Maybe on AG3, there could be exclusive benefits for frequent users. There could be groups only the top members had access to, or threads that only they could see. They could have more voting power, etc.
AG3 will have groups in the future, though members, especially founders, have to have a pretty.high. reputation score to be in one. At least, that's what was agreed on. Should there be groups in which leaders have the power to choose which users can join? Or will there be groups in which anyone can join and share mutual benefits?
However, in a web where exclusive users have more power than others, it would just seem...unfair. To get some reputation in AG3, you have to frequent the forums and get some upped replies. As flawless as this up-voting system sounds and no matter how many checks it can have against the user, it can still be abused. We don't even know what this sort of system will result in. Exclusive rights to exclusive users doesn't sound right, right now.
Somehow I think this idea is futile, since the current rules of AG state that groups are in any way intended forbidden, so... it's not likely they will change this rule with the new AG3 coming!
I was mistaken there... in the thread on 'Friends/Followers' cormyn stated that they will allow groups to be made in AG3! He stated it in the OP of that thread, so... whoopsy... :P
I mis-worded what was said. Friends/Followers: I took that from the Clubs/clans idea and was like "okay, they may allow clubs a little after AG3's launch." And then on page 2, you yourself agreed on the requirement of a high reputation score. I'm actually not sure if another commented on it, whether it was here or on GetSatisfaction. I'm sorry if there was a misunderstanding--I was trying to word it properly
I think that the reputation system is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of. For example. A user posts about christianity in the forums. For each post he gets, his reputation will go drastically down, unless he posts something pro - atheist. That seems very unfair to me. So they would all rate down his posts, when he did nothing rude at all.
Yeah, I see how that could get ugly, but I was just thinking that it would be cool if you were able to join exclusive groups once you were on the site for so long.
Or vice-versa, 201. Please keep in mind that those that post in the WEPR are generally more mature. If there are those that aren't and we know that they are intentionally voting down every post he or she agrees, the rational people will correct him or her. You're thinking of the extreme situations. Of course, I may be inclined to vote down responses I don't like. If there's a close-minded Atheist that keeps saying Christianity is false, I will vote down his responses. If there's a close-minded Christian who keeps saying "I'm right, you're wrong" and doesn't take anyone else's point of view, I will vote down his responses.
That's the beauty of freedom though. Something you don't like flag it down; something you do, flag it up. We will see what posts are typically liked and not liked in the future.
That seems like a great way to drive people away, I can see so many people just abandoning the WEPR if their posts keep being voted down. As, if I'm not mistaken, doesn't the flag up/down have an effect on your rep?
I also heard of flagging, as well as vote up or down. I could be wrong, buuut..... flagging a post/comment will trigger someone to delete it, thus the loss of rep. Getting some comments/posts voted up enough will cause your reputation score to increase. Voting down....changes nothing.
Voting up or down is just a fluctuation of opinion, but ultimately, if enough people vote up, your stance must be great, so your reputation will increase.
I do see where you're going with this though, Kyouzou. Maybe I'm seeing this all wrong. Maybe above is just stating what I believe should take place. If voting down comments/posts lowers reputation, I do see conflict in the future.
Right now the Tavern forum doesn't grant any points. Perhaps in AG3, the WEPR forum won't influence reputation. Would that be a good compromise? We could still impact a user's reputation if a *moderator* removes a post, though.
