Forums → News and Feedback → i dont think the karma points thing is going to work well for many ag users
| 36 | 8315 |
ive been offine and have not found time for ag because hunting season started again
i feel that fourum posts should not be restricted
- 36 Replies
Oh, I was just saying what NoobSlayer was saying. If someone has +75 when clearly that couldn't have happened, you could crack down on that to see how he or she got those points. If you see that such and such got together a lot of friends to vote up the comments, then they would be punished for it. That goes back to my +75 vote ups with only 20 replies thing. Since you clarified that friend votes would be less value than stranger votes, it shouldn't be that bad. Maybe I'm just being a worrywart lol
The 75/20 argument doesn't add up. Having 20 replies in a thread, but one comment getting +75 likes could be entirely legit. And like I said, we're already looking at algorithms to track who's voting things up.
We might even go to an extreme where if someone's banned from the site, we'll remove any reputation boost/drain that their like/dislike/spam flagging had done.
I'm not exactly sure about positive reputation decreasing over time.
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.
I don't think a lot of users will like it if positive reputation goes down during periods of inactivity. If the positive reputation reduces over periods of inactivity users will lose motivation to post quality material knowing they're reputation will go down if they ever take a somewhat extended break from the site.
There should at lest be some sort of benchmark system were your positive reputation will not decay (after inactivity) past a certain point, but spam and trolling etc. can still put it down past that point. Like reputation benchmark's at 100, 500, 1000, 2500, 5000, 10000 reputation.
Example:
- User A has 1,000 rep.
- User A is inactive for an extended period.
- User A's rep decays to 500, but can decay no further from inactivity because they have hit a reputation benchmark.
- User A returns to the site with 500 rep and spams a lot. The benchmark only stops the rep decay from inactivity. The spam causes the user's rep to go down to 400.
- User A takes another extended break from the site. They are no longer past the 500 rep bench mark and there rep decays down to 0.
At least with that type of system you don't have to worry about rep decaying all the way to 0 from inactivity (unless your not past the first benchmark) and you can still go down to 0 from spamming or trolling.
Unless it's standard practice for sites to decay positive rep to 0 from inactivity. And the decay would keep people coming back to the site to stop it from decaying. Of course then you get a lot of spam like posts of people just trying to preserve they're rep and again people not bothering to post quality material because they no they will take an extended break from the site and there positive rep will decay.
I'm still against the positive rep decay. But if it cannot be done without, at least a benchmark system or something so that it doesn't go to 0.
then you get a lot of spam like posts of people just trying to preserve they're rep
Except that their rep is only based on people liking what they write. If nobody 'likes' what they write, their rep won't climb back up.
I understand your point about having milestones. Still, I'm trying to think of users who haven't been to the site in a year or more. At what point do we reset their rep? 3 months? 6 months? 2 years?
We could also send out Email notices like "Hey, you haven't been on the site in a while, you're going to lose half of your reputation points if you don't log back in..."
I am not supportive a completely resetting a user's rep. The benchmark system Reton proposed sounds good to me though.
I do not see why one's positive reputation should be able to decrease to nil. Oh, and if it has to be done, make it over a year.. I prefer two years.
I can think quite a few people who have been away for three months. I was on hiatus for six months last year. I don't see why rep should reset that soon.
Basically, this karma system is your standing in AG, how AG "thinks of you". If you contribute something, either small or large, you gain karma points. This can be whether people vote up your comments/posts, submitting a review, or simply submitting a nice little art or literature piece.
If you do something bad, for example having your comments flagged as abusive or spam, your karma points will go down. There may be something negative done to punish those with low karma points like longer posting limits, or not posting in the community, etc. Karma is basically what your standing in AG.
The 75/20 argument doesn't add up. Having 20 replies in a thread, but one comment getting +75 likes could be entirely legit. And like I said, we're already looking at algorithms to track who's voting things up.
I suppose people could vote up without replying to the post at all--they don't necessarily have to reply to a thread in order to be able to vote. However, there could be odd phenomena occurring, like a substantially-high + votes on one reply when the reply wasn't that great or convincing. Stuff like that would raise some eyebrows. It's not something to worry about, but it's something that could take place. The algorithm system may help solve it before it even happens, which is a plus.
This idea just sounds like it would be too much of a difference to incorporate with a gaming site. Rep should be sorta like AG points, where you keep it once you've earned it, except that the only way you lose it is whatever penalties you institute, and not be time based because not everyone has their entire life invested in AG. those who do, then great for them.
I do not see why one's positive reputation should be able to decrease to nil. Oh, and if it has to be done, make it over a year.. I prefer two years.
Double-post since I got slow-ninja'd by Knight, but....2 years is too long. That's almost the life-span of AG2. It needs to be a smidgen shorter, like one year or nine months. I myself went to a Canadian/Alaskan vacation and went back, where that took about 3 months. It shouldn't be too short, as people do go on little trips and vacations, mostly after school and long breaks. It shouldn't be too long either, because it wouldn't have any use.
Double-post since I got slow-ninja'd by Knight, but....2 years is too long. That's almost the life-span of AG2. It needs to be a smidgen shorter, like one year or nine months. I myself went to a Canadian/Alaskan vacation and went back, where that took about 3 months. It shouldn't be too short, as people do go on little trips and vacations, mostly after school and long breaks. It shouldn't be too long either, because it wouldn't have any use.
Thus, one year. I still prefer not to have it at all though.
In short:
reputation = community standing
armor points = game standing
Reputation is based on your community involvement (forums, comments, reviews).
Armor Points (including achievements) is based on how well you do at playing games.
i guess i just misunderstood but i think that your rep shouldnt go down just because you dont spend your life on the computer
reputation = community standing
armor points = game standing
That sounds good for people who go on the site mainly for the games, and for the people who also go on to the forums.
I would rather it be that your positive reputation not decay at all. If it has to I would be happier if it didn't eventually go to zero. I fell that positive rep decaying defeats the whole reputation system. You make a quality post to get higher rep, but knowing that you will lose the rep, if you take a break, really removes the drive to put effort into the posts.
Then let's say your positive rep is at a high level. You know that you only have to make a post once in awhile to keep the positive rep you have made from decaying, but you no longer wish to spend as much time on the site. Aren't you just going to come back to the site once or so a month make a lame post to "stay active" and keep your rep up?
I don't know, we"ll have to see the finished product. And understand the system better. I just would prefer a more "ermanent" positive rep.
Thread is locked!