Some sections shouldn't add to post count...

[Lingus]

A reputation system, however, isn't necessarily a bad thing, but shouldn't be determined by post count. Having people give you rep for well though-out posts and de-repping you for bad posts gives people an idea of what kind of member you are. As of now, the rep system basically determines a person's rep by whether or not they play Stick Mafia or Fight Game.

This is what I have said since I found out the rep system uses post counts. In fact, from Pwnage's first post, I think I disagree with one of his reasons for not having certain sections increase post count. He listed rep as one of the reasons. I don't think ANY posts should increase rep. Not just forum game posts. I personally don't care about post count, so I don't care if any given section is included or discluded. What I would like to see is rep based on rep.

[JoEL]

I'd just like to bump this and post my opinion.

First of all, I think the reputation system needs some reworking. I mean, the reputation system we have now is as worthless as our post count, honestly...why the heck do we get reputation for posting? and why is it that when you disagree with someone they lose -1 rep, they could just as easily post again. They should lose 1 Reputation Power (atleast I'm pretty sure it doesn't do that already).

Second of all, yes I agree that some sections shouldn't add to post count, especially forum games.

[Torch]

I'd just like to bump this and post my opinion.

First of all, I think the reputation system needs some reworking. I mean, the reputation system we have now is as worthless as our post count, honestly...why the heck do we get reputation for posting? and why is it that when you disagree with someone they lose -1 rep, they could just as easily post again. They should lose 1 Reputation Power (atleast I'm pretty sure it doesn't do that already).

Second of all, yes I agree that some sections shouldn't add to post count, especially forum games.

When you agree or disagree with a person's post, they gain or lose rep equal to your reputation power. I have 4 reputation power, therefor, if I agreed with your post, you would gain 4 rep.

[JoEL]

Ohh ok, thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Red October]

Rep should be based on the current system, but the displayed Rep is determined by (Rep/Total Posts).

Example, I have 146posts and 162rep the result would be a displayed rep of 1.110. Therefore any number under 1.0 can be considered to be "looked down upon".

[ARTgames]

Well seeing as karma is also linked to post count...I think we should eliminate gaining post count from sections such as "Forum Games"......

Everyone can thank Meiun for our new and flawless karma system!

http://www.stick-online.com/boards/index.php?topic=312.msg5337#msg5337

And look ware we are now. Wasting time on fixing a "flawless karma system".

I thought forums were about discussion and reading. Not a popularity contest and a personality critique playground. I rather Meiun work on stick online 3 than to work on this system.  

But just for the sake of this topic i do "think we should eliminate gaining post count from sections such as Forum Games". Because i have the feeling that is what you made this topic for.

[Mr Pwnage]

Well seeing as karma is also linked to post count...I think we should eliminate gaining post count from sections such as "Forum Games"......

Everyone can thank Meiun for our new and flawless karma system!

http://www.stick-online.com/boards/index.php?topic=312.msg5337#msg5337

And look ware we are now. Wasting time on fixing a "flawless karma system".

I thought forums were about discussion and reading. Not a popularity contest and a personality critique playground. I rather Meiun work on stick online 3 than to work on this system.  

But just for the sake of this topic i do "think we should eliminate gaining post count from sections such as Forum Games". Because i have the feeling that is what you made this topic for.

Eh....I don't understand what point your trying to get across here? Can you be more clear?

[ARTgames]

I need to start putting "the point is" back into my post. Any way tell me what you think i said.

[Chaos]

The reputation system is intended as a way to measure one's 'reputation' on the forum.  Ideally, desirable members would have a high reputation, while undesirable members do not.  Whether you like the system or not, we HAVE the system, and that is what the system is FOR.

Thusly, the system should work AS intended, otherwise there is no point to the system at all.  Gaining reputation for making posts is arguably logical, as a desirable member is one who also provides discussion and content.  However, no discussion (the PURPOSE of a forum) is being added from the forum games, it is simply an additional feature.  Not to mention the MASSIVE amount of posts that stems from the inherent interactivity of the section.

Therefore, for the system to work as it was intended, the forum games should logically be excluded.

Is there ANYONE that disputes this?

[ARTgames]

I believe your reputation can be something different from what your karma depicts.

To start some one's reputation is an opinion. I can think some one has a good reputation and some one else can think its bad. Ill give you an example. Lets say your country is in a war and you send out your best general because he the one who killed the most enemies. Well to your country his reputation is good but to your enemies its bad.

Also reputation here is only reputation given to you by the people who invested the time in the system its self. I mean i could go around and give out rep to every post but that's not the point of this forum. Just look at Meiun's karma. I think a lot of us would agree its low to what his reputation really is to this community.

And lastly. I really think reputation cant be simplified to a number and green bars. I mean some one could have a "-5". well what does that mean? Is it because what he says is bad things that a lot of people don't agree with? Or did he post the wrong thing once by accident? Or is that really old and people in the community now feel differently about him and they never got around to raising it? was it a small glitch in the system?

If i were making the system it would be simple. You have a button under your post some ware that says "reputation". Some one else click on it and they write a message about what they think about you. It logs it with that user name/ the post/ date. And this log is open to everyone. So when your reading some one reputation you know who are the people who gives this reputation and when and ware it was giving. I think from that you can pull an ok reputation about the person. But still even this this fall victim to showing only what people think that took the time and write it.

We really don't need a system for this to start with. What wrong with the old way of keeping reputation? Ware you read what they say and what other people say about them. This forum did that from the start. If it ant broke, don't fix it.

The point is, just scrap the darn thing. A wast of time and bandwidth. Your going to mess with it till the end of time but it will never reflect some one's reputation with any amount of accuracy IMO.

Please read all of my post. Most of the time when i get a retort i can respond to it by quoting something in the post they are retorting (is that a word? : P) to.

[Torch]

I agree with ART. The HangOut's reputation system seems to work the best. My vote goes towards bringing that here.

If such a change is impossible or too much work, at least exclude the Forum Games from post/karma count.

[Lucifer]

And lastly. I really think reputation cant be simplified to a number and green bars. I mean some one could have a "-5". well what does that mean? Is it because what he says is bad things that a lot of people don't agree with? Or did he post the wrong thing once by accident? Or is that really old and people in the community now feel differently about him and they never got around to raising it? was it a small glitch in the system?

I can tell exactly what I think someones reputation should be by reading one or two of their posts. But as you said, this is purely opinion. The only thing a reputation system does is tell you that some people don't like this person, or don't agree with them, or visa versa. But all that really does is allow judgments to be made about people before you even read their posts and get to know them. Why should someone be globally declared to have a bad reputation, because a few people don't like him? I think a system like this does more bad than good, and the same system can be applied easily without it.

Anyways, the point is, there is no point. Why change it back to a system that's just as broken as the one we have right now. Just reset everyones reputation, change the forum game section to not add to post count or reputation, give me 2000$, and everyone can be nice and happy.

[Lingus]

I don't think anyone wants it to be reset back to the old Karma system. I think the only real change that should be done is to remove post count from affecting reputation. Alternatively, as suggested, remove certain sections from adding post count.

[NotoriousM4^]

I don't think anyone wants it to be reset back to the old Karma system. I think the only real change that should be done is to remove post count from affecting reputation. Alternatively, as suggested, remove certain sections from adding post count.

OR... We could all just get used to the one we have now.

[Torch]

I don't think anyone wants it to be reset back to the old Karma system. I think the only real change that should be done is to remove post count from affecting reputation. Alternatively, as suggested, remove certain sections from adding post count.

You're ignoring the suggestion about switching to the HangOut's karma system.