Rep displays on posts

[FlyingJesus]

Since for no apparent reason Chris won't respond unless I make a new thread, here you go.

Basically for years now it's been obvious that it makes no sense to only display the positive reps received on a post as we do, as it then shows wildly unpopular views and abuse as something that's seen as respectable and supported by the community. The only reason that's ever been given has been that it might look like we're a negative place to be if there is a red -6 on someone's post, but upon suggesting that the display could show the sum total of reps with a minimum of zero rather than going into negatives it was agreed that this was a safe way to negate that problem and solve the main one at the same time. Basically if a person received 2 +reps and 1 -rep for a post, that post would show a +1 as opposed to the +2 it would currently, and if more then -repped it the display would be blank like a completely unrepped post. This has of course not come to fruition just as many supported ideas haven't in the end, but as updates to the forum were being discussed I thought it was a good time to bring it up again.

[Kyle]

there is no reason not to add this feature. removes some of the hivemind circlejerk attitude without any danger of perpetuating negativity.

[Samantha]

I wasn't aware that it was suggested about setting a minimum of 0. It does make sense not to have it lower if it's believed to show negativity. The only problem I can see is that if a post has over 1 +rep, someone might purposely -rep that post because they want to see it go down. I don't think this would happen, as I don't believe members are that petty or have nothing better to do - I just look at it from both sides :P.

Overall, I don't mind a feature like that!

[Drewar]

This sounds like a great idea. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be implemented if it can be done so logistically (i.e. there's a way to edit the plugin to do this).

[Richie]

I was always pushing for this in previous years but when you think of it logically there's no point in adding further negativity to the forum.

If people are really that obssesed with seeing a number change when they chuck a -rep here and there, which I don't know why people do anyway, each to their own I suppose, well then add a new feature, if that helps people sleep better at night but ONLY if it doesn't have a big red button that actively shows how many people have -rep'd each user. For example if JIMBOB786 gets +1 for posting a LULZ pic of a cat, then gets -1 from someone who has a terrible sense of humour, it could show that they recieved no rep as it'll cancel the first +1 out. However if someone has no rep and they get -1 I don't think it should say -1. Just look at how influential +1s are, when a couple of users rep a good post , most seem to follow and I don't think the forum needs that in negative sense.




iPhone

[Empired]

I was always pushing for this in previous years but when you think of it logically there's no point in adding further negativity to the forum.

If people are really that obssesed with seeing a number change when they chuck a -rep here and there, which I don't know why people do anyway, each to their own I suppose, well then add a new feature, if that helps people sleep better at night but ONLY if it doesn't have a big red button that actively shows how many people have -rep'd each user. For example if JIMBOB786 gets +1 for posting a LULZ pic of a cat, then gets -1 from someone who has a terrible sense of humour, it could show that they recieved no rep as it'll cancel the first +1 out. However if someone has no rep and they get -1 I don't think it should say -1. Just look at how influential +1s are, when a couple of users rep a good post , most seem to follow and I don't think the forum needs that in negative sense.

iPhone
This tbh. It's crazy how many +reps you can get after the first one. Basically I think a lot of people would be afraid to give the first -rep so when they see one or two -1s they'll be happier to jump on the bandwagon themselves.

I can see some problems with it but if everyone else wants it that badly I don't particularly care either way.

[Kyle]

The point is that that numbers will never go into negatives /because/ of the effect that can be seen with rep cultivation once a post reaches a certain number of reps. As an example, if somebody makes a rude comment with the rep system in it's current state and receives a +rep then others are more likely to see humour than abuse because of the nature of personal influence. Even if 3 people find a post rude before it's +repped and decide to -rep it instead, the appearance of a +rep under the post suggests that it is an acceptable point and so not only deters the sycophants of habbox from -repping it but actually encourages them to +rep it too.

Yes +rep is an intrinsically positive feature but at the moment it has negative impacts. The addition of the proposed feature means that people who disagree with a post and the attention an approval it is getting are free to work towards reducing the weight it has without being able to tip the scales so drastically that it is seen as negative. If a post received 1 +rep but 3 -reps in the new system then the post would appear as normal.


~~from phone

[FlyingJesus]

For example if JIMBOB786 gets +1 for posting a LULZ pic of a cat, then gets -1 from someone who has a terrible sense of humour, it could show that they recieved no rep as it'll cancel the first +1 out. However if someone has no rep and they get -1 I don't think it should say -1.

Yup that's what we're going for, I personally think it'd be hilarious seeing which posts are most hated but I can live without that and I see why people don't want that to happen :P

[mrwoooooooo]

sounds like a brilliant way to show who is liked and who isnt

yeah lets add it to the forum!!!

[Gina]

Yup that's what we're going for, I personally think it'd be hilarious seeing which posts are most hated but I can live without that and I see why people don't want that to happen :P

i want to see how many -reps chloe got last night

[e5]

I just think it encourages people to abuse the system if they see loads of people have -repped the post because they'll just want to jump on the bandwagon and -rep too

[lawrawrrr]

encourages negativity! Which isn't good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[scottish]

I just think it encourages people to abuse the system if they see loads of people have -repped the post because they'll just want to jump on the bandwagon and -rep too


encourages negativity! Which isn't good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

did either of you actually read the thread? didn't think so.

[buttons]

tbh tho having only +rep can cause negativity if it's a really bad post (eg someone being horrible) yet all we see is that people agree with them when it could be that three times the amount of people disagree with the post.
tbh i dont care either way but i don't see why it should be only +rep shown, should be nothing or both shown imo

[e5]

did either of you actually read the thread? didn't think so.
Are we not allowed to have state our own opinions?

[scottish]

Are we not allowed to have state our own opinions?

you are, but if you didn't read the thread it's pointless replying, it's suggesting to cap it as 0 so no-one can see anyone has -repped unless they monitor the +1 +2 etc symbol for ages and watch it go lower.

[lawrawrrr]

did either of you actually read the thread? didn't think so.

Yes, I read it, and yes, I noted the cap. But yes, I do think people would notice it going down! So few legitimate -reps are given out anyway it's be so pointless to spend any time looking into it whatsoever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[scottish]

Yes, I read it, and yes, I noted the cap. But yes, I do think people would notice it going down! So few legitimate -reps are given out anyway it's be so pointless to spend any time looking into it whatsoever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So few legitimate +reps are given out as well, so it would be pointless having the current system, no?

Most +reps are no comment or random reps. Rarely you'll get a +rep for helping etc.

But if you don't want a -rep due to negativity remove the +rep as well. I've on several occasions targeted someone and received countless +reps for it, so surely that depicts a negative environment as well as they're all showing they dislike the person/agree with me/etc?

[lawrawrrr]

So few legitimate +reps are given out as well, so it would be pointless having the current system, no?

Most +reps are no comment or random reps. Rarely you'll get a +rep for helping etc.

But if you don't want a -rep due to negativity remove the +rep as well. I've on several occasions targeted someone and received countless +reps for it, so surely that depicts a negative environment as well as they're all showing they dislike the person/agree with me/etc?

Lots of legitimate +reps are given out, for funny posts, helpful posts, well-written posts, as thank you'd as well.

Targeting posts are removed so people wouldn't be able to see what you were +repped for in that instance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kardan]

Are we not allowed to have state our own opinions?

http://th09.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2011/288/0/5/rage_guy_herp_derp_by_rober_raik-d4cwz17.png

I agree that it should be introduced, there's no downside really.

[e5]

you are, but if you didn't read the thread it's pointless replying, it's suggesting to cap it as 0 so no-one can see anyone has -repped unless they monitor the +1 +2 etc symbol for ages and watch it go lower.
Just because I chose not to reply to that part of the thread doesn't mean I didn't read it :S

[Inseriousity.]

Is there really any evidence that people lovebomb a post with more rep because other people repped it? Admittedly I only save my rep for extremely good posts/ideas so it takes a lot for me to give some out so maybe that's why I don't see a post with lots of rep and go hmmm I wasnt going to give it rep but now I have to. Maybe you should all stop being cynical and just admit that a post with 5 +reps has them cos people agree with it!

I'm going to guess that the real reason this hasn't happened is cos no-one really knows how to do it and rep is such a miniscule thing they don't think there's much point finding out. I don't really care either way with this one.

[FlyingJesus]

encourages negativity! Which isn't good.

No it doesn't, but posts (for example) from management attacking members who make requests of them that show a +6 when they 100% have -reps to them as well certainly does encourage negativity


Yes, I read it, and yes, I noted the cap. But yes, I do think people would notice it going down! So few legitimate -reps are given out anyway it's be so pointless to spend any time looking into it whatsoever.

Basically "cba so no". The reasons for doing it have been stated explicitly, and there are enough aggressive/unpopular posts with + symbols all over them for it to be a genuine issue.


Just because I chose not to reply to that part of the thread doesn't mean I didn't read it :S

Means that you haven't actually responded to the proposal at all and are just making up what you want to argue with instead of having a point

- - - Updated - - -


Targeting posts are removed so people wouldn't be able to see what you were +repped for in that instance.

Are they indeed (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=816867&p=8292222#post8292222)

[lawrawrrr]

It's not exactly "cba" is it? I don't have access so couldn't do anything, it's nothing to do with whether I'd be "arsed" to do it or not.

Targeting posts like that are *always* removed, no matter who made them in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FlyingJesus]

No they're not, but well done on avoiding the actual point *again*

[lawrawrrr]

I never said instantly. I'm also not sure who'd deal with that as the GM is in charge of the Forum department.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lawrawrrr]

What, pray tell, is the point? We will never add a feature that encourages people to be negative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[buttons]

No it doesn't, but posts (for example) from management attacking members who make requests of them that show a +6 when they 100% have -reps to them as well certainly does encourage negativity

yeah this is exactly my point. that shows negativity. only having the +reps there makes it look like that type of behaviour is acceptable because it only shows that people like this type of comments. its the same when someone calls another member ugly or any other insult, you only see the +reps which aren't positive but that green button makes it look like it. having just +reps doesn't show the true attitude towards the post. imo its either show the true attitude or don't show any at all. you're only given one side which isn't fair at all.

and agree w/ @Inseriousity. (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=26409); i've never saw a post with a lot of reps and felt compelled to rep it. i've felt more compelled to actually read it and thus more likely to rep it if it's a good post.

@lawrawrrr (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=61966); you're missing the point that only having a +rep showing can be negative itself. besides, whats wrong with negativity? if someone makes a poor comment then it should be made known that those types of posts are not acceptable.

[FlyingJesus]

IT DOESN'T. You are yet to say how a feature that does not in any way show negative reps is negative, but have been shown that the current state can and does encourage it. You've been told the point plenty of times, you just don't seem to be able to understand it somehow

And as for your repeated insistence that personal attacks and pointless posts with +reps displayed are always*+*+*+ removed, no (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=8242197#post8242197) they're (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=8259971#post8259971) not (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=8136885#post8136885).

[buttons]

n lol what is with people liking chris' post about that? it was a valid post from scott, chris was consistently late when it came to closing the polls when you can have the poll to close at a certain type automatically. scott gave him a suggestion and he lashed out which he has been doing in other feedback posts. it isn't nice to show a person being +repped for an unfair comment and not showing that not everyone agrees with the post.
the +reps on there breeds negativity cause it just shows a circle jerk towards 'owning' another member

[lawrawrrr]

If a post hasn't been removed that's because the moderator a) hasn't seen it or b) has deemed it not rude. But that's not the point here.


The point is that many posts that get rep don't get just one, but it's a snowball effect. I've done it before, not wanting to be the first one to rep, and also been waiting for rep on a good post, once one comes in a bunch do.

Having known what some people on this forum have acted like, being able to watch the number go down will be a power trip, and yes, I do believe some people will be watching a post to see how the number changes up and down. Just psychology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lawrawrrr]

When it comes to targeting posts, I agreeeeeeee with you and they should be removed (including the ones tom just linked to) and all the +reps too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MKR&*42]

I agree with having it decrease the number if someone -reps, but not displaying a '-1' '-2' etc counter. I know people wlil jump on the bandwagon and -rep a post that already has displayed a few -reps.... just as many people have already stated the EXACT same thing happens for +reps lol

yes to reducing number, no to negative values.

[Kardan]

If we're going to pretend that the forum doesn't show anything 'negative' then why do we have:

-repping at all, 'X is no longer Habbox Staff' posts and the Feedback forum?

[dbgtz]

I don't get why people are against showing a negative number. If all you're given is praise then you never learn.

[FlyingJesus]

If a post hasn't been removed that's because the moderator a) hasn't seen it or b) has deemed it not rude. But that's not the point here.

It is the point when that was part of your reasoning for the change not being necessary :P


The point is that many posts that get rep don't get just one, but it's a snowball effect. I've done it before, not wanting to be the first one to rep, and also been waiting for rep on a good post, once one comes in a bunch do.

Yes but you won't be able to see the negatives... unlike how despite there definitely being people who do not agree with Chris' attack on Scott it can currently be seen that such behaviour is respected. The whole point is what's visible, and with the system as limited as it currently is what's visible is often very negative mob mentality


I don't get why people are against showing a negative number. If all you're given is praise then you never learn.

Yeah I'd have both if it was down to my decision since rep is a form of user moderation, but I do think that the compromise is fair

[Kyle]

Are we honestly suggesting that people are going to monitor the decrease of rep on certain posts? Don't be ridiculous please. lol. It is already apparent that aggregated opinions that are highly repped are taken as gospel from some of the more easily influenced individuals here so why is there no mechanism in place to combat that effect? There is research (most notably by Lev Muchnik if you want something to read) to suggest that social influence in voting systems is rife when it comes to "positive effect" but when there is a cap on reducing weight of argument (see sites like hackernews who cap at -4) there is nothing of the sort.

I'm sure lots of us are guilty of either manipulating the rep system at the expense of other members or falling prey to said manipulation. Some ways to get rep are as follows:

- Make a helpful or well-structured opinion post (1 (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=8115919#post8115919)/2 (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=8033329#post8033329)/3 (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=8197359#post8197359)/4 (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=7604935#post7604935))
- Make a funny post
- Make a tongue in cheek but ultimately rude post aimed at somebody else (1 (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=7864769#post7864769)/2 (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=801265&p=8168115#post8168115)/3 (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=8136885#post8136885))

The list is obviously no exhaustive and would also include things like posting widely shared opinions (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=7591962#post7591962) and posting art (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=7453638#post7453638) or room design (http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?p=7618443#post7618443) that is deemed good. All of the above though are at risk of manipulation but the latter in the list provided has the largest negative impact and seems to be the form most frequently adopted for quick and cheap rep gathering. If a rude post gets one rep it is immediately highlighted as a 'good' post and whether you like it or not, your opinion on it is altered without even reading it. If somebody (usually those targeted within the post but often those that objectively feel that it's rude) -reps that post after it received the +rep then the new system would allow them to remove that highlight and reduce influence. Cronyism is a huge factor in these types of posts, where friends will rep friends for sharing a joke at another's expense and, in turn, others will blindly bandwagon onto the rep train and inflate the opinion far beyond its intended purpose and effectively make whoever is the butt of the joke a laughing stock among the group.

Nothing promotes negativity in this way more than the current system, least of all something that offers a counterbalance without any visible influence towards the more negative end of the spectrum. I suggest at least trialing the system first before any speculation about how watching rep drop from 5 to 3 on certain posts is going to promote negativity in any way.

[-:Undertaker:-]

One thing I always have noticed with reputation, and I suspect showing it may spread/make it worse, is that whenever somebody is new/has low rep count or isn't VIP/Staff (so they can't see who has -repped them) in my experience all the forum loudmouths and the ones who act all cocky will -rep, but strangely won't -rep whenever that person can see who has or who hasn't -repped them. Now isn't that strange, especially for people who pretend not to be bothered in the slightest about reputation.

So i'd be open to showing -reps as long as seeing who has -repped you can be seen by non-staff/non-VIP users.

[e5]

It is the point when that was part of your reasoning for the change not being necessary :P



Yes but you won't be able to see the negatives... unlike how despite there definitely being people who do not agree with Chris' attack on Scott it can currently be seen that such behaviour is respected. The whole point is what's visible, and with the system as limited as it currently is what's visible is often very negative mob mentality



Yeah I'd have both if it was down to my decision since rep is a form of user moderation, but I do think that the compromise is fair

my point is still valid. I don't think anything to do with -rep should be displayed. This included it minus'ing of any +rep reps you may have received.

[scottish]

One thing I always have noticed with reputation, and I suspect showing it may spread/make it worse, is that whenever somebody is new/has low rep count or isn't VIP/Staff (so they can't see who has -repped them) in my experience all the forum loudmouths and the ones who act all cocky will -rep, but strangely won't -rep whenever that person can see who has or who hasn't -repped them. Now isn't that strange, especially for people who pretend not to be bothered in the slightest about reputation.

So i'd be open to showing -reps as long as seeing who has -repped you can be seen by non-staff/non-VIP users.

that's like 90% of the reason most people have vip lol

i'm sure most people don't care, i'm probably classed as one of your loudmouths and i -rep people without checking if they're VIP etc

[Phil]

Hey guys sorry I've been flat out with college this week!

I've just read the whole thread and I see where everyone is coming from. At the moment I'm not too sure of the idea, a little pointless, so I'm gonna see what more you guys have to say. I've been chatting to Nick and he actually seems keen of the idea so at the moment we aren't saying no.

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing that the -reps will spread negativity but in some cases, they can.

Infact, a lot of the -reps that are issued are actually given for someone giving their opinion rather than rude posts. That's one of the reasons I've always been reluctant to introduce the feature because someone shouldn't ben -repped for their opinion and have it known that they have been but showing the collective amount would of course avoid that problem.

We shall see!

[FlyingJesus]

my point is still valid. I don't think anything to do with -rep should be displayed. This included it minus'ing of any +rep reps you may have received.

You don't seem to understand what the word "displayed" means, nor do you (as usual) have any actual reasoning for what you're saying, just a statement without backing

[scottish]

Hey guys sorry I've been flat out with college this week!

I've just read the whole thread and I see where everyone is coming from. At the moment I'm not too sure of the idea, a little pointless, so I'm gonna see what more you guys have to say. I've been chatting to Nick and he actually seems keen of the idea so at the moment we aren't saying no.

I'm not disagreeing or agreeing that the -reps will spread negativity but in some cases, they can.

Infact, a lot of the -reps that are issued are actually given for someone giving their opinion rather than rude posts. That's one of the reasons I've always been reluctant to introduce the feature because someone shouldn't ben -repped for their opinion and have it known that they have been but showing the collective amount would of course avoid that problem.

We shall see!

the suggestion is to cap it as 0, so you can't see someones been -repped unless you actively monitor each post.

[Phil]

the suggestion is to cap it as 0, so you can't see someones been -repped unless you actively monitor each post.

Yeah I know? I said in my last line "but showing the collective amount would solve that problem"

[Kyle]

Фif it solves a problem the next question would be whether it can be done, not whether anybody else is bothered. The problem exists, let's see what we can get done about it :)


~~from phone

[scottish]

Фif it solves a problem the next question would be whether it can be done, not whether anybody else is bothered. The problem exists, let's see what we can get done about it :)


~~from phone

don't imagine it would be hard.

[FlyingJesus]

Wondering what Chris' reasons for saying it will NEVER EVER HAPPEN were, he's decidedly quiet about this issue now that everyone's on board with it

[Phil]

Well at the moment I don't think we have anyone that can do it :P

[scottish]

Who has access to it, that actually knows how to code?

[Chippiewill]

I think it's just added in templates, not too difficult. Capping the value to 0 might be difficult though.

[Chris]

Wondering what Chris' reasons for saying it will NEVER EVER HAPPEN were, he's decidedly quiet about this issue now that everyone's on board with it

Why? Because of how unlikely it is that we'll find somebody to do it. If theres somebody to do it and enough demand for it then thats cool. If not then you might as well forget it. :P

[FlyingJesus]

Oh so there never really was an in-depth reason that's been discussed multiple times in the past as you claimed before then, just inability

[scottish]

Release the code then someone will do it.

[Chris]

Oh so there never really was an in-depth reason that's been discussed multiple times in the past as you claimed before then, just inability

The fact that we don't have the feature after it being discussed multiple times should have been enough to answer your question.


Release the code then someone will do it.

Who? The magic fairy?

[scottish]

The fact that we don't have the feature after it being discussed multiple times should have been enough to answer your question.



Who? The magic fairy?

Maybe

[FlyingJesus]

The fact that we don't have the feature after it being discussed multiple times should have been enough to answer your question

By this logic I assume we are never getting V7 and there are no plans for the events department to ever be decent again

[Chris]

Maybe

I wish :P


By this logic I assume we are never getting V7 and there are no plans for the events department to ever be decent again

You would be assuming wrong.

[scottish]

Well if people are interested in it then there's a chance someone will go out of their way to look into it, where as just leaving it won't get anything done.

[FlyingJesus]

So what makes those things defy your masterful and wise logic that if we don't have it it will never happen? Or were you just being a *** about it all

[Empired]

I've just read through the thread so far and I like the idea of showing collective rep a lot but I would be completely against showing rep in negative figures.

I can't remember who made the point about how "if all you're given is praise then you won't learn" but I think it is kind of irrelevant. We're not all given praise; -reps still exist they're just not shown to the rest of the forum. I've received a couple of -reps that have really hit hard either because of their comments or because I've been ashamed of whatever I said that deserved a -rep. I don't care about receiving negative rep itself but on two different occasions the comments left with them made me think ok. I wouldn't count that as only being given praise and I definitely did learn from both of those times.

But most of the -reps I have received in the past 12 months are either completely pointless (but I'm too lazy to ask for them to be removed) or because someone disagrees with my point. This is different from the point of the thread but someone made the point about how people without VIP are more likely to be -repped as they can't see who -repped them? I have to say I'm guilty of issuing negative rep safe in the knowledge they'll never know it's me; though I try not to -rep at all unless someone is being downright offensive these days. But I'm not as bad as some people *cough* GoldenMerc; for -repping me however many times (at least seven) when I was really really young in 2011 just because you could ;l ;l;l;l;l;l AND NOT EVEN LEAVING YOUR NAME ://////////

Slightly off topic but which seven people repped Chris for being rude? I don't always see eye to eye with FlyingJesus but that was downright unacceptable. If I were a new user to this forum and saw the General Manager of the site behaving like that to a member then I would definitely not want to stay. Why has it been kept up? Is it because the Moderators are too afraid to remove the post of their own General Manager?
In fairness, they shouldn't have to have anything to remove. By the time you've reached the position of General Manager you should have learned what is acceptable to post and what is not.

Yes anyway my main point was I would really like to see rep balanced out but definitely not just negative rep.

PS when does the Christmas rep thread start again? Is it the week before Christmas day? I can never remember :'(

- - - Updated - - -


Who? The magic fairy?
I know nothing about this but can it hurt to release it?

You post it and there's a possibility it might get done. Or you don't post it and there's absolutely no way it will get done.

[Chris]

Well if people are interested in it then there's a chance someone will go out of their way to look into it, where as just leaving it won't get anything done.

Well if somebody with that capability comes forward then we'll let them have a go at it.



I know nothing about this but can it hurt to release it?

You post it and there's a possibility it might get done. Or you don't post it and there's absolutely no way it will get done.

See above.

[Empired]

Well if somebody with that capability comes forward then we'll let them have a go at it.
You have to ask. People aren't just going to spontaneously think "Oh I wonder if Wispur has anything forum-related he'd like help coding". Ask around, post one of those things at the top of the forum that my brain has blocked out the word for, don't assume everyone will have read your posts on pages 6 - 7 in a Feedback thread one time.

[Phil]

Empired;

It's actually a rule that you can't deal with anyone above your level. So for example, normal mods aren't allowed to deal with staff rule breaks, SMOD's are allowed to deal with managers etc. so in theory, nobody can really tell off Chris for breaking a rule :P even though I don't think he did.

I was actually thinking about the christmas rep thread earlier and I think it's like a day or two before Christmas

[Chris]

You have to ask. People aren't just going to spontaneously think "Oh I wonder if Wispur has anything forum-related he'd like help coding". Ask around, post one of those things at the top of the forum that my brain has blocked out the word for, don't assume everyone will have read your posts on pages 6 - 7 in a Feedback thread one time.

No, because before we even consider getting the system modified there will need to be a poll for the new feature. It's all very well that a handful of you have backed the feature, but that does not reflect the opinion of the entire forum. If the poll is yes THEN we start working on getting it done.

[Empired]

@Empired (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=80588);

It's actually a rule that you can't deal with anyone above your level. So for example, normal mods aren't allowed to deal with staff rule breaks, SMOD's are allowed to deal with managers etc. so in theory, nobody can really tell off Chris for breaking a rule :P even though I don't think he did.

I was actually thinking about the christmas rep thread earlier and I think it's like a day or two before Christmas
Oh never knew that but it's obvious now I think about it. Interesting. In the Help Desk you were allowed to warn anyone in the room except A/GMs. Most people liked to call HxHD Management/Seniors for help if a member of staff from another department was kicking off, but they were allowed to deal with it on their own as far as I know.

I find it interesting that you don't think it was breaking the rules. Do you think it would have been acceptable for me to post that response? And perhaps instead of to FlyingJesus, to someone different like Shonly or Laura? For example if I were to reply to your post here with "Oh shut up. I don't have to justify anything to you." instead of what I am actually responding with, would that be acceptable?


No, because before we even consider getting the system modified there will need to be a poll for the new feature. It's all very well that a handful of you have backed the feature, but that does not reflect the opinion of the entire forum. If the poll is yes THEN we start working on getting it done.
I wasn't suggesting you ask around to find someone straight away. I was assuming you would have realised I automatically thought you'd make a thread first :P

[Chris]

Oh never knew that but it's obvious now I think about it. Interesting. In the Help Desk you were allowed to warn anyone in the room except A/GMs. Most people liked to call HxHD Management/Seniors for help if a member of staff from another department was kicking off, but they were allowed to deal with it on their own as far as I know.

I find it interesting that you don't think it was breaking the rules. Do you think it would have been acceptable for me to post that response? And perhaps instead of to FlyingJesus, to someone different like Shonly or Laura? For example if I were to reply to your post here with "Oh shut up. I don't have to justify anything to you." instead of what I am actually responding, would that be acceptable?


I wasn't suggesting you ask around to find someone straight away. I was assuming you would have realised I automatically thought you'd make a thread first :P

Well forum management can go ahead and make that when they're ready. :)

[FlyingJesus]

Why does there need to be a poll on things that just simply make sense? We didn't have one for updating the avatar file size limit, or the supposed changes to the news department, or introducing new skins, or changing the structure of General Management, et cetera et cetera. A suggested improvement with only bonuses and no valid criticisms surely ought to just be put in action where possible rather than constantly stalling and setting up obstacles

ps Empired; he was attacking Scott not me :P

[Phil]

Oh never knew that but it's obvious now I think about it. Interesting. In the Help Desk you were allowed to warn anyone in the room except A/GMs. Most people liked to call HxHD Management/Seniors for help if a member of staff from another department was kicking off, but they were allowed to deal with it on their own as far as I know.

I find it interesting that you don't think it was breaking the rules. Do you think it would have been acceptable for me to post that response? And perhaps instead of to FlyingJesus, to someone different like Shonly or Laura? For example if I were to reply to your post here with "Oh shut up. I don't have to justify anything to you." instead of what I am actually responding with, would that be acceptable?


I wasn't suggesting you ask around to find someone straight away. I was assuming you would have realised I automatically thought you'd make a thread first :P

General Management and any other Manager on the site have often got responses like that without anything being done and they very rarely deserve it :P

[Chris]

Why does there need to be a poll on things that just simply make sense? We didn't have one for updating the avatar file size limit, or the supposed changes to the news department, or introducing new skins, or changing the structure of General Management, et cetera et cetera. A suggested improvement with only bonuses and no valid criticisms surely ought to just be put in action where possible rather than constantly stalling and setting up obstacles

ps Empired; he was attacking Scott not me :P

This isn't even comparable to the things you mentioned. Just because you think it provides only bonuses and no valid criticisms, doesn't mean everybody else does.

[FlyingJesus]

Well anyone else would be wrong then considering there have been no valid criticisms thus far

[Chris]

Well anyone else would be wrong then considering there have been no valid criticisms thus far

Again that is your opinion. Personally I couldn't care less about introducing the proposed changes, but other people might do which is why there needs to be a poll.

[FlyingJesus]

You don't seem to understand the difference between an opinion and provable fact.

Opinion = "I'm E5 and I think this is bad huahhhhhhh"
Provable fact = "We currently have a system that shows aggressive and inflammatory posts as something to aspire to if you want to be respected"

[Phil]

Everyone happy with the following options:

1. Change it so the collective amount of Reputation given will be shown.
2. Make no changes.

??

[Chris]

You don't seem to understand the difference between an opinion and provable fact.

Opinion = "I'm E5 and I think this is bad huahhhhhhh"
Provable fact = "We currently have a system that shows aggressive and inflammatory posts as something to aspire to if you want to be respected"

I completely understand the difference. It's you who can't get your head around the fact that it's not always about what you want.

Phil; Yeah that looks good. :)

[FlyingJesus]

So long as it's explained that no negative scores will be shown yeah, last time we had a poll about this the options weren't written out properly so it looked like we were just wanting an extra indicator added alongside the current one :P

And no Chris, if you're calling facts opinions (as you are) then you clearly don't know the difference at all, but do keep trying

[Chris]

So long as it's explained that no negative scores will be shown yeah, last time we had a poll about this the options weren't written out properly so it looked like we were just wanting an extra indicator added alongside the current one :P

And no Chris, if you're calling facts opinions (as you are) then you clearly don't know the difference at all, but do keep trying

Whatever you say. :)

Good luck in the poll!

[Phil]

Thread posted: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=817081

Let me know if any changes should be made to the OP

[Inseriousity.]

Is there really any evidence that people lovebomb a post with more rep because other people repped it? Admittedly I only save my rep for extremely good posts/ideas so it takes a lot for me to give some out so maybe that's why I don't see a post with lots of rep and go hmmm I wasnt going to give it rep but now I have to. Maybe you should all stop being cynical and just admit that a post with 5 +reps has them cos people agree with it!

I'm going to guess that the real reason this hasn't happened is cos no-one really knows how to do it and rep is such a miniscule thing they don't think there's much point finding out. I don't really care either way with this one.

Called it. At least it was admitted this time. Hate the reliance on polls. "You make the decisions so I don't have to!" It's right up there with putting ideas on "trial." Another of my pet peeves. Not a huge deal lol just babbling.

[scottish]

Empired;

It's actually a rule that you can't deal with anyone above your level. So for example, normal mods aren't allowed to deal with staff rule breaks, SMOD's are allowed to deal with managers etc. so in theory, nobody can really tell off Chris for breaking a rule :P even though I don't think he did.

I was actually thinking about the christmas rep thread earlier and I think it's like a day or two before Christmas

It's usually about the 21st iirc? then closest on like 28th (again iirc)

- - - Updated - - -


No, because before we even consider getting the system modified there will need to be a poll for the new feature. It's all very well that a handful of you have backed the feature, but that does not reflect the opinion of the entire forum. If the poll is yes THEN we start working on getting it done.

Then either start a poll or release the code so someone can work on it.

[Phil]

It's usually about the 21st iirc? then closest on like 28th (again iirc)

- - - Updated - - -



Then either start a poll or release the code so someone can work on it.

Yeah I thought that just after I posted :P I believe it is the 21st

Poll has been released.

[GoldenMerc]

I've just read through the thread so far and I like the idea of showing collective rep a lot but I would be completely against showing rep in negative figures.

I can't remember who made the point about how "if all you're given is praise then you won't learn" but I think it is kind of irrelevant. We're not all given praise; -reps still exist they're just not shown to the rest of the forum. I've received a couple of -reps that have really hit hard either because of their comments or because I've been ashamed of whatever I said that deserved a -rep. I don't care about receiving negative rep itself but on two different occasions the comments left with them made me think ok. I wouldn't count that as only being given praise and I definitely did learn from both of those times.

But most of the -reps I have received in the past 12 months are either completely pointless (but I'm too lazy to ask for them to be removed) or because someone disagrees with my point. This is different from the point of the thread but someone made the point about how people without VIP are more likely to be -repped as they can't see who -repped them? I have to say I'm guilty of issuing negative rep safe in the knowledge they'll never know it's me; though I try not to -rep at all unless someone is being downright offensive these days. But I'm not as bad as some people *cough* GoldenMerc; for -repping me however many times (at least seven) when I was really really young in 2011 just because you could ;l ;l;l;l;l;l AND NOT EVEN LEAVING YOUR NAME ://////////

Slightly off topic but which seven people repped Chris for being rude? I don't always see eye to eye with FlyingJesus but that was downright unacceptable. If I were a new user to this forum and saw the General Manager of the site behaving like that to a member then I would definitely not want to stay. Why has it been kept up? Is it because the Moderators are too afraid to remove the post of their own General Manager?
In fairness, they shouldn't have to have anything to remove. By the time you've reached the position of General Manager you should have learned what is acceptable to post and what is not.

Yes anyway my main point was I would really like to see rep balanced out but definitely not just negative rep.

PS when does the Christmas rep thread start again? Is it the week before Christmas day? I can never remember :'(

- - - Updated - - -


I know nothing about this but can it hurt to release it?

You post it and there's a possibility it might get done. Or you don't post it and there's absolutely no way it will get done.

Didn't realise it was a crime to -rep without leaving my name...

[Empired]

Didn't realise it was a crime to -rep without leaving my name...
:@

pmsl no it's fine
you just stick in my mind because you did it like 8 times lol cries