Feel free to discuss ideas about the Reputation system, known to some users as the "karma system", although "reputation" is what we'll be calling it on AG3.
The Reputation System may not be present at AG3 launch, but is a high priority post-launch. It will allow other users to participate in ranking your community involvement, to a degree.
We're still open to ideas on it, so feel free to share your thoughts and ideas, and ask any questions.
I can just imagine bad things with this a "negative karma" bar. If I'm not liked people can just keep giving me bad reputation and that wouldn't allow for a fair chance. I think you should only gain "good karma" and the higher your reputation the more respected you are...
I can just imagine bad things with this a "negative karma" bar.
AG3 will not start with negative Reputation. Also, it is unknown whether negative Reputation will be added after launch, so don't worry yet. I like the positive Reputation idea though.
If I'm not liked people can just keep giving me bad reputation and that wouldn't allow for a fair chance.
AG3 will have algorithms to minimize the bias caused by friends and haters.
You cannot stop AG3 from coming, so it's no use to spam a preference for AG2. Besides, I think the reputation system is a good idea when the admins include algorithms to minimize abuse.
This sounds great, as if I'm looking for information on the forum, it will be much easier to see who I should/shouldn't be listening to with full attention, as well as whether people will listen to me. The only downside to this is, how much respect does it take away from people with a low reputation simply due to the fact that they only have a small number of posts? Even if they were all high quality posts? I think people with tons of short useless posts will still find ways to get a high rating if they really want it; multiple accounts, etc. I like the idea though, and it will be interesting to see how well everything is managed.
The only downside to this is, how much respect does it take away from people with a low reputation simply due to the fact that they only have a small number of posts? Even if they were all high quality posts?
This is something we need to be updated on.
As for multiple accounts, that's already regulated. People with multiple accounts are found and dealt with.
The plan is to change the armor point system, so unfortunately we can't keep them if they're going to change. The idea is to reward armor points for achievements within games for specific things, and reputation points for community involvement, such as commenting on games and posting in the forums.
The only problem I have with this is users that would rate a user poorly because of unjust reasons
For example, I would be given a poor rating from a user (who shall be left anonymous) because he believes I was cyber-bullying him, when in fact I was just giving him constructive criticism. So because of his obscure view of me, my reputation goes down
For example, I would be given a poor rating from a user (who shall be left anonymous) because he believes I was cyber-bullying him, when in fact I was just giving him constructive criticism. So because of his obscure view of me, my reputation goes down
That is only a problem if down-votes are included. The admins have mentioned limiting Reputation to up-votes only. Even if down-votes were allowed, there would be "hater" algorithms to minimize the effects of the problem you mentioned. It has also been suggested that a reason be required for a down-vote.
Of all the discussions we've had here about that, nothing makes it easy to regulate down votes. What I propose is just to have an upvote option and the flag, so people can flag things they think break the rules and upvote things they like.
I strongly dislike how people on this site use one word responses in game the comment section or just go and rate a whole bunch of games without playing them. I also think creators of games with more "lays" should get more AP than ones with less.
I strongly dislike how people on this site use one word responses in game the comment section or just go and rate a whole bunch of games without playing them.
You can help by flagging and reporting those comments.
As for spam-rating, I think they mentioned somewhere that if someone has an oddly high amount of rated games in a short time, they'll investigate and decrease it if found guilty of spam-rating.
But that is a hassle, I've suggested several times adding a limit on how many games you can rate per day, somewhere around 30-50. They can still spam-rate with that, but it isn't as severe. I've also suggested rewarding 1 point per rating instead of 2.
I also think creators of games with more "lays" should get more AP than ones with less.
They actually do something like this on Kongregate, but with ratings: If your game has a rating of at least 2.5 stars on the 50th rating, you receive 50 bonus points ("good game bonus". If the score is at least 3.0 on the 100th rating, you will receive 75 bonus points ("rad game bonus". The "totally awesome game bonus" awards 150 bonus points if your game has a score of at least 3.5 stars on the 200th rating, and the "legendary game bonus" awards an unbelievable 300 bonus points if your game has a score of at least 4.0 stars on the 500th rating.
You cannot lose points if the rating for your game falls, and note that these points are ADDED to what you already have. Uploading a game with a rating above 4.0 could therefore earn a total of 575 points. This is, however, pretty rare, as Kongregate users can be pretty picky with their ratings of 4 and 5. Taken from here.
