New rep changes.

[shizzle]

http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=474672
Good or bad?
I think its better for the rep points but not that you have to spread 50 before the same person again.

[Marcinator]

Yeah, i think the 50 person spread limit is crap, 30 was bad enough

[shizzle]

I think 50 is too much.

[Ailo Gaup]

nothing really has changed

[shizzle]

nothing really has changed
It has a little.

[GommeInc]

Meh, 50 is a bit too much. The council wanted it to remain at 30, which is a reasonable number and would hopefully mean less pointless reps...

[Mr.Sam]

50 is tool high.. just means people will pointless rep more in order to rep someone.

[le harry]

Wow, pointless change.

[Charlie]

30 people was too much but 50 is just twice as worse.

[Ailo Gaup]

Wow, pointless change.
exactly.
and agree to sams post

[jesus]

Hahaha, tremendous. At least it's gone up to 10 people per day now. :)

[Ailo Gaup]

five more than normal..

[Immenseman]

Yeah, glad the council proposed the idea of 10 people per day and up a power for every year instead of two. I found 5 a day too little sometimes because for a forum of this size you see more than 5 posts which genuinely deserve + or - reputation. Changed for the better in my honest opinion.

[Ailo Gaup]

i wish they'd make it 200 per again

[shizzle]

50 is tool high.. just means people will pointless rep more in order to rep someone.
Yes, its too much and they will give out pointless rep.

[Ashley]

Everything is okay apart from the fact that it's now 50 people before you can rep the same person again. If anything I think it should be atleast 10.

[Ailo Gaup]

You'll be getting more comments on there rep/being deleted

[shizzle]

Everything is okay apart from the fact that it's now 50 people before you can rep the same person again. If anything I think it should be atleast 10.
Yeah its too much like most people think.

[Ailo Gaup]

i say five

[shizzle]

i say five
Five what?

[Nick.]

50's crazy.

[shizzle]

50's crazy.
You won't get round to them baring in mind 10 per day.

[Firehorse]

It would be better if they put it back to the way it was before all these stupid changes were implimented. 10 a day, 20 before each person, 1 a year is still stupid because of the amount of rep and years you have to be on the forum. Most people stay max 2 years and thats it. Thats because they're fed up of things like these.

[jesus]

There's no way 50 other people will deserve reputation before the same person deserves it again. But oh well.

[Ailo Gaup]

It's possible

[Firehorse]

It's possible

So you mean you'd go round giving pointless rep so you could rep the same person again?


There's no way 50 other people will deserve reputation before the same person deserves it again. But oh well.

That's exactly the reason why I get so many pointless -reps. People don't even think twice before -repping you.

[Niall!]

Just put it back to the way it used to be :rolleyes:

[shizzle]

There's no way 50 other people will deserve reputation before the same person deserves it again. But oh well.
Yeah, thats what I'm saying, weird updates:rolleyes:

[Xeros]

Bad change imo.
30 was bad enough and 50 is just worser

The yearly rep power, well theres nothing new there and I hardly rep 5 people a day let alone 10 :rolleyes:

[Ailo Gaup]

If they deserved it, graphics etc.

[jackass]

3. You now have to spread rep to 50 people instead of 30 people to rep the same person again.

What!? 30 was hard enough. I doubt I have even repped 50 people!

And I thought there were going to be changes to how many posts you need? :(

[Ailo Gaup]

2,500 is it, right?

[Plank]

People will just start pointlessly giving rep to people 10 times a day for five days until they can rep someone again.

[Ailo Gaup]

Doubt it imo.

[jackass]

I prefered it before! These changes are awful!

Should be...

1000 posts = 1 rep power
1 year = 1 rep power
500 rep = 1 rep power
10 people to rep before you can rep again
10 reps per daySeriously... re-think this. :rolleyes:

[FlyingJesus]

30 reps to spread at 5 per day = 6 days to spread fully
50 reps to spread at 10 per day = 5 days to spread fully

It actually makes it easier to get to the same person again in that sense, just means you have to pointlessly +rep a lot of people first.

[7]

Everything is okay apart from the fact that it's now 50 people before you can rep the same person again. If anything I think it should be atleast 10.

exactly, 10 is a far more suitable number

[Immenseman]

30 reps to spread at 5 per day = 6 days to spread fully
50 reps to spread at 10 per day = 5 days to spread fully

It actually makes it easier to get to the same person again in that sense, just means you have to pointlessly +rep a lot of people first.

I was just about to say that. You don't really have to pointlessy rep a lot of people first though because if you browse the forum a bit then there will certainly be 10 posts made by different users who deserve rep.

[Firehorse]

I think it will just cause havock in the pointless rep thread so it will be put right eventually but just could take a very long time.

[Dan2nd]

I like all the changes except the 50 people one

[shizzle]

I like all the changes except the 50 people one
Everyone likes it apart from the 50.

[@xP]

Pointless tbh.

[mat64]

It's both a step forward and a step backwards really, although some of those changes are good 50 is a rather a large amount. I don't think I even rep that many people in one year!

[Blue]

It's both a step forward and a step backwards really, although some of those changes are good 50 is a rather a large amount. I don't think I even rep that many people in one year!

2 steps forward, one step back. Perhaps instead of having to rep people before repping the same person again, we have some sort of time limit of a couple of days before we can rep again.
This way we cut down on the amount of random +/-rep we have to give out, but we're still able to rep someone again

[JoeyK.]

It's a bit of an improvement imo.

[@xP]

It was better how it was before all these changes. They should just make minor changed instead of these ridiculous ones that were brought in that changed the reputation system altogether.

Its better though, better than before. But wasn't the main reason for the changes to cut down on the amount of pointless reputation that is being handed out?

Doesn't this change just encourage it?

[Recursion]

Finally things are looking up for HabboxForum, wahey!

[Titch]

wow, 50 bit high, like other changes.

[jackass]

Finally things are looking up for HabboxForum, w
ahey!

Looking up, how?

Its even worse than it was. :rolleyes:

[John!]

30 people was too much but 50 is just twice as worse.

One and two thirds times as worse*

50 is way too much though.

I'm quite happy with the other changes.

Maybe rather than a certain amount of repping other people before you can rep the same person again, they should change it to time.

[jrh2002]

I like the changes :)

I would prefer to rep 20 people before i could rep them again and the reason for that is I feel i am being forced to rep people i would not normally do so that I can rep the ones who I think deserve it. No big deal though and will probably get changed in time.

[Catzsy]

30 reps to spread at 5 per day = 6 days to spread fully
50 reps to spread at 10 per day = 5 days to spread fully

It actually makes it easier to get to the same person again in that sense, just means you have to pointlessly +rep a lot of people first.

Well I agree with everything except that you have to do pointless rep.
10 reps a day is a really good improvement and if you do tend to rep good posts a lot then it only takes a few days to do so again if you wish. I personally found 5 a day pretty restrictive.

Also giving 1 rep power for every year instead of every 2 years is also very good.

I understand why the rep was changed in the first place and feel this is a very good compromise and am very pleased to see it introduced. :)

[MissAlice]

Makes very little difference to me, I don't pointless rep whatsoever, and for me to +rep 5 posts in one day would be making history :P so 10 makes no difference whatsoever. If only every one used +rep for it's intended purpose, for posts that have helped you, posts that you have found really interesting or those that have taught you something, then perhaps the goal posts wouldn't of been moved in the first place.

[Judge Judy]

The momentum was getting higher for the first two changes then when I saw you have to spread 50 times before repping the same person kinda wrecked it.

But I can say you have listened to us.. kind of.

[GommeInc]

I'll add this to the next council report. 50 is far too high and the majority want less, possibly 30? They can't deny it, 100+ people vs. 10 people who are no more smarter than the rest of us :rolleyes:

[cocaine]

pmsl you'd have to pointless rep A LOT of people to spread again..

[Jordy]

There's no way 50 other people will deserve reputation before the same person deserves it again. But oh well.Spot on! I don't rep many people unless they make exceptionally good threads or points, and sadly there's not many users (Certainly not 50!) that make decent threads, posts or points in an argument so it looks like once I rep someone I could never rep them again for years. 30 was a little over the top, I would of been satisfied and shut up on 20.

Rep power used to be as easy to get in all ways, like you went to the same length to be around for a year as you did to make 2500 decent posts. However it's now rather easy to be registered for a year and still using the forum compared to than it is to make 5000 posts. I think it takes about 2 years to make 5000 decent posts but that's just my opinion if that makes sense. I really think the 5000 posts is too much.

[Smiddy]

Biohazard's proposal is quite ludacris, rep 10 people a day, with 10 people before you rep the same person? Works out as 10 reps per 11 days technically!

I have to admit, I did not expect the number to raised to 50 - I'm glad to see my other proposals were placed :D:P Minor change but a change nonetheless ;)

[Ailo Gaup]

I voted don't care

[today]

I've voted Dont care as im not one to use the reputation system alot.

[Ailo Gaup]

Same. disabled it.

[GhostFace-]

50 0.0
only bad thing.

[Ailo Gaup]

o.0 true.

[O]

It's stupid ;/. 50 is WAY too many, 30 i thought is too much, maybe 15 or 10 would be ok, but 50, thats going to far, why make it more, theres no point, just to make less people get rep, when in the past, people who joined during the times when it was less have more rep than newer people?

[shizzle]

Same. disabled it.
Yours is not disabled :) it would look like mine.
Black rep pls; http://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gif

[today]

Yours is not disabled :) it would look like mine.
Black rep pls; http://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gifhttp://www.habboxforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_off.gif
It doesnt matter really, as he's cautioned so it is disabled in some respect.

[Ostinato]

Meh, 50 is a bit too much. The council wanted it to remain at 30, which is a reasonable number and would hopefully mean less pointless reps...

Why do we have a council they don't listen to then? :S

[The Professor]

I'm not fussed about rep any more, since it was effectively paused I've just ignored it.

[---MAD---]

Why do we have a council they don't listen to then? :S
Please re-read the forum announcement thread on rep changes - slowly from top to bottom ;).

[shizzle]

It doesnt matter really, as he's cautioned so it is disabled in some respect.
Yeah, he just joined and cautioned already.

[Decode]

So, i have made 2300 posts on the forum, and someone who signed up 4 years before me and made 0 posts has a higher rep power? Looks like the new system works well...

[Smiddy]

So, i have made 2300 posts on the forum, and someone who signed up 4 years before me and made 0 posts has a higher rep power? Looks like the new system works well...
No, because you have to make a certain number of posts before you can rep anyway. :P

[FlyingJesus]

As much as 50 sounds, the fact that you can now rep more people per day means that more rep is going to happen, which means that the rep system might become somewhat more alive than it's been since the dramatic change a while back. Whilst it's not quite what everyone was wanting, it's definitely an improvement.

[shizzle]

As much as 50 sounds, the fact that you can now rep more people per day means that more rep is going to happen, which means that the rep system might become somewhat more alive than it's been since the dramatic change a while back. Whilst it's not quite what everyone was wanting, it's definitely an improvement.
I'm getting what you say, people will rep more to get the the person to rep them again.

[The Professor]

As much as 50 sounds, the fact that you can now rep more people per day means that more rep is going to happen, which means that the rep system might become somewhat more alive than it's been since the dramatic change a while back. Whilst it's not quite what everyone was wanting, it's definitely an improvement.

I fear that is a bit optimistic, but I hope to be proved wrong :)

[Catzsy]

I fear that is a bit optimistic, but I hope to be proved wrong :)

Well I am happily repping again and not running out as I have before the change :)

[bo$$]

I agree and disagree with the change.

I agree with the two aspects that were changed as it's what a lot of people really wanted but the obvious thing that I don't really agree about is the 50 rule. People were complaining about 30 so how does making it 50 satisfy anyone?

I mainly agree w/ above. The only thing that I've ever really even complained about involving the rep was the 5 people a day.

[jrh2002]

As much as 50 sounds, the fact that you can now rep more people per day means that more rep is going to happen, which means that the rep system might become somewhat more alive than it's been since the dramatic change a while back. Whilst it's not quite what everyone was wanting, it's definitely an improvement.

Im afraid out of all the hxf users i would struggle to find 50 people who make posts that deserve rep. I find now that i am repping posts that i would never usually rep just so i can get back around to the posts that actually deserve rep but must have repped them not long back. I feel I am now being forced to make pointless rep.

[shizzle]

Im afraid out of all the hxf users i would struggle to find 50 people who make posts that deserve rep. I find now that i am repping posts that i would never usually rep just so i can get back around to the posts that actually deserve rep but must have repped them not long back. I feel I am now being forced to make pointless rep.
Then people will rep pointless to spread.

[jrh2002]

Then people will rep pointless to spread.

Just as I find myself doing on some occasions :( I do make sure I give a good comment on a half decent post though so it cant be proved to be pointless but I dont like the fact I am repping a post that in my opinion does not deserve rep.

[Ostinato]

Please re-read the forum announcement thread on rep changes - slowly from top to bottom ;).

No thanks, I can only handle so much dribble from one person before moving on. :)

[kerplunkwozere]

they are pretty poor changes in all honesty.

[Samishlol]

50 is abit tohigh

[shizzle]

50 is abit tohigh
Yeah it is.

[Blinger1]

Yeah it is.

tbh, why have the rep system at all? it just causes fights.

[FlyingJesus]

Im afraid out of all the hxf users i would struggle to find 50 people who make posts that deserve rep. I find now that i am repping posts that i would never usually rep just so i can get back around to the posts that actually deserve rep but must have repped them not long back. I feel I am now being forced to make pointless rep.

True, I agree that it will increase the amount of pointless +rep, but I don't see pointless rep as a problem personally. I've always thought of the rep system as being something of a user moderation tool in that you can show your approval or disapproval of not only certain posts but certain types of post, but also it's a social tool wherein people can show which persons they approve of as well as just posts.
This was always condemned before (ie: when everyone had higher reps and we made our own little hierarchies within friend groups) but - and I don't know whether this is linked or coincidental - the forum did seem a much more fun and friendly place at that time. I'm not talking years ago in the sense of "bring back the good old days" or anything; this was only a matter of months ago, and it worked because people like to believe that they can be a part of something and have power in it, whether they really do or not.

Seem to have gone off on a tangent there but it is still connected to pointless rep, honest :P I mean that +rep is almost never pointless even if the rep comment is rubbish or the post is unrewarding of rep, because it all serves to keep the rep system going and is usually a reflection of liking the person rather than the post itself, and of course we do respect our friends so it can be justified as such.

Having said all that, we've been assured that reputation is not something that management is willing to look into further at the moment, which is a shame I guess but maybe necessary if more important topics come up.

[shizzle]

tbh, why have the rep system at all? it just causes fights.
True so see whos got the "high rep"

[shizzle]

wrong thread remove.

[Sulai]

50 before you can rep same person again. maybe thats abit steep.

[drama]

are there even 50 active members who's posts deserve +rep?

[shizzle]

are there even 50 active members who's posts deserve +rep?
Nope, not much I guess.
60% of which posts alts/graphics.