We're looking at some math algorithms to calculate Reputation votes based on the relationship of the voter and the author and how many times that voter has voted for/against that author. So if someone constantly votes your stuff down 'cause they don't like it, their votes will be worth less.

I really like this idea! Even if it doesn't get implemented it's nice to know that the people at AG are considering several different methods for the system and getting it done right instead of hastily.
___________________________________________________________

On another note, I just want to point out the way Newgrounds does their ranking stuff.
They have:
Level, Aura,
Rank, Blams, Saves, Rank #
Whistle Status, Exp. Points, Exp. Rank #, and Voting Power

If you go to the New Grounds faq (http://www.newgrounds.com/lit/faq/) and click level (It's at the top right of the page under Userpage Statistics) you can see what all the stats mean.

Now I think some of the stuff is cool and I also liked the Whistle system:
A user's Whistle level can go up or down depending on how    accurately the user flags questionable content. If a user abuses   their use of the whistle to flag portal entries and reviews that do not violate our terms they will lose points and eventually be stuck with a broken whistle.

But ultimately I find all the stats and ranks and systems to be confusing. It's almost too much. Newgrounds also deals with with lots of user submitted content (flash movies, games, music, etc.) where Armmorgames only, primarily, deals with user submitted games (aside from stuff on the forums).

I think the new AG system will be fun, but I hoping it doesn't get to a point where it's confusing (like Newgrounds is for an outsider).

But ultimately I find all the stats and ranks and systems to be confusing. It's almost too much. Newgrounds also deals with with lots of user submitted content (flash movies, games, music, etc.) where Armmorgames only, primarily, deals with user submitted games (aside from stuff on the forums).

Sorry to double post, but I wanted to mention that AG wouldn't have the need for half the systems Newgrounds has (because what I mentioned in the quote above.)

We're looking at some math algorithms to calculate Reputation votes based on the relationship of the voter and the author and how many times that voter has voted for/against that author. So if someone constantly votes your stuff down 'cause they don't like it, their votes will be worth less.

It's good that users are liking this idea. After all, it's really smart and should minimize spam.

I think we should keep the current system but also include the new karma thing. We could multiply the current stuff by... 50 sounds right, and make each time you get a "+1" on a comment you get 1 AP. This would make it fair, if I made any sense what so ever.

I think we should keep the current system

This current system is badly made. It's too easy for people to get Armor Points.

each time you get a "+1" on a comment you get 1 AP. This would make it fair,

That's not fair at all. People could easily create alternate accounts to bump themselves up with that one vote, or even ask friends to do it for them.

By-the-way... read the previous page where cormyn posted that Reputation and Armor Points are two completely different things.

Well, I see someone misinterpreted everything I said. I'm going to bed, I'll explain tomm!

Well, I see someone misinterpreted everything I said.

I didn't. You're talking about getting one vote giving you one Armor Point when AP and Reputation are two different things.

You also said to keep the current system which is saying to keep the way you gain Armor Points on AG2, but they are changing it on AG3 so it's more of a challenge for users and will reduce spam.

I don't think you answered the point about the gay marriage example. In WEPR there would be tons of negative rep going around due to differences. Will people be seen as a negative member of the site because they bring up controversial ideas?

Will people be seen as a negative member of the site because they bring up controversial ideas?

Maybe when you go to vote up/down a comment/post a little box will come up then you put your reason in there. Then if a Moderator sees that a member in the WEPR section or any other section has a lot of negative reputation then they can see the reasons for it, then if it's not justified the Moderator takes away those negative reputation points.

Just an idea. :P

Maybe when you go to vote up/down a comment/post a little box will come up then you put your reason in there. Then if a Moderator sees that a member in the WEPR section or any other section has a lot of negative reputation then they can see the reasons for it, then if it's not justified the Moderator takes away those negative reputation points.

Uhhh??? Wouldn't a system like that be completely archaic? The mods would be flooded with thousands, if not way more, types of comments that they'd have to sift through each day. What Cormyn said would be way easier.

We're looking at some math algorithms to calculate Reputation votes based on the relationship of the voter and the author and how many times that voter has voted for/against that author. So if someone constantly votes your stuff down 'cause they don't like it, their votes will be worth less.