I think he meant that if you go down on karma, you will lose the ability to write posts?
Also, GAH! Titles should not explain the entire topic of the thread. If it can't be replaced with "kitten" without ruining the understanding of the thread, then you should rewrite the opening post as well as the title!!
Reputation points really just reward and detriment the users who follow it properly. As far as I'm concerned, it would take a pretty big amount of negative Reputation to really limit anything. Having a positive reputation score would be beneficial to the forum poster. We should think of...summore benefits
what would the waiting time be anyway for positive/negative reputation? be a bit stupid if people just go around voting their mates up so they can just write quicker on forums and have no wait, as I'll expect to happen anyway.
There won't ever be a "no wait" system. I imagine the minimum will be enforced no mater what your reputation level is.
As far as redeeming yourself from negative reputation, we're looking at some algorithms for "decaying" the reputation score. The longer you're off the site, the more "neutral" your reputation becomes.
For example, if you were flagged as a spammer in the past, and dipped below 0 reputation, that maybe after a period of time, you'll get back to 0 because you haven't contributed anything bad. Likewise, if you contributed a lot of good content in the past, but then haven't been on the site for a year, your reputation should also be close to 0 because you haven't contributed anything positive to the site, either.
We've addressed this idea in another post ... the reputation you gain from a 'friend' voting up something you write will be less than if a 'follower' likes something, and the amount of reputation you gain from a 'follower' will be less than if a complete stranger likes what you write.
It might be something like:
JoeUser writes a new comment on a game JoesFriend likes it, JoeUser gains 0.25 reputation JoesFollower likes it, JoeUser gains 0.5 reputation CompleteStranger likes it, JoeUser gains 1.0 reputation
Sounds like it would balance out accordingly! Of course some eyebrows would be raised if someone had +75 vote ups when there were only 20 replies, so that's another way of cracking down on the vote spam.
I don't follow your logic. You make it sound like you can only vote on someone else's post if you reply? There's no reason to restrict someone from voting on a comment if they don't choose to reply/respond.
NoobSlayer, I'm not sure what else needs explanation given what we've already talked about, but I'm happy to discuss it more if you need more clarification.
Will the voters' IP address be logged so there's no one voting up themselves easily by use of alternative accounts?
Will there be a limit of some sort to how many posts in which you can vote someone's rep? Like, no running around voting up every comment you see by a specific user.
What's stopping a coalition of AG goers from ganging up on another member's reputation?