Reputation vs Like/Thanks system?

[scottish]

Aye. To me, tokens was meant to be an outright replacement so people could save up for good prizes rather than consistently getting little bits of furni. Now you can't even get credits.

yeah I think that's the way it was meant to be implemented, but it was half assed so it failed

similar to achievements system it failed due to half ass implementation imho

[Kyle]

Total score is only a display, it wouldn't have any sway whatsoever. It means that if I get repped by 20 random people with 3 rep points and someone else gets repped by me, i get +20 and they get +1 opposed to me gettin +60 and them getting +50 odd. Current system presumes that highly repped users have more power over large groups of users with few reps. Each persons ability to contribute to anothers reputation should be equal so that reputation displayed is more accurate. I would say that the rep display in te post count currently does that. Why do we need a like system again lol

The fact that old users have a high reputation is FINE. They have earned it. The issue arises when that reputation gives them unnecessary power to control the reputation of others.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AgnesIO]

No it isn't. Simple maths. And it is like rep if it's a totalled up score of how many times someone has liked your post - which is why it would need moderation and limiting, just like rep. The only way for that to not be necessary is if a total score isn't tallied, which then amounts to completely removing everything we currently have. It simply makes no sense

- - - Updated - - -



As opposed to the nearly 9 years it's taken to get 2400 with an active forum

This is assuming it is only you that reps them... which it wouldn't be. The chance of you repping them 350 times is virtually zero - so it would actually take dramatically longer.. And then, of course, your rep would have also become even higher meaning they are actually no better off than before.

And Kyle has also explained it very well - that is the key issue here.

[scottish]

No it isn't. Simple maths. And it is like rep if it's a totalled up score of how many times someone has liked your post - which is why it would need moderation and limiting, just like rep. The only way for that to not be necessary is if a total score isn't tallied, which then amounts to completely removing everything we currently have. It simply makes no sense

- - - Updated - - -



As opposed to the nearly 9 years it's taken to get 2400 with an active forum

And as pointed out it would take 7 years to do that.

Well it's not, as it's not as black and white as a 'like' depending on the system as I stated, see Chippies posted earlier in the thread for the full list of options available to 'vote'.

Yes it may need moderation but nowhere on par with the current system where rep (by the looks of it and based on replies by GM) seems to be a major part of their workload atm.

Also worth noting, if you and someone who likes you were to sit and exchange rep weekly, that would go unnoticed where as if you were to spam likes on each other, members could pick that up fairly quickly so even those who do abuse in this system may be a lot easier to see in the new system. (and if you go up a stupid amount of likes, let's not pretend there aren't people sad enough to go through every post and find out if their suspicion is true).

[Chippiewill]

i'm 66 pages of 15 rep so 990 reps, 844 count so 146 -reps
@Chippiewill; is a neutral rep counted as -1, 0 or 1

0 because neutral reps aren't common anymore now that you start with rep power. The only time you really get neutral rep is when it's manually set to 0.

[The Don]

And as pointed out it would take 7 years to do that.

Well it's not, as it's not as black and white as a 'like' depending on the system as I stated, see Chippies posted earlier in the thread for the full list of options available to 'vote'.

Yes it may need moderation but nowhere on par with the current system where rep (by the looks of it and based on replies by GM) seems to be a major part of their workload atm.

Also worth noting, if you and someone who likes you were to sit and exchange rep weekly, that would go unnoticed where as if you were to spam likes on each other, members could pick that up fairly quickly so even those who do abuse in this system may be a lot easier to see in the new system. (and if you go up a stupid amount of likes, let's not pretend there aren't people sad enough to go through every post and find out if their suspicion is true).

I'm pretty sure a large amount of people wouldn't want their name on display in a like system which renders your bottom point redundant.

[MKR&*42]

0 because neutral reps aren't common anymore now that you start with rep power. The only time you really get neutral rep is when it's manually set to 0.

If you got -repped enough you'd reach 0 power wouldn't you?

[Richie]

If you got -repped enough you'd reach 0 power wouldn't you?

I'd imagine its capped at a starting point

[AgnesIO]

I'm pretty sure a large amount of people wouldn't want their name on display in a like system which renders your bottom point redundant.

You really think people would be worried about that? I'd gladly have my reps show publicly.

[scottish]

I'm pretty sure a large amount of people wouldn't want their name on display in a like system which renders your bottom point redundant.

erm one of the major points in every 'like' system is publicly displaying name, so i'd argue a small amount may but that would be down to votes if the system were implemented.

There would be various different things to be decided if a like system was implemented.

so no, it doesn't

- - - Updated - - -

If you got -repped enough you'd reach 0 power wouldn't you?

yes you would.