Any suggestions on this type of system?

[QuietAcre]

I posted this over at the "other site, less poster friendly" site, and thought that maybe I could get some input over here on this. I know, I know, mods, this isn't the "other site", but I didn't know how to throw this out here while omitting details relevant to my "system", and still manage to make sense. Maybe someone here has created such a system on their own site and would have some pointers of how to go about implementing such a system? Without further ado:

----------------
My idea for "reputation points"
I was just thinking about this, and thought that I would share. Instead of assigning both positive and negative reputation points, why not just assign negative points? The way I could envision such a system working is that everyone starts out as a Hall Of Famer (I got this idea from the "Dangerous Minds" movie), and that as you make posts that others disagree with, it would take 3 disagreements on a specific post before your "total" is knocked down by a point. After 3 people have disagreed with you on a specific post, the "disagreement count" for that post is reset to zero. Each week your post count will rise by 1 point. For every 7-consecutive days you refrain from posting, your post count will rise another point. Kind of like cutting back an ugly bush before it starts to grow flowers. This might be akin to taking a sabbatical to clear your head. I think this would enable everyone to feel as if they belong in the community, and only those who consistently tick others off, would find themselves without a posting job for awhle. Another advantage that I see is that it would prevent certain posters from fraternizing and helping to keep their reputation points high. I think we can all agree that it's subjective as to what is a "good post" and what is a "bad post". Why not make it easier and more enjoyable for everyone by letting all posts have equality, except for the obviously bad ones? Here's an example:

Forum Groups:
A - Miscellaneous
1 - Hall Of Fame
2 - Non-Baseball Chatter

B - Baseball
1 - Cincinnati Reds Talk
2 - Reds Live!
x - Fantasy Island

C - Archives (only readable)
x - The Archives

Ranks: (Can Post In)
100-90 Hall Of Famer (A+B)
89-80 All-Star (A2+B)
79-70 Solid Position Player (B)
69-60 Solid Utility Player (B2+Bx)
59-50 Pine Rider (Bx)
49-40 Dead Contract (nothing)

starting points: 100
01/01/05 bad post: 95 (15 disagreements), A+B
01/02/05 bad post: 91 (12 disagreements), A+B
01/03/05 bad post: 86 (15 disagreements), A2+B
01/04/05 bad post: 85 (3 disagreements), A2+B
01/05/05 bad post: 79 (18 disagreements), B
01/08/05 one week has passed: 80, A2+B
01/12/05 rested 7 consecutive days: 81, A2+B
--------------------------

For those that visit the other site (why I waste my time there, I do not know) they have a "reputation points" system in place. It sucks, in my opinion, and serves no good. It results in a number of "elite posters" voting for each other, and for cliques to form where certain posters are given negative reputation points. I think such a system is only designed to cut down on bandwidth by getting rid of posters, though they will never admit to that. Anyone that's been there lately knows that their site is suffering from bandwidth issues and that they want to charge "subscribers" over double what they're paying now. I guess you can only have fun running a community for so long, before you want to make money off it. Anyway, their system SHOULD be in place to knock out posters that care nothing about the rest of the community (or the Reds), not promote only posters that are "writers" or part of the "good ol' boy network". I think my system would accomplish these things, and give posters a chance to "make a comeback" when they get nailed for posting off the cuff. What do you guys think?

[Tedc]

I don't know.

The ONLY reason I like Reputation points is that it gives the poster and opportunity to see that someone likes a particular post and it promotes positive posts.

I just feel that the other way focuses on negative posts and CAN be rather disruptive in some areas.

Everything is open for discussion as we will do what the majority want.

As far as what the other board may or may not be doing, I could care less. Many boards admins run thier boards into the ground for various reasons. Some complain about bandwidth or operating cost. You will notice that those boards are the ones struggling to hold its posters.

A sucessful board is built around its posters needs and caters to them while offering the best options available. The posters are what makes a board rock (without them what do you have?) and it is the admins who can kill it. The poster is the most important ingredient to the formula and as soon as we forget that, our focus is lost.

It is my goal to keep improving this board reguardless of what every other board does. Let them continue to try to stay up with the Missions.

[ghettochild]

is there anyway we could see how much rep points we have?

[ATLien]

I think the whole system is stupid.

Whenever I see a good post & want to rep someone it says I have to spread my reputation around. But I can't because everyone else is to stupid to deserve my reputation.

[RockSports17]

The idea is a bad one. From what I'm getting, that if someone posts a "bad post" that others disagree with then you give that poster negative points. This is a forum made up of posters, we come here to talk. The reputation point system is fine the way it is.

[Element]

is there anyway we could see how much rep points we have?

Yes. Go to the User Control Panel page, and it will have a list of points you have given and received.

[QuietAcre]

is there anyway we could see how much rep points we have?

Over on redszone.com you can see your reputation points by either looking at your posts in a thread (the rep count will be with your username) or by looking in your profile (User CP). At redszone, they have it so that those who assign you a negative or positive point can leave a message as to why they are doing it.

I don't agree with this at all. That just leads to fights in the community, and results in posters taking turns assigning negative points to each other. MY plan would be such that everyone starts out with 100 points, or an A+ if you will. Of course I wouldn't use a grading system to rank posters. That's a bit cheesy. Just like other forums, posters would have titles bestowed upon the based on their reputation points.

In my system, you wouldn't be able to view your reputation points, because I don't think it's really that important. You're either part of a community, or you are not. In my system, the focus is on being part of a community, not a clique. Hence the number of disagreements it would take in order for others' displeasure with your posts to show up in your "community fit".

Yeap, in my system each poster would have a "community fit". Most posters wouldn't be focusing on assigning negative points, simply because they know it would take a bunch of other posters to do the same. The posters "community fit" will represent a roller coaster, with the poster typically resting at one extreme or the other (top if he generally doesn't tick other posters or moderators off, bottom if the poster "just doesn't fit").


Something else I would like to try is to give each poster a "biorhythm". It would also graphically represent a roller coaster,That's the beauty of it. Depending on how the poster's favorite team is doing (obviously, in other types of forums, the theme might be something other than sports), for example, and how the user feels in general, his or her biorhythm would reflect this. How you would go about creating something like that, I don't know.

[RockSports17]

On a forum, you are going to have disagreements. Why give negative points out a poster that made a post that people disagree with. It's pointless.

[QuietAcre]

I think the whole system is stupid.

Whenever I see a good post & want to rep someone it says I have to spread my reputation around. But I can't because everyone else is to stupid to deserve my reputation.

I hear what you're saying, but keep in mind that redszone.com wants to return to its glory days of a select few having their own little "community". They're having serious bandwidth issues, so it all adds up for me. Their system causes users to focus more on how good or bad a post is (with the clique over there spreading points amongst itselves), while my system would help to hush posters that are just trolling or not even an "ok" fit in with the rest of the community. What I would like to add to my first post in this thread is that the negative points would only apply to THAT thread. This way, cliquers can't abuse the system by just assigning negative points to a poster in every thread with the purpose of causing the poster to lose points. It would take more than a clique to cause any real damage to a poster. ANOTHER thing that I think would make a great addition to the system is something that looks at whether a poster is casting a significant portion of his posts toward a specific poster, and whether there is a group of posters ganging up on a poster. The system could either start bouncing those negative votes back on the caster, or zip the lips of the vote caster for a certain period of time.

I appreciate all of your input, this is something that I'm finding very interesting.

[QuietAcre]

On a forum, you are going to have disagreements. Why give negative points out a poster that made a post that people disagree with. It's pointless.

Right now the reasons I can think of are:

bad - limit traffic (what redszone.com is doing)

bad - form cliques

good -giving trouble-makers chance after chance until they have to take a break because their reputation points (or "biorhythm") have dropped to the point that they have severe posting restrictions placed on them.

good - puts everyone on the same level, and as long as posters keep it civil, the system promotes keeping every poster at the top.

[RockSports17]

I don't think the system will work, it would be a waste of time to put it in place. It doesn't sound too good, and the system right now just should stay in place.

[QuietAcre]

I am hoping that everyone in this thread realizes that I'm actually ALL for not having ANY KIND of post tracking/restricting system. Personally, I think post counts don't mean a whole to anyone but the poster who owns the posts. They're just a form of ego-stroking. Nevertheless, I don't thin the system I have mentioned belongs here, but I do think it's much better than the one in place at redszone.com ... I'm all for promoting communities, not cliques.

[Tedc]

I'm all for promoting communities, not cliques.

Yes, you are. You have repeated another board 5 times so far in this thread. I would appreciate if you would back away from posting other boards here.

[QuietAcre]

Yes, you are. You have repeated another board 5 times so far in this thread. I would appreciate if you would back away from posting other boards here.

A little snappy, are we? I understand that you don't want any competition in the way of forums, but my intent was NEVER to promote redszone. Does that make sense to you? That's petty that you would actually think it important to count the number of times someone has said a certain word(s) in a thread. Jeez.

[Tedc]

Six times.

It is actually part of my job description to make sure the TOS that every poster here agreed to is followed.