which is fallacious and wrong.

A lot of interesting people left this forum for these and similar reasons, leaving mostly people who aren't very creative thinkers and suck up alot...

[sanctus]

As far as I know only admins can change their rep points (and I have not done it by the way).
You can see on MySettings who gave you rep for what, because also non-mods, but people (or REAL USERS as you call them ;-)) who have a high post count can give high rep-changes. And eventually, all admins can give only 50 pts rep, independent of their post count (for mods I do not remember); this is so because admins can give rep to the same person as many times as they want (i.e. do not need to spread it out)..

But anyway, mods and non-mods where is the difference? In my view you are making one up, they are just normal members who also make mistakes (ok, agreed they have more power, but when this power is abused in your view, just report the posts-reported post are always read by more than just a few staff-members, so I think that would be more efficient for you).

[GAHD]

I only see 43 45 rep comments for you, so I don't think many people have even noticed your posts. less than 10% of your posts sparked rep! And of those that did spark rep, the general trend isn't a completely positive one

Perhaps you should attempt to follow our site rules (link at the top of most pages) particularly behavior item #1 "In general, back up your claims by using links or references." As I think your strong opinions without any form of backup other than "I SAY SO!!" are what instigated the negative opinions.

All our mods got their rep 'organically', as you put it. I'm the only user I know of who has had their rep changed manually, and that was to make it red I actually like getting reds, they help me learn more than the "i agree" greens.

If you really can't take criticism you can disable the rep system in your settings...

edit: to elaborate on what sanctus explains: moderators retain their "normal user" rep privileges and power. With the amount of rep they have that can be some pretty serious clout. The power of a user to change reputation of another user is based on how much rep they have, as well as post number and time as a member.

Without my administrator status I would have a pretty ridiculous Rep-power myself, something around 5000 points of change per use I think. But as an administrator, all that is (generally) reduced to a tiny 50. Where's the justice eh?

[Kriminal99]

Reputation points aren't something that are going to be frequently used naturally. When someone uses it, it's because you moved them with a particuarly well worded argument. On my rep list, I have

What you are referring to is a short list (as this is the best that can be hoped for) of regular user reputation additions followed by loss of reputation given by staff members.

Why do you suppose there is such a difference between how the two groups perceive my posts?

[Kriminal99]

Originally Posted by sanctus

this is so because admins can give rep to the same person as many times as they want (i.e. do not need to spread it out)...

(ok, agreed they have more power, but when this power is abused in your view...

The system itself is set up as an abuse of power. Moderators are going to spend more time posting on the forum, for obvious reasons. Why does that entail being a better judge of character? A system which gives more rep power on post count is an artifical rep system. Furthermore, you say admins can continually give rep points. Again you are assigning undue weight to their opinion, and relatively limiting the ability for other users to influence reputation.

Moderators shouldn't have the ability to influence "reputation" at all to counter act the "tribal morality" effect. This means they are just going to rep each other all the time and derep anyone who disagrees with them just because they see each other more and have an affinity for each other.

IMO this is proven when you have members that are +repped by normal users and then derepped by mods to the point of negative reputation. Why else would there be a difference between how their posts are percieved by the two groups?

GAHD : I watched freeztar for example go from having a blank rep slate to having a full rep bar in a very short period during which she was promoted to mod. Whether thats because she was + repped over and over by other mods upon receiving the status or just because it was outright edited doesn't really matter.

If you weren't an administrator you wouldn't be posting on this board over and over again would you?

I still don't understand how "references" are going to be more convincing to other normal users, and I haven't seen this to be the case either. If you are trying to evaluate arguments solely based on who is making them, all people are woefully unqualified for the task since they lack omniscience. That being the case, it matters more if what the person says makes sense. If you have an argument that makes sense, why do you need a reference?

The sole exception is experimental data, but simple facts are rarely a point of disagreement in a debate. Usually people are disagreeing on how to interpret the facts.

[InfiniteNow]

For that post above, I've decided to provide you with an example of just how "organic" the rep system truly is. You act as if mods are the only ones who influence a members rep, which is hardly the case.

[GAHD]

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

The system itself is set up as an abuse of power. Moderators are going to spend more time posting on the forum, for obvious reasons...If you weren't an administrator you wouldn't be posting on this board over and over again would you?

You seem to think the staff are active because they are staff. In actually, staff were chosen partly on activity, and partly based on their adherence to the forum policies (EG they often cited sources in arguments) in their time as 'regular users". Often the forums they moderate are ones where they have personal insight(EG Alexander, our primary computer science mod).

I myself have been a member of this board for quite a few years (you remember freethinker, right? I used to argue with him soooo much....)

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

Why does that entail being a better judge of character?

We try to come to any 'large decisions" as a group. Weather you think this "mob mentality" is a good or bad thing is up to you. Personally I recognize it as a method to prevent 'one hothead' from abusing their power. It is a system to balance the powers we have, a 'control group' if you will. Do you have a detailed outline of a different structure you think is better? It's one thing to cry about something, it's quite another to provide a better alternative.

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

...relatively limiting the ability for other users to influence reputation.

This is to prevent the 'rep stacking' you mention above. Regular moderators are subject to the same rules of spreading as every other user. Only Administrators (who DO have the power to do 'whatever we want' anyways) are not subject to that rule.

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

Moderators shouldn't have the ability to influence "reputation" at all to counter act the "tribal morality" effect. This means they are just going to rep each other all the time and derep anyone who disagrees with them just because they see each other more and have an affinity for each other.

I reiterate:Moderators are subject to the same rules of spreading-around as every other user. This counter is directly implemented already, for everyone.

I will also note: Moderators receive notification of "reported posts". If any member finds a post questionable they can click that little red square, and the moderators will look at it. So they NOTICE things more because they are directed to them. A rep comment is akin to a 'slap on the wrist', everyone can't be perfect ALL the time. If however we notice a user already has negative rep, perhaps we click on your post count, and read back a few pages into your history...

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

IMO this is proven when you have members that are +repped by normal users and then derepped by mods to the point of negative reputation. Why else would there be a difference between how their posts are percieved by the two groups?

You're very liberal with your labels. I'll note that I have read though your entire rep history(farther back than you can see in all likelyhood) and it's pritty balanced in my opinion. If you wish to argue the point directly I can copy and paste it for you, usernames and comments to be omitted because the rep system isn't supposed to be totally transparent.

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

GAHD : I watched freeztar for example go from having a blank rep slate to having a full rep bar in a very short period during which she was promoted to mod. Whether thats because she was + repped over and over by other mods upon receiving the status or just because it was outright edited doesn't really matter.

ever think it was because a lot of users found their posts useful? You watch turtle's rep grow? that guy has CRAZY influence

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

I still don't understand how "references" are going to be more convincing...If you have an argument that makes sense, why do you need a reference?

Let me put it this way.

What "makes sence" is that the boy is a giant. It just makes sense!

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

The sole exception is experimental data, but simple facts are rarely a point of disagreement in a debate. Usually people are disagreeing on how to interpret the facts.

No, this is not good enough. Read the rules. You are expected to conduct youself a certain way here.

You are expected to stand on the shoulders of giants, not nip at their ankles.

[Buffy]

Well, I hate to say it but I'm going to have to agree with Krim on this one.

He's one of the most extraordinarily self-aware individuals that have ever graced this forum, as has been amply demonstrated by every one of his posts.

As such the only logical conclusion is that the negative reputation he has received is a combination of a rigged system and a few very powerful individuals who hate him because he is beautiful.

So I would ask everyone to go back and inspect his posts and give him the reputation he rightly deserves--even though I suppose you'd have to say that going by his posts would be an exercise in inductive reasoning, which as he rightly says is entirely without merit.

We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess,
Buffy

[CraigD]

Hypography’s reputation system is not fake! As you must know, Krim, having given + rep to several members in 2006 and 2007, any member, including moderators and administrators, may give + (approve) or – (disapprove) rep to another member via the “add to reputation” button above each post. Rep is thus an indication of the approval and disapproval of your fellow members, including moderators and administrators.

The system is simple, and intentionally biased in favor of + rep. When a member gives + rep, the recipient gains a number of rep points equal to the giver’s (rep points + # posts)/50. For – rep, the recipient lose rep points equal to the giver’s (rep points + # posts)/50. If the giver’s rep points fall below 0, he may give and receive + and – rep comments, but doing so has no affect on the recipient’s rep points.

Members, including moderators, are not allowed to give reputation to the same post twice, more than 10 times in one day, or to the same member until they have give reputation to 10 other members.

Members who are administrators are exempt from these limitations, and may give or take any amount of reputation they chose. Most, however, chose to use the system default of giving or taking 50 points of rep. Others, such as myself, chose to be subject to the same formulae and restrictions as non-administrator members.

Members, including administrators, can only see the reputation given to them – that is, reputation is private. Administrators can see all reputation history.

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

For one thing, I had over half a bar of organically earned reputation, only to log in one day and see that it had suddenly been deleted and replaced with red bars (no gradual loss or anything).

You’re correct, Krim that you had achieved a moderately high positive rep, reaching a maximum 1st Dec 2008. Since then, however, you have received more – rep than +, and as of 4th Apr, your rep has fallen below zero, as shown by the red boxes under your name in your posts. You rep decreased substantially, but didn’t fall into the red, 9th Mar, so I believe you perception of a sudden change from many green to some red boxes is inaccurate.

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

The only person I had been debating with at the time were moderators. In the next post, a suspect moderator referred to my "reputation" as being bad.

You are referring, I believe, to this post or mine, which was posted about a week after your rep fell into the red, and over a month after the last rep given to you by me.

I’ve not reviewed every member’s reputation history, so can’t state with complete confidence that abuses such as you describe have never occurred, but I have never exceeded the amount and frequency of rep that I would be able to give if not an administrator, and have have reviewed your rep history, Krim, and find only one example of an administrator exceeding the amount and frequency of rep that they would have been able to give if not an administrator. This occurred yesterday, 17 April, and actually resulted in an increase in your reputation, not a decrease!

If you’d like more details of you rep history and an explanation of how you got your current rep, please let me know, and I’ll give them to you via a PM. Also, please feel free to ask another administrator to confirm what I’ve stated in this post, or other information about your rep.

[freeztar]

I do not have much to add as the posts above have pretty much covered it all. Nonetheless, I feel personally obliged to address this next point.

Originally Posted by Kriminal99

I watched freeztar for example go from having a blank rep slate to having a full rep bar in a very short period during which she was promoted to mod. Whether thats because she was + repped over and over by other mods upon receiving the status or just because it was outright edited doesn't really matter.

First, I am a male.
Second, I EARNED my rep for a LONG time before I was invited to be a moderator.

That said, I understand some of your complaints with the rep system. It is something that we have discussed for a long time now. Rather than berating every aspect of it, as it applies to you, it might help to step back and look at the big picture of how it potentially helps this forum. It might seem unjust at times, and I acknowledge that it has its flaws, but it provides a great service to all members, if they choose to use it. As mentioned above, it is up to each individual member to provide material that is within the bounds of the site rules while (preferably) providing insight to other members. Moderators can not control this!
As stated, if you feel that the balance has been tipped, please contact an administrator.