"You must spread some reputation before giving to x again"

[Decode]

The limit needs to be lowered, it must be about spread to 50 people at the moment. I know that it helps stop pointless repping, but 50 is just too much. It should be more like 10-20.

[mangle]

I agree, 20 is a decent enough number imo.

[--ss--]

Tbh there aren't even close to 50 different members that deserve rep so having insanely high limits would do two things:
1) Make people give up on repping others.
2) Encourage people to pointless rep others just so they can spread and rep the person who deserves the rep again.

I personally have gone for option one as there are posts on here which deserve rep and are quite decent/good but then again I aint able to rep them seeing as I would probably have to spread for repping them several months ago.

Should definitely be lowered to the 10-20 mark.

[e5]

I voted 5. You should also be able to rep more people.

[Plank]

Tbh there aren't even close to 50 different members that deserve rep so having insanely high limits would do two things:
1) Make people give up on repping others.
2) Encourage people to pointless rep others just so they can spread and rep the person who deserves the rep again.

I personally have gone for option one as there are posts on here which deserve rep and are quite decent/good but then again I aint able to rep them seeing as I would probably have to spread for repping them several months ago.

Should definitely be lowered to the 10-20 mark.
agreed, really good points there.

[Immenseman]

I personally think 30 is more reasonable. If we changed it to 15 then we'd be back to the original problem of some members being intimidated with people who had high rep power. I agree that 50 is a tad too much but lowering it considerably would create problems that we had with the old reputation system.

[Shinigami]

i think you should be able to rep someone after a certain amount of days instead of the number of other people youve repped. i hardly ever give rep so i found myself wanting to give reputation but it said id already given it to them which i didnt even remember, so it must have been ages ago. i think that would be much better and it wouldnt encourage pointless reputation either

[Smiddy]

30 like the old plan was. :)

[JackBuddy]

I personally think 30 is more reasonable. If we changed it to 15 then we'd be back to the original problem of some members being intimidated with people who had high rep power. I agree that 50 is a tad too much but lowering it considerably would create problems that we had with the old reputation system.
Nope, people stopped caring about rep after the whole points fiasco.

[Immenseman]

Nope, people stopped caring about rep after the whole points fiasco.

If that was the case then nobody would have been warned about asking for reputation and I wouldn't have been receiving reputation. Both of which I can assure you are untrue and are still happening. People do care about reputation still it's just people can't influence the system so dramatically.

[Decode]

I personally think 30 is more reasonable. If we changed it to 15 then we'd be back to the original problem of some members being intimidated with people who had high rep power. I agree that 50 is a tad too much but lowering it considerably would create problems that we had with the old reputation system.
No one was ever intimidated becuase someone had a higher rep powere than them and today people still have different rep powers, so i dont see how that makes any differance.

In the old rep system there was no problems. The rep system on clubhabbo is fine and they have people with over 250 rep power, theres no need to try and limit it :S

[Immenseman]

No one was ever intimidated becuase someone had a higher rep powere than them and today people still have different rep powers, so i dont see how that makes any differance.

In the old rep system there was no problems. The rep system on clubhabbo is fine and they have people with over 250 rep power, theres no need to try and limit it :S

If I'd kept PM's from that long ago with newer users saying that then I'd happily show you. I assure you that some users who had 1-5 rep or whatever were frightened. Of course people have different rep powers still but there isn't a 45 gap between people. With the old system say you were +repped in the same week by 5 of the highest rep holders you'd go up a rep level. You could just jump up the levels so quickly. It was a lot more "pointless" before the changes. I hardly hear anyone moaning about reputation anymore which is a huge plus.

[Havoline]

to be honest i preffered the old system but its not gonna get changed. It is just way to hard to get rep powers now.

[GommeInc]

Ah this reminds me of what the council thought up and got changed, shame the management had to interfere. The council suggested that:

Each year rep power goes up by one.
That you can rep a member again after you've repped another 30 members.
You can rep 10 people a day.
etc etc

For some reason they changed it from 30 to 50 (or something like that). Not sure why, but they just did.

[Kardan]

To be honest there was one member that managed to bad rep me twice in a week :rolleyes:

But yeah, it should be lowered, 50 is a bit too high :)

[ToxicPaddy]

I think it should be lowered, 50 is a bit too high :) I say around 10-20 is right.

[Plank]

I personally think 30 is more reasonable. If we changed it to 15 then we'd be back to the original problem of some members being intimidated with people who had high rep power. I agree that 50 is a tad too much but lowering it considerably would create problems that we had with the old reputation system.
I think 30 is good. Who is the one that would have to change it? Because your a manager so isn't that your job or someone elsess

[Nick-]

Nope, people stopped caring about rep after the whole points fiasco.
Love it when people post things like this in reputation based feedback and although I'm on holiday I couldn't resist posting this.
If no one cares about reputation, there would be no need for the reputation issues thread as no one would post in because no one would have a problem with getting -rep if no one cared. There would also be no need to hire someone to deal with reputation issues because it would be a meaningless position if no one cared. As you can see, this is not the case. ;)
Also, I couldn't help but notice that there's a post in the reputation issues thread made by you about your own reputation issue which also means you care about reputation. :P

[Hiro]

Love it when people post things like this in reputation based feedback and although I'm on holiday I couldn't resist posting this.
If no one cares about reputation, there would be no need for the reputation issues thread as no one would post in because no one would have a problem with getting -rep if no one cared. There would also be no need to hire someone to deal with reputation issues because it would be a meaningless position if no one cared. As you can see, this is not the case. ;)
Also, I couldn't help but notice that there's a post in the reputation issues thread made by you about your own reputation issue which also means you care about reputation. :P

+1 internets to Nick!

I say 30 is a good number. (:

[iJoe]

wow its 50?

Thats stupid....

Many members only visit one section of the forum and they wont be able to rep 50 people. Having it so high encourages pointless repping so that people can rep others quicker.

[Slowpoke]

Should be lowered to 30!

[le harry]

20 :):):):)

[JackBuddy]

Love it when people post things like this in reputation based feedback and although I'm on holiday I couldn't resist posting this.
If no one cares about reputation, there would be no need for the reputation issues thread as no one would post in because no one would have a problem with getting -rep if no one cared. There would also be no need to hire someone to deal with reputation issues because it would be a meaningless position if no one cared. As you can see, this is not the case. ;)
Also, I couldn't help but notice that there's a post in the reputation issues thread made by you about your own reputation issue which also means you care about reputation. :P
My point was that generally less people care about reputation after it was harder to gain 1 point. It isn't a big deal anymore to most people. Of course if I do get -rep then I'm going to get it removed...

[You]

25 tbh, go 'alf wai

[Camy]

I was thinking the same thing ^^

[Axel]

I can never rep anyone twice now the limit is so high, unless I just randomly rep people.

[Roxy]

25 tbh, go 'alf wai

Yea, 25 seems reasonable to me.
That way its not too easy to keep repping the same person, but it's not a ridiculous amount of people to rep before you can give rep to the same person again.

[Meanies]

I'd say 25. Seems a fair amount and if you can rep 10 people a day (i think), it'l take less than 3 days to rep them again.

[e5]

I personally think 30 is more reasonable. If we changed it to 15 then we'd be back to the original problem of some members being intimidated with people who had high rep power. I agree that 50 is a tad too much but lowering it considerably would create problems that we had with the old reputation system.
I didn't see problems with the original reputation system tbh!

[mat64]

I don't give out much reputation anymore. The problem is that it's usually the same group of peple who make posts that in my mind deserve some rep and with it been 50 it would take me a very long time before I would be able to rep them again. So yeh I agree it should be lowered, 30 seems a limit I could stand for although 20 seems a more realistic number.

[benjamin]

i can't really be bothered with 'repuation' anymore, because it isn't what it's called - it's limited too much.

most of mine now is red ahahahah.

[Shawnstra]

10. Most people will go pointless repping if they need to give it to someone. So what if someone has high rep power, it is because they deserve it. If we maintain our current situation, everyone will have high rep which some of them are just mainly pointless rep.

[GommeInc]

10. Most people will go pointless repping if they need to give it to someone. So what if someone has high rep power, it is because they deserve it. If we maintain our current situation, everyone will have high rep which some of them are just mainly pointless rep.
Hmmm, that's quite true when you think about it. With the current way the rep system works, there won't be any bullying because pointless posts would be removed without asking for them to be removed. With a 10 person rep limit, there would be less pointless posts. But then again, it could be used as an excuse to frequently pointless rep. 20/25/30 does seem safer when you think about it, it will just mean people who want to rep others must find more constructive posts to rep and stay clear of pointlessly repping people.

[Blinger1]

Just completetely remove the reputation system, it causes too many fights!

[Decode]

Is anything actualy going to be done about this, everyone who has voted bar 1 has said that the limit should be lowered yet nothing seems to be happening about it?

[Nereo]

I dont think there are even 50 members on the forum who I would consider giving rep to and I would say Im quite generous with giving it out :P

Somewhere between 20-30 I think, should be decided on the outcome of this poll :)

[IDontKnow]

I voted 20 (I think) simply because 50 is too high and if it's lower, it encourages people to give reputation where deserved.

[Serious]

i say rise it to 60.

[Nereo]

i say rise it to 60.

You better be joking :P

[Serious]

no, i am deadly serious. i've got no time for jokes.

[Sammeth.]

I think 20/25 is a good number. Not too high, but not so stupidly low that rep would be given left right and center.

[GhostFace-]

i voted 5

[Rixion]

25 is more reasonable

[Mint]

I voted 30.

[Rixion]

oh dear oh dear

[GommeInc]

What a negitive Attitude moony

YOU SELFISH AROGANT *removed*
Why the sudden, stupid attitude?

I wonder if the changes will be made :P

[IDontKnow]

i say rise it to 60.

You can't be serious? (Pun intended)

[Serious]

yeah i'm serious, who are you?

[Decode]

yeah i'm serious, who are you?
Serious, quit spamming threads. I've seen you doing it in a thread in the Show off your websites forum as well. If you arn't going to say anything usefull why bother posting, all you are doing is starting arguments. If you look back on all your posts they all seem to be negative. So grow up and stop acting like you are a 10 year old.

[Recursion]

If im quite honest, since when did MAD ever listen to the community?

It's like hitler, a dictatorship.

But still, I voted for 10.

[Jordy]

As I've always said, 50 people has always been far too many as there is no where near 50 people on this forum who deserve reputation from me, I only really give it out to interesting, funny or dedicated posts. I've personally noticed a decline in the quality and helpfulness posts and threads since the reputation system was changed. Mainly because people used to make 'Guides' etc in hope of reputation but since the changes the quality of posts has gone down as people haven't been as interested in earning reputation. In my opinion, I think the quality of posts comes before anything and they should always be encouraged but very few administrators on this forum agree with that.

To be frank, I've still received pointless negative reputation from some of the reputation leaders despite the changes, and the reputation still hasn't been removed so I think the system is as equally flawed on the subject of negative reputation. I may not go down rep bar's like I would of done in the old system, but at the end of the day it takes the reputation points down dramatically still so you still need a load of positive to make up for it, even if it isn't noticeable on the outside to everyone else.

[Recursion]

I would +REP you for that post but as I have to spread to 50 people... I can't.

[shizzle]

20 is alot already, so yeah. I bet I wouldn't be able to give BlackSpoons any reputation in this forum.

[MissAlice]

It takes me months to give out rep to 50 posts, and I tend to forget who I've repped, because I do use the rep for worthy posts that, for want of a better word have impressed me. On several occasions I've tried repping someone only to find I must spread which means they lose out, because I don't keep a list of posts I would of liked to have +repped.

I do think 50 is high, and I've no idea what my average rep per day is, but would be inclined to think 25-30 would suit me better.

Having it at 50, surely that gets abused?

[Serious]

Serious, quit spamming threads. I've seen you doing it in a thread in the Show off your websites forum as well. If you arn't going to say anything usefull why bother posting, all you are doing is starting arguments. If you look back on all your posts they all seem to be negative. So grow up and stop acting like you are a 10 year old.
I've noticed you're being rather hostile towards me, this upsets me. I'd thank you not to use this tone while directing a post at me in future. Review your negativity towards me then maybe we can be friends, but don't count on it.

Thanks,
Serious

[Heart Break Kid]

i think it should be 15

[Calon]

The limit is stupid, end of.

Reputation is given out when a user deserves it, as previously stated. Moderator's can probably use some sort of addon to moderate reputation.

[Jahova]

5, only few people deserve rep.
So I keep mine quite low.

[shizzle]

5, only few people deserve rep.
So I keep mine quite low.
Same, only a few deserve, so it takes me longer to return to the same person.