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

[Decode]

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

[mangle]

I agree, 20 is a decent enough number imo.

[--ss--]

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

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

Should definitely be lowered to the 10-20 mark.

[e5]

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

[Plank]

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

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

Should definitely be lowered to the 10-20 mark.

agreed, really good points there.

[Immenseman]

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

[Shinigami]

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

[Smiddy]

30 like the old plan was.

[JackBuddy]

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

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

[Immenseman]

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

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