positive rep

[Richie]

bunch of dry ****es whoever reported the +rep thread moaning over a bit of ppl pointlessly +reppin, it's like the only positive thing on the forum. Sorry for putting everyones high rep power at risk x must of worked so hard.

Thread Moved by xxMATTGxx (General Manager): Thread moved to feedback due to users request.

[buttons]

haha oh i just realized my rep has went down, oh well! everyone loves a bit of pointless rep, just look at the christmas threads & when we offered to give rep to vote for a charity. dunno why they'd remove it especially as its been there for a while..?

[Richie]

haha oh i just realized my rep has went down, oh well! everyone loves a bit of pointless rep, just look at the christmas threads & when we offered to give rep to vote for a charity. dunno why they'd remove it especially as its been there for a while..?


I agree lol i was always against pointless +rep but who gives a ****. Understandably pointless -reps should be removed because it's just negative and no forum wants to have a negative atomosphere, the feature is there for legitimately disagreeing with someone within reason. If anything hxf should promote positive things like this. It's so dumb that on a habbo forum they remove pointless +rep. The ppl who moan are usually with high rep anyway and I don't think they gained 40 odd power through legit +reps lol.


BUT ITZ IN THE RULEZ U CNT +REP POINTLESSLY


the terms and conditions also state that hx can do what they like as it's their site but they continue to stick to old negative ways
xxMATTGxx;

[Mathew]

I noticed this earlier and pinned the blame on MG for messing around on my account, hahaha.

tbh, I'm glad I'm not the person faced with the task of removing all that rep - they're in for a boring few nights.. :(!

[David]

whoever reported it should have all of their pointless +rep removed

[xxMATTGxx]

We aren't always negative because we have always allowed it at Christmas time.

[Richie]

We aren't always negative because we have always allowed it at Christmas time.

Why is it that the +rep feature needs to be monitored anyway? It isn't causing anyone any harm, just a bunch of ppl complaining cos they dnt want someone to be higher rep than them on a hab forum. This definitely needs changing, promote positivity, remove negativity.

The -rep feature is good for ppl who are being **** heads, they deserve to be -repd but obviously if it's pointless and just someone acting the ******* remove it.

[xxMATTGxx]

Why is it that the +rep feature needs to be monitored anyway? It isn't causing anyone any harm, just a bunch of ppl complaining cos they dnt want someone to be higher rep than them on a hab forum. This definitely needs changing, promote positivity, remove negativity.

The -rep feature is good for ppl who are being **** heads, they deserve to be -repd but obviously if it's pointless and just someone acting the ******* remove it.

Because surely people should be gaining rep power with good reason? I guess it's always up to discussion. brandon;

[Samantha]

If someone gets their rep removed is it still on your recently repped people?

[Kyle]

fair enough this is basically a quick rep boosting thread so shouldn't have really been there in the first place but allowing it to stay for so many months and only now removing it is silly.

remove the thread, leave the reps. establish a reactive rule stating that any threads of its nature in future will be removed for whatever reason and leave it at that. :) there's still going to be 'pointless' +/-reps on the forum outside of the thread.

[lawrawrrr]

what kyle said makes sense

the thread was basically breaking the 'dont ask for rep' rule, shouldnt have gone on for that long imo

[Richie]

Because surely people should be gaining rep power with good reason? I guess it's always up to discussion. @brandon (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=3638);


but why? if the feature is their for constructive posts then surely things such as events, vip and other things should be removed as it's CHEATING. I'm totally against the whole 'YOU GIVE POINTLESS REP TO PPL COS ITS NOT FAIR' maybe those ppl should stop being *****, run along and make some friends, then maybe someone might rep them.

[xxMATTGxx]

but why? if the feature is their for constructive posts then surely things such as events, vip and other things should be removed as it's CHEATING. I'm totally against the whole 'YOU CAN'T POINTLESS REP PPL COS ITS NOT FAIR' maybe those ppl should stop being *****, run along and make some friends, then maybe someone might rep them.

Well it might be cheating for some people but they have won that so technically it's somewhat earned.

[Samantha]

Ok what I don't appreciate is the fact that I had only commented in that thread twice and got two plus rep yet the people I plus repped didn't get theirs removed? Explanation please.

[David]

Ok what I don't appreciate is the fact that I had only commented in that thread twice and got two plus rep yet the people I plus repped didn't get theirs removed? Explanation please.

this

[xxMATTGxx]

Ok what I don't appreciate is the fact that I had only commented in that thread twice and got two plus rep yet the people I plus repped didn't get theirs removed? Explanation please.


this

Can't answer that for you as I'm not the one who removed the rep but I would guess it could be due to time or some other reason who knows.

[Richie]

Well it might be cheating for some people but they have won that so technically it's somewhat earned.

In the past when you could buy vip and request rep, was that cheating?


Why are the rules allowed to be bent at Christmas? Don't get me wrong that thread was always good and got a good response. People have always said it's nice to receive a bit of rep but I don't see why users such as staff should have to stay at a rep power of 4 or 5, from an outside view it just looks like they haven't contributed much which isn't always the case. Rep was easier to earn in the past so those with high rep will stay at high rep and those at lower rep will struggle to go up a power. I'm not obsessed with rep I just want to point out how unfair it's to those users with lower rep because those people are usually friends with others who are also low rep so they'll find it hard to 'achieve' another power.

I just find it hard to understand why you would remove something so positive 'aww x person just rep'd me' if anything a few pointless reps would make people like each other a little more. Stop listening to people who have their head stuck between their arse cheeks. Rules can change whenever. They don't have to stay the same because one user says so.

[Calvin]

Would it be acceptable if everyone posted a fact, and then the person +reps the person above for giving them information they didn't know? ;)

I've always found removing pointless +rep is a bit unfair because I could go through a thread repping a load of people, but you wouldn't know unless you're monitoring my account? How do you prevent everyone giving it out?

[xxMATTGxx]

In the past when you could buy vip and request rep, was that cheating?


Why are the rules allowed to be bent at Christmas? Don't get me wrong that thread was always good and got good responses, people have always said it's nice to receive a bit of rep but I don't see why users such as staff should have to stay at a rep power of 4 or 5, from an outside view it just looks like they haven't contributed much which isn't always the case. Rep was easier to earn in the past so those with high rep will stay at high rep and those at lower rep will struggle to go up a power. I'm not obsessed with rep I just want to point out how unfair it's to those users with lower rep because those people are usually friends with others who are also low rep so they'll find it hard to 'achieve' another power.

Well it was part of buying VIP and therefore a feature so it wasn't cheating. Cheating is when someone does something unfairly to gain an advantage. The reason why we allowed it at Christmas because it's Christmas and therefore it was a nice thing to do for the users. Which also means we aren't always "negative" all the time. New users may find it hard yes but what is the chance of them coming across the spam thread without it being shoved in their face? Not highly.

[Kyle]

oh yes and while we're on the subject of rep i think the "trial period" that you mentioned for the system that allows staff to get rep each week if they reach a certain number of posts has been going on long enough so should now be extended to normal members to make things fairer :)
xxMATTGxx;

[Richie]

Well it was part of buying VIP and therefore a feature so it wasn't cheating. Cheating is when someone does something unfairly to gain an advantage. The reason why we allowed it at Christmas because it's Christmas and therefore it was a nice thing to do for the users. Which also means we aren't always "negative" all the time. New users may find it hard yes but what is the chance of them coming across the spam thread without it being shoved in their face? Not highly.


If it is a nice thing to do for users why not have it all the time? This contradicts the second part highlighted, what's the chances of a noob clicking on a spam thread?

The promote positive rep I say add some new feature where people receive some sort of achievement for reppin a certain amount of people, you are limited to a certain few a day anyway so it wouldn't exactly be unfair and if people want to cheat so be it, jokes on them for loving rep that much but you know as well as I do a lot of people with high rep power today have gained it pointlessly.

The thread I created was within the rules anyway '+REP THE PERSON ABOVE YOU WITH A VALUABLE REASON' if people didn't give valuable reasons, remove their rep.

[xxMATTGxx]

oh yes and while we're on the subject of rep i think the "trial period" that you mentioned for the system that allows staff to get rep each week if they reach a certain number of posts has been going on long enough so should now be extended to normal members to make things fairer :)
xxMATTGxx;

Unfortunately the normal members of HabboxForum don't like posting competitions.


If it is a nice thing to do for users why not have it all the time? This contradicts the second part highlighted, what's the chances of a noob clicking on a spam thread?

The chances of a new user clicking that spam thread is very low, the replies to that thread show that as most of them were users who have been the forum for a good few years. Anyway, in terms of changing the rule and allowing it all the time I will wait to see what brandon; says.

[Kyle]

Unfortunately the normal members of HabboxForum don't like posting competitions.
you seem to be generalising the thoughts of a small group of users to the rest of the forum population. don't think of it as a competition, just as a reward for the hard work of making x number of posts on the forum, keeping the community alive :) do non staff not deserve rewards?

[xxMATTGxx]

you seem to be generalising the thoughts of a small group of users to the rest of the forum population. don't think of it as a competition, just as a reward for the hard work of making x number of posts on the forum, keeping the community alive :) do non staff not deserve rewards?

Yes they do but we all know what happened to the previous posting competition which was somewhat different to the previous one before that. The system is to encourage staff to post around the community which some of you said they should be part of, it has worked reasonable well so far. We did try to encourage you a few months back with the following prizes:


75 - 150 Posts: 50 reputation points.
151 - 200 Posts: 1 week Donator of your choice,
201 - 250 Posts: 1 week VIP of your choice.
251 - 300 Posts: 2 weeks VIP of your choice + 25 reputation points.
300 - 350 Posts: 3 weeks VIP of your choice + 25 reputation points.
350 - 450 Posts: 1 Months VIP of your choice + 50 reputation points.
450+ Posts: 2 Months VIP of your choice.

Which worked in a way but then users didn't like the fact that everyone spammed the forum and certain threads because of it.

[Mathew]

The thread I created was within the rules anyway '+REP THE PERSON ABOVE YOU WITH A VALUABLE REASON' if people didn't give valuable reasons, remove their rep.
Ah, so this was your evil plot. You didn't leave a comment on my rep and it was removed.... THANKS RICHIE. Just checked mine and the two I left for Richie and hah remain intact, boooo.

I do think a thread like Richie's has a place on the forum. Reputation, taken in the literal sense, aims to paint a picture of someone's overall respectability on the forum. I don't think there can be such thing as a "pointless" rep because the rep-giver obviously "respects" / likes the receiver and therefore they deserve it in that sense.

[scottish]

so you need to offer staff rep in order for them to post on the forum?

that's stupid fire them if they're not going to post :S shouldn't need to give them an incentive to take part in the community they wish to be a part of...

[Kyle]

xxMATTGxx;

The posting competitions in the past haven't been ongoing like this initiative. After a few days posting generally dies down and only a few users continue. If you offer it every single week then it allows everybody to get involved as and when they please. They wouldn't necessarily post aiming to receive the rep, it would just act as a nice reward for their contribution at the end of the week.

stick to rep though, no free vip/donator because people just go wild for it and will definitely post stupid threads.

Like you said, it's proven to work well for staff, what's the harm in trialing it on the norms? ;)

[scottish]

also if you're removing pointless +reps

scrap rep from competitions, events, and so on as it's unfairly gained and they're pointless.

[xxMATTGxx]

so you need to offer staff rep in order for them to post on the forum?

that's stupid fire them if they're not going to post :S shouldn't need to give them an incentive to take part in the community they wish to be a part of...

Unfortunately some staff members don't realise that it's not part of their job to post around the forum to be part of the community. As they believe their role here at Habbox should be talking to people on the Habbo community on the client itself. I've had many arguments with said members. I do some what agree with you and a lot of them didn't realise they did get reputation for posting over so many posts each week but still managed to pass that criteria which is good news all round.

I would be more than happy to remove anyone who isn't willing to post on the forum but where you draw the line on that - Should they all meet so many posts a month if they don't have a good reason not to? Department Managers will probably dislike it.. maybe.


xxMATTGxx;

The posting competitions in the past haven't been ongoing like this initiative. After a few days posting generally dies down and only a few users continue. If you offer it every single week then it allows everybody to get involved as and when they please. They wouldn't necessarily post aiming to receive the rep, it would just act as a nice reward for their contribution at the end of the week.

stick to rep though, no free vip/donator because people just go wild for it and will definitely post stupid threads.

Like you said, it's proven to work well for staff, what's the harm in trialing it on the norms? ;)

Actually, the last posting competition was one that was going to happen over and over again but we stopped due to the feedback we got from it. We could just keep it to reputation points like the staff one I suppose. Although It would be best not to have the same events as last time as Habbox doesn't like many pointless threads / posts being made within a certain time period.

[Richie]

xxMATTGxx; it was probs cos u offered vip, I agree with kyle I don't think people are going to go post crazy for 50 rep

[scottish]

Yeah, there should be so many posts they have to do on public forums per month and failing that it'd be noted in their report that they failed to meet the activity required (i.e. the 5 hour rule in hxhd) then 3 consecutive weeks of it = fired, or any sequence (i.e. meets it 1 week skips 2 meets it next etc to attempt to avoid consequences/detection)

[Kyle]

staff dont sign up to become staff on the forum so i dont see why they should be made to post, but i think if you're offering them an incentive then it should be offered to all.

[Richie]

I say



Let people give +rep as they please
Give the posting competition feature that staff have to everyone
Keep monitoring negative rep
Continue to give rep out in events and other competitions

[Mathew]

Once you start dismissing people for not posting then it creates an extremely negative atmosphere as people are constantly running the risk of losing their jobs. People should be encouraged to post and interact with the community through positive reinforcement, not negative. Users are always claiming that staff are treated differently (receiving rep for posting) and it's seen as a bad thing. Why not apply that logic to this situation, because it's only seen as a problem when it appears to benefit them? :P

[Richie]

Once you start dismissing people for not posting then it creates an extremely negative atmosphere as people are constantly running the risk of losing their jobs. People should be encouraged to post and interact with the community through positive reinforcement, not negative. Users are always claiming that staff are treated differently (receiving rep for posting) and it's seen as a bad thing. Why not apply that logic to this situation, because it's only seen as a problem when it appears to benefit them? :P

If the new feature is working then I don't see how introducing the feature to all users would suddenly make staff stop posting :P I disagree with warning people for not posting around the forums, it's like remelkiid or grig telling me I must attend events or I'd be fired, they'd be told to stuff it.

[Martin]

I definitely don't think staff should be fired for not reaching a post count, I think thats a bit too far. You may as well issue normal members with a ban if they don't reach it too in that case. :P I don't get this whole division between normal members and staff in terms of posting- If people want to post they should do it because they are genuinely interested in doing so. Otherwise you just get a load of crap posts with crap quality churned out because people are trying to hit a number rather than actually creating and taking part in interesting and worthwhile discussion. I think that a longterm posting incentive (not competition) overall would be good though. That being said, posting around the forum seems to have improved a little bit lately, without so much blatant spammy type posts around, I have seen lots more genuine discussions. Staff should realise that they are part of a community and make attempts to interact with that community in all aspects (not just on Habbo), but I know for a fact some staff (such as certain DJ's, EO's and other Habbo based roles) see it as just a job that they do to help that area of Habbox, and posting doesnt really come into that. Incentives are good, but competitions designed for posting are bad in my eyes and looks quite desperate when im sure there are other ways to promote discussion and the general activity of the forum.

In terms of the rep issue, I dont personally see how positive rep can be pointless. There seems to be more and more ways to get positive rep now, be it competitions, VIP, people etc, and unless someone is blatantly giving a user reputation every time the system allows them with not even a comment as to why then I guess that would be a bit odd, but its generally a case that the member likes something the other member has said done. I know people often +reo everyone who has thanked them in a congrats thread too and I guess that follows the same principal. Negative rep can definitely be abused and I feel this is the one which needs to be kept as it is and monitored more often. The report rep thread seems to do a good job of this. Not too sure what peoples opinions are on the space between being able to +rep someone more than once but I guess this does help prevent the system being abused too. I just think there is a very wide margin between what people interpret as being pointless rep and could be seen very different in peoples eyes since the reason may not always be evident when someone is issuing the rep.

[Mathew]

If the new feature is working then I don't see how introducing the feature to all users would suddenly make staff stop posting :P I disagree with warning people for not posting around the forums, it's like remelkiid or grig telling me I must attend events or I'd be fired, they'd be told to stuff it.
Ah, I was replying to Scott when he was saying that staff should be fired for not posting. Normal users aren't penalised for not posting, so staff shouldn't either - after all, we all strive for a bit of equality. Like Hippies. In Hawaii. Peace.

[scottish]

Once you start dismissing people for not posting then it creates an extremely negative atmosphere as people are constantly running the risk of losing their jobs. People should be encouraged to post and interact with the community through positive reinforcement, not negative. Users are always claiming that staff are treated differently (receiving rep for posting) and it's seen as a bad thing. Why not apply that logic to this situation, because it's only seen as a problem when it appears to benefit them? :P

It's not though as it'd be like a warning per one, and if they had a valid reason for not posting then they'd get let off, the number of posts doesn't need to be stupidly high even a low amount say 20 would show a lot more staff activity and general activity in forum would go up.

They'd have like 3 weeks to post under the limit before being fired.

[xxMATTGxx]

In terms of posting on the actual forum, June was one the best months we have had so far this year.

[Samantha]

I remember telling one of my staff members who kept going on about it wasn't their job to post (they are in 2 community roles therefore I think it's important for them to post) that I wouldn't mind warning them, I remember saying staff will post because they want to not because they have to, I think if someone is so into disagreeing that they should post then they shouldn't really be staff (in said roles they are in) or at least they could join a content role? Their current roles can't do anything really due to the mute so I think they should easily be able to create 30 posts across the week. Now maybe warning them would be harsh but I think if it's a consistent thing (and if they have been active in the staff forums) then they should be warned or at least told. MattG said it was upto the managers if we wanted to warn them or not and I'm always in two minds about it (and haven't done it) as it's a new thing and staff need to settle into it. The main line is that if they don't do 30 posts they don't get 20 rep and again I agree with that (they don't get that incentive but shouldn't then get warned because of it).

I feel putting it to the whole forum would be good though.

[Kyle]

It's not though as it'd be like a warning per one, and if they had a valid reason for not posting then they'd get let off, the number of posts doesn't need to be stupidly high even a low amount say 20 would show a lot more staff activity and general activity in forum would go up.

They'd have like 3 weeks to post under the limit before being fired.
there is where the problem lies. What is deemed a 'valid reason' ? How would "I don't have any interest in contributing to discussions on a forum that I only joined because I was forced to" compare? The forum isn't the only habbox community, a lot of the staff contribute to the community in game and, in my eyes, that is plenty. If they want to post on the forum then they can get involved. If they don't, they shouldn't be forced to.

[Fifty-Six]

I think a negative atmosphere is generated once we start to bring in quotas and "limits" for posting. Staff members participate and interact with the community through their specific departments (ie. HxL Staff host radio events, Content Designers work on guides and the Wiki, etc). As well, if we institute posting quotas for staff, why shouldn't users be required to follow them also? People talk about special treatment of staff, yet adding a post quota for staff is completely the opposite of equality. I don't think a post quota would be beneficial.

[Mathew]

I remember telling one of my staff members who kept going on about it wasn't their job to post (they are in 2 community roles therefore I think it's important for them to post) that I wouldn't mind warning them, I remember saying staff will post because they want to not because they have to, I think if someone is so into disagreeing that they should post then they shouldn't really be staff (in said roles they are in) or at least they could join a content role?
"If you're an unsocialable hermit, join content!"... nice message to send out, Sam! ;) I think warning your staff for such small things would create more hostility than anything. They'd probably be more likely to give up posting altogether if they noticed it was such a rocky environment!


there is where the problem lies. What is deemed a 'valid reason' ? How would "I don't have any interest in contributing to discussions on a forum that I only joined because I was forced to" compare? The forum isn't the only habbox community, a lot of the staff contribute to the community in game and, in my eyes, that is plenty. If they want to post on the forum then they can get involved. If they don't, they shouldn't be forced to.
Quite right. I remember a popular debate a few years back where users were discussing how the forum has become the centrepiece of Habbox. After all, Habbox.com was (and arguably still is) the official fansite, and the forum is merely just one of many departments. Whilst the focus has shifted over the years, I do think there are times (like this) when we need to remember that.

[xxMATTGxx]

We can bring over the staff posting reward to the whole forum if that is what members want. If people are happy with that then it will probably start next week. It will also be probably best for users to join a usergroup if they would like to take part and to be able to gain the reward due to calculating the posts would be easier that way. The prize would be kept to reputation this time round to see what sort of results we will get with that.

[Samantha]

"If you're an unsocialable hermit, join content!"... nice message to send out, Sam! ;) I think warning your staff for such small things would create more hostility than anything. They'd probably be more likely to give up posting altogether if they noticed it was such a rocky environment!


Quite right. I remember a popular debate a few years back where users were discussing how the forum has become the centrepiece of Habbox. After all, Habbox.com was (and arguably still is) the official fansite, and the forum is merely just one of many departments. Whilst the focus has shifted over the years, I do think there are times (like this) when we need to remember that.

News is a content department too pft ;). Saying that though it's like an epidemic in there. I wouldn't warn them now as I said about the incentive but I still think it's always there to scare them too lmao.

Also about the positive rep thread, the reasons I repped them were more pointless than they repped me :P.

[Kyle]

We can bring over the staff posting reward to the whole forum if that is what members want. If people are happy with that then it will probably start next week. It will also be probably best for users to join a usergroup if they would like to take part and to be able to gain the reward due to calculating the posts would be easier that way. The prize would be kept to reputation this time round to see what sort of results we will get with that.
Could you not have a threead users could post in to request their rep instead? having the usergroup sort of makes it seem more of a competition than it should be, only allowing those who have entered it to be in with a chance. nobody should be excluded

[xxMATTGxx]

Could you not have a threead users could post in to request their rep instead? having the usergroup sort of makes it seem more of a competition than it should be, only allowing those who have entered it to be in with a chance. nobody should be excluded

The only problem with that is calculating if they have made the X amount of posts - It's easier if they were in the group with the tools we currently use for the staff one.

[Samantha]

Could you not have a threead users could post in to request their rep instead? having the usergroup sort of makes it seem more of a competition than it should be, only allowing those who have entered it to be in with a chance. nobody should be excluded

Would this be separate to the staff one or joined on?

[David]

Could you not have a threead users could post in to request their rep instead? having the usergroup sort of makes it seem more of a competition than it should be, only allowing those who have entered it to be in with a chance. nobody should be excluded

mett uses a plugin to calculate the posts, dont think its anything to do with exclusion
id imagine the group to be open to join and not a request basis

[Fifty-Six]

Could you not have a threead users could post in to request their rep instead? having the usergroup sort of makes it seem more of a competition than it should be, only allowing those who have entered it to be in with a chance. nobody should be excluded

Wouldn't a thread just create a huge backlog of request posts? Why not just have the user group and then admins can add the rep every week or so? Besides, users who are active enough on the forums should know to join the group.

[xxMATTGxx]

Would this be separate to the staff one or joined on?

It would be combined - I would still happily post the stats for each department in the staff forum so staff can still see that but there will be a thread in the announcements for all of it mainly.



We can bring over the staff posting reward to the whole forum if that is what members want. If people are happy with that then it will probably start next week. It will also be probably best for users to join a usergroup if they would like to take part and to be able to gain the reward due to calculating the posts would be easier that way. The prize would be kept to reputation this time round to see what sort of results we will get with that.

In addition to this, it would be nice on what users think the criteria should be? The staff one is 30 or more posts each week and they earn 20 reputation points. We can increase or decrease either one - Would be nice for your thoughts on that!


mett uses a plugin to calculate the posts, dont think its anything to do with exclusion
id imagine the group to be open to join and not a request basis

Correct, nothing about keeping people out. Just makes it far more easier for us and it also means I can show you the actual results with ease.

[Richie]

Can you not just create one group and put everyone in it (including staff), would make things 100 times easier

[David]

Would this be separate to the staff one or joined on?

might be more arguments if theres 2 running

[Kyle]

yes but some may be unaware of the group's existance and miss out or be too late to the party and join at the end of the week or something. can u not just enable whatever feature u have for all usergroups

[xxMATTGxx]

Can you not just create one group and put everyone in it (including staff), would make things 100 times easier

I was actually looking into that when Kyle first mentioned it.


yes but some may be unaware of the group's existance and miss out or be too late to the party and join at the end of the week or something. can u not just enable whatever feature u have for all usergroups

If we can shove all users into a second usergroup without them having to do anything, then that would solve that issue.

[Kyle]

In addition to this, it would be nice on what users think the criteria should be? The staff one is 30 or more posts each week and they earn 20 reputation points. We can increase or decrease either one - Would be nice for your thoughts on that!
If that's what has worked for staff then I think that is what it should stay as.

[Fifty-Six]

In addition to this, it would be nice on what users think the criteria should be? The staff one is 30 or more posts each week and they earn 20 reputation points. We can increase or decrease either one - Would be nice for your thoughts on that!

Seems like a good amount. Are these posts only in boards where post counts increase or do posts in "spam" count also?

[xxMATTGxx]

Seems like a good amount. Are these posts only in boards where post counts increase or do posts in "spam" count also?

It only counts for forums with post count enabled.

[scottish]

for posting thing couldn't you do like top 25 get so much rep or something then use the top poster plugin to determine top 25 posters in past 7 days and just make sure you do it same time every week? :P

(cba reading last 2 pages so if it's already been said my bad or if topics changed)

[Kyle]

for posting thing couldn't you do like top 25 get so much rep or something then use the top poster plugin to determine top 25 posters in past 7 days and just make sure you do it same time every week? :P

(cba reading last 2 pages so if it's already been said my bad or if topics changed)
well that makes it a posting competition. I think a reward scheme for a set number of posts is a much better and fairer idea

[David]

for posting thing couldn't you do like top 25 get so much rep or something then use the top poster plugin to determine top 25 posters in past 7 days and just make sure you do it same time every week? :P

(cba reading last 2 pages so if it's already been said my bad or if topics changed)

edit; ye what kyle said

[scottish]

wait so how does it currently work

I thought it was top x posters got x rep
or is it if the member posts above x posts they get x rep
or is rep based on how many posts they make?

[David]

wait so how does it currently work

I thought it was top x posters got x rep
or is it if the member posts above x posts they get x rep
or is rep based on how many posts they make?

30 or more posts gets you 20 rep points

[Fifty-Six]

wait so how does it currently work

I thought it was top x posters got x rep
or is it if the member posts above x posts they get x rep
or is rep based on how many posts they make?

its just +20 rep if you make 30 posts

[scottish]

oh then perhaps something like 50% of post count = rep rewarded but cap at like 50 (rep) so people doing 300 posts won't get insane amounts of rep over a few weeks.

[The Don]

whys everyone crying over rep lol

[Richie]

whys everyone crying over rep lol

The same reason why you're fishing for some lol

[The Don]

The same reason why you're fishing for some lol

lol not fishing for rep at all, just find this entire thread tragic. who honestly gives a **** about some rep on a forum? doesn't affect you irl at all so i don't see why everyone's crying about it. My comment wasn't even aimed at you lmao but whatever.

[GoldenMerc]

Someone reported their rep (bad) i recon 8-)

[Samantha]

scottish; taking the amounts on top posters over 7 days wouldnt work due to it taking into account all your posts on forum including spam and forum games i believe.

[GoldenMerc]

@scottish (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=53890); taking the amounts on top posters over 7 days wouldnt work due to it taking into account all your posts on forum including spam and forum games i believe.

You can take that off with coding, im sure Recursion; and all the new admin coders know that :P
or i'd hope they do

[xxMATTGxx]

We won't be taking it off "Top Posters". We have our own tools to calculate posts within forums where post count is enabled.

[mrwoooooooo]

Richie always has to have something to moan about, jeez get a grip youth.

[xxMATTGxx]

Have made it easier for the majority of the members but some may still have to join it manually.

[scottish]

Samanfa; posts in spam should still count towards it, shouldn't be just for specific sections (if spam was to be ignored then as should the post a ___ threads as posts in them aren't exactly constructive or deserving of rep :P)

[Oleh]

Idea. Have some form of posting grand prix if you may. I don't know how many members would be in it let's say 500 for the purpose of this post. Create 20 groups. Aptly named Group 1 to Group 20. Put 25 people in each of these. Randomly selected of course, not alphabetically or anything. Then the first week of the following month, say August 1st to 7th, have a post competition and have the points the same as the f1 scoring system:


Position
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th


Points
25
18
15
12
10
8
6
4
2
1



Then after the first week put the top 10 of each group into another e.g. top 10 of group 1 and 2 go into a group etc so there's 10 groups of 20. and then have another posting competition a fortnight after, with the top 10 of each group going into a group. Until there's 50. With 2 groups of 25 and then host another a fortnight later. Then place the top 10 of each into a group so there's 20 in one group. etc, The top 3 of that group get prizes e.g. 1st gets some voucher, 2nd gets some lesser value voucher etc. Then the top of the global leaderboard (as we've been awarding posters with points respective of their place in the groups) The top 3 will get prizes similar to those in the last group.

[mrwoooooooo]

rep doesnt need changing.

[Jarkie]

I didn't really see anything wrong with that thread.

Lol, I hate it when the people who worked 'hard' on getting rep get all moany once there is an easy way of getting 'rep'. Its like no one forced them to work 'hard' on getting forum 'rep' ... :rolleyes:

[Kyle]

Idea. Have some form of posting grand prix if you may. I don't know how many members would be in it let's say 500 for the purpose of this post. Create 20 groups. Aptly named Group 1 to Group 20. Put 25 people in each of these. Randomly selected of course, not alphabetically or anything. Then the first week of the following month, say August 1st to 7th, have a post competition and have the points the same as the f1 scoring system:


Position
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th


Points
25
18
15
12
10
8
6
4
2
1


Then after the first week put the top 10 of each group into another e.g. top 10 of group 1 and 2 go into a group etc so there's 10 groups of 20. and then have another posting competition a fortnight after, with the top 10 of each group going into a group. Until there's 50. With 2 groups of 25 and then host another a fortnight later. Then place the top 10 of each into a group so there's 20 in one group. etc, The top 3 of that group get prizes e.g. 1st gets some voucher, 2nd gets some lesser value voucher etc. Then the top of the global leaderboard (as we've been awarding posters with points respective of their place in the groups) The top 3 will get prizes similar to those in the last group.
seems far too complicated and, again, more of a competition. the standpoint at the moment is that staff get a reward for posting a certain number of posts and normal users do no. there is already a system in place for staff that works well so changing it would be silly. I think it's a good idea to extend that generosity to all users, allowing the potential for those that don't post much to start posting a little more. obviously it isn't for everyone but even the smallest increase in posting because of it can only be a good thing.

[brandon]

I actually think a lot of the staff have been posting to try and help their department 'win' as oppose to doing it for the rep, perhaps the rep incentive for the staff posting stats could be removed first, if that has a negative effect bring it back and then I guess it would be fair and probably easiest to enable non-staff members to join a usergroup if they want to be eligible to receive rep also.

[GoldenMerc]

I actually think a lot of the staff have been posting to try and help their department 'win' as oppose to doing it for the rep, perhaps the rep incentive for the staff posting stats could be removed first, if that has a negative effect bring it back and then I guess it would be fair and probably easiest to enable non-staff members to join a usergroup if they want to be eligible to receive rep also.
Please can we totally remove the removing pointless rep thing, its silly as hell :/
No bad rep is pointless its someones opinion. :(
PLEASE

[Fifty-Six]

What's wrong with the incentive? It's only 20 Rep.. not a crazy amount. You get 10 Rep for winning a competition and a large number of peoples Rep power is over 20.

[GoldenMerc]

What's wrong with the incentive? It's only 20 Rep.. not a crazy amount. You get 10 Rep for winning a competition and a large number of peoples Rep power is over 20.

Rep should be earnt, not won?

[Fifty-Six]

Rep should be earnt, not won?

Do you think it should be removed as a competition prize also? Or just not part of this posting "competition"

[MKR&*42]

Rep should be earnt, not won?

Go tell the people who gave out all the +Rep in the Spam forum that aha, from the looks of this thread they'll all attack you.

+ I think it's used as an incentive to encourage members in events to sign up to hxf :L
--

OH YOu mean in comps, my bad sorry x

[David]

Rep should be earnt, not won?

winning an event is not earning?

[GoldenMerc]

Do you think it should be removed as a competition prize also? Or just not part of this posting "competition"
no

Go tell the people who gave out all the +Rep in the Spam forum that aha, from the looks of this thread they'll all attack you.

+ I think it's used as an incentive to encourage members in events to sign up to hxf :L
--

OH YOu mean in comps, my bad sorry x
I gave it out in the spam thread yesterday, i also gave two -reps...

winning an event is not earning?
No your winning a event on habbo big wow, earn it by doing a decent post

[mrwoooooooo]

You shouldn't need an incentive (rep) to post on the forum. You should be posting on the forum anyway and indirectly receive reputation for the quality of your posts.

[Chippiewill]

I actually think a lot of the staff have been posting to try and help their department 'win' as oppose to doing it for the rep, perhaps the rep incentive for the staff posting stats could be removed first, if that has a negative effect bring it back and then I guess it would be fair and probably easiest to enable non-staff members to join a usergroup if they want to be eligible to receive rep also.

I'm inclined to agree with you, I actually forgot about the rep reward, I made more of an effort to post last week because I ranked fairly lowly the week before for my department and felt I was letting the side down. I agree that it should be looked into removing the rep reward on the staff comp and if it holds course then leave it like that.

[Kyle]

there is a difference between pointless -rep and -rep that is earned. if someone makes an post that somebody disagrees with then - although the first resort should never be to immediately -rep - it should always be allowed to do so, provided the comment outlines why it was actually given. I don't know how the pointlessness of a rep is determined but it seems that if you ever report a -rep you're pretty much guaranteed to get it removed. Only remove reps that don't have any premise, like those without comments, those that are quite clearly revenge reps and when it's apparent that somebody is continuously -repping the same person whenever they can.

pointless +rep is different in that... well... it doesn't exist. if you want to give someone rep then you do it because you like them or their post(s). nothing wrong with that at all.

@brandon (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=3638); it's pretty much a given that if you remove rep incentive then staff won't be quite so eager to support their department. keep the staff system as it is and let them compete against other staff teams. don't try to fix what isn't broken. it's not about normal users being allowed to join that battle, just wanting it to be made a little fairer in terms of getting rep for making posts. nothing bad can come out of it whatsoever imo.

[Chippiewill]

Pointless rep is where someone has not done something in that post to earn it, you may like them or even love them but unless there's something specific about that post that you can cite as the reason and not the person itself then that rep is pointless and we return to the old days back in '07 where people sat around in circles repping each other, inflating their rep powers and devaluing it's meaning. Rep may not be an objective measure but darned does it show a correlation in social hierarchy though-out the forum and I'd sure like it to stay that way.

[GommeInc]

Well it might be cheating for some people but they have won that so technically it's somewhat earned.
Depends how you see reputation. The system is constantly tooted as a means for liking what someone has to say, and in turn you +rep them for making a good point (and making them have a positive/good reputation on the forums). Having it as a prize does not mean you have earnt yourself a good reputation. It's like saying someone who has won a cake eating competition at a local fayre makes them more reputable as a person when really you've won a prize and been given rep purely for selfish reasons, rather than the actual use of the system where people like your posts because you've put effort into building the community and contributing, or just genuinely likeable.

It simply doesn't make sense as a prize, it sort of defeats the point of the system. Surely members decide who has a good reputation on the forums? If a forum prize has to be given, give them an Award based on what ever it is they have done.

It's like removing "pointless" plus rep when quite a few people on here have argued the case that rep shouldn't be touched because they must of done something to earn that +rep or -rep for a user to put the effort into it giving it to them. There needs to be an actual reason for earning rep, and giving it out as a prize when the community have no say on it defeats the point of the system. If it wasn't called a reputation system then it would be fine, but it doesn't help that it is often cited as a system that's meant to be used to praise someone for their interesting comments. So why give them official "pointless" rep?

[Inseriousity.]

I don't really think that reputation is only just for posts you like (and -rep for what you don't like). I see it as a more broader sense in that you get +rep if you are active in the community and contribute towards it (and -rep if you are destructive). By entering events and competitions you are showing you're active and getting involved. Might get a bit of stick for saying this but it also helps drive down costs of comps/events when people decide to 'convert' the Habbo value of their prize into rep, which means it can then get put back into the system and used for other prizes (and also lets our events organisers not deplete their limited stock and stay around with us longer).

As for the thread being moved, I can see why it was done cos it is in the rules and wouldn't say that just because it was old (it recently got bumped I believe) doesn't mean it can't be moved when it does get active again and moderators spot it. I wouldn't be too fussed if it was left but that may be due to not really caring much about rep anyway.

[Samantha]

I don't really think that reputation is only just for posts you like (and -rep for what you don't like). I see it as a more broader sense in that you get +rep if you are active in the community and contribute towards it (and -rep if you are destructive). By entering events and competitions you are showing you're active and getting involved. Might get a bit of stick for saying this but it also helps drive down costs of comps/events when people decide to 'convert' the Habbo value of their prize into rep, which means it can then get put back into the system and used for other prizes (and also lets our events organisers not deplete their limited stock and stay around with us longer).

As for the thread being moved, I can see why it was done cos it is in the rules and wouldn't say that just because it was old (it recently got bumped I believe) doesn't mean it can't be moved when it does get active again and moderators spot it. I wouldn't be too fussed if it was left but that may be due to not really caring much about rep anyway.

The latter, I don't mind that it's been removed but I don't think the +rep should be removed for some an not others. It's unfair on those who actually gave good reasons to the person they were repping.

I got a +rep for being in almost every department, for me that shows some commitment and really it wasn't pointless; even if it wasn't my rep I would have said it wasn't pointless too. Some of those were pointless but either remove non, remove all or actually look at the thread and check why it was given as sometimes comments can't tell you why. I repped someone and commented 'hehe' it didn't get removed so I feel that some are being looked at and some aren't.

I think the rep incentive staff have to post is ok, I don't think it's that hard to make 30 posts but 20 rep isn't going to break the system. You need 400 rep for a new rep power so it's not like you can go up say in 3 weeks (depending how close to the next one you are). I post because I want to, not because of an incentive, I think if an award was introduced instead then people would just post for it and as some have said many didn't realise there was a rep prize.