New Forum Features

[Army Fencer]

Craig,

I wonder if you could put a system in where people with virtually no reputation have a limit to how often they post (to cut down troll posts).

[qatet]

uh oh..d'artagnan isn't on a distinguished road!..
yay! wflashka will become famous soon enough!

god..i have a feeling i'll amuse myself for hours with these..

~Jes

Have you discovered yet that you can sort the entire member list by reputation? The good kids move to the top of the class and the bad kids get put at the end. And it changes every day!

I must be in grad school to be this thoroughly amused by silly things.

[D'Artagnan1673]

I thought length of activitiy and number of posts added to someone's rep. I can see that Craig isn't picking one me because Zelda is in the same boat as well.

[Rolls]

I thought length of activitiy and number of posts added to someone's rep. I can see that Craig isn't picking one me because Zelda is in the same boat as well.

No, I think thatactivity and number of posts adds to the number of rep points you can give out. But you can't give those to yourself. I think you can only earn rep points from others.

Rolls.

[D'Artagnan1673]

This is what Craig says in the first post of this thread.

Just how does this reputation system work?

A new registrant to the forum has the starting option to rate a member from +1 or -1 points.

For every 180 days you've been registered, you gain +1 reputation-altering points.

For every 500 posts you gain +1 reputation-altering points.

For every 100 points of reputation you have achieved, you get +1 reputation-altering points.

[D'Artagnan1673]

I guess what all this means is I had better start making useful posts.

[Maeve_Mari]

Craig,

I wonder if you could put a system in where people with virtually no reputation have a limit to how often they post (to cut down troll posts).

Army,
I hope you are kidding here. Limiting posting to only those who have posted frequently (or those who's babble has constituted them to be "on a distinquished road") would significantly impair a community forum and impact the very premise for which it is here!

[D'Artagnan1673]

Army,
I hope you are kidding here. Limiting posting to only those who have posted frequently (or those who's babble has constituted them to be "on a distinquished road") would significantly impair a community forum and impact the very premise for which it is here!

I resemble that remark!

[Maeve_Mari]

I resemble that remark!

Aha! Not that a member who is truly "on a distinguished road' is not an impressive and worthy community mate! Just don't toss us trolls out to the moat. Be still my heart D'Artagnan.

[D'Artagnan1673]

hehe, I was just having fun!

[Army Fencer]

Army,
I hope you are kidding here. Limiting posting to only those who have posted frequently

I am not kidding.

It takes a bit to actually change the reputation of a member. There are certain situations where this might be a good idea, though. For instance, a couple months ago, two trolls clogged the system by writing back and forth to each other multiple posts and threads. It was annoying to say the least. Also, some members need should be limited in their ability to post, because of the nature of their posts-- FTH, for example.

[Maeve_Mari]

I am not kidding.

It takes a bit to actually change the reputation of a member. There are certain situations where this might be a good idea, though. For instance, a couple months ago, two trolls clogged the system by writing back and forth to each other multiple posts and threads. It was annoying to say the least. Also, some members need should be limited in their ability to post, because of the nature of their posts-- FTH, for example.

But Army, the way to obtain a forum "reputation" is via posting! If you limit posting to only people reputed enough to post, then you won't have any one included in conversations or posts other than the few fellows of reputation.

I understand (and have certainly read here) some horribly off knowledge (or worse) contributions on many threads and tracks here, but have to figure it's all part of the color that makes this a forum. If reputation point size is your critieria for contribution, then consider how the posters who argue constantly and to great length about a minor point or rule or call, the ones who clearly appear to be doing so only to annoy and havoc the thread would supercede and dominiate the thread over the contributions of those of a newcomer to the site with honest questions or opinions, or even an answer to the same point, rule or call?

In your book Mr. Annoying is on a distinguished road, Mr. New is but a troll.

How can a troll ever be a princess?

[Army Fencer]

In your book Mr. Annoying is on a distinguished road, Mr. New is but a troll.

You start out with 10 reputation points. As I understand it, if 100 people give you a "disapprove," your reputation points go down by one. If a person falls below a certain level, say, 5 reputation points, something is going very wrong and they should be limited in how many posts they can make.

How can a troll ever be a princess?

You, dear princess, despite your inexperience, are no troll. Newbies don't make trolls, trolls make trolls.

[Craig]

Army - Your reputation points are impacted by every person who "votes" on you. You throw your full power to positive votes and half to negative votes. (So, if I had a "power" of 5, then a + vote gives you 5 reputation and a - vote deducts 2.)

I'll check on this with the software documentation, but I think that's correct.

Craig

[Strytllr]

Army - Your reputation points are impacted by every person who "votes" on you. You throw your full power to positive votes and half to negative votes. (So, if I had a "power" of 5, then a + vote gives you 5 reputation and a - vote deducts 2.)

I'll check on this with the software documentation, but I think that's correct.

Craig

Wow... so what you're saying is that if we have a default 10 reputation, and we vote favorably for someone's post, we give them 10 reputation points?? so if they were also at default, they now have 20 reputation?? Wow!

[Inquartata]

And "Inquartata is on a distinguished road." How the heck did that happen!?

I dunno, but if experience is any guide rest assured that I am probably walking the wrong way down it...

[Craig]

Wow... so what you're saying is that if we have a default 10 reputation, and we vote favorably for someone's post, we give them 10 reputation points?? so if they were also at default, they now have 20 reputation?? Wow!

No. There are 2 things - you reputation and your reputation power.

So, you have 10 reputation points but you are new, so your "power" is 1. That means that when you vote for someone they get 1 point.

Some people have been around for a while and have a large number of posts, so they have more "power" than the newer people or lurkers who don't participate.

Of course, if you are attempting to award reputation while having a bent arm, you lose 17 points.

Craig

[Strytllr]

nono... I was flicking it to the back shoulder!!!

[Army Fencer]

I think I might be completely confused about this reputation thing. Oh well. I think it's time to just go with the flow.

*swims along blissfully*

[Strytllr]

No. There are 2 things - you reputation and your reputation power.

So, you have 10 reputation points but you are new, so your "power" is 1. That means that when you vote for someone they get 1 point.

Some people have been around for a while and have a large number of posts, so they have more "power" than the newer people or lurkers who don't participate.

Craig

I think I begin to understand now... (Finally!!) So it is your "reputation power" that increases with time and every 500 posts, not simply your reputation.... hmm. or is it both? Then people who have been here the longest or have posted the most have more weight to throw toward someone they think is reputable. Very interesting system.

Does the reputation of a person affect his posts in anyway, either positively or negatively?