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.
Then, I would like to know how do a mod or admin discover players spamming game rating.
They just navigate through the game comments and delete the ones they qualify as spam.
If they see someone's profile who has left an unusually large amount of game comments in a short amount of time, they can also hunt for them in game comments.
It's much easier than it looks to look for someone's comment. Just use Ctrl+F and you're there.
After a day of pure day-dreaming (actually I was taking an public examination...XD), I came up a idea about this repu. system.
What if the negative reputation could only be given by admins and mods? Public users, even the highest ranked users were not authorized to give negative reputation rating to others. Of course users could still rate a positive repu. in case there was a very informative and contructive post or comment.
They just navigate through the game comments and delete the ones they qualify as spam.
If they see someone's profile who has left an unusually large amount of game comments in a short amount of time, they can also hunt for them in game comments.
It's much easier than it looks to look for someone's comment. Just use Ctrl+F and you're there.
They might be able to see all comments posted in another sort of feed. They probably don't check every game every day so all the comments posted are probably shown to them all together elsewhere.
What if the negative reputation could only be given by admins and mods?
I'm honestly not sure whether we'll have a "negative" reputation score.
Will ban counts affect your reputation?
Probably.
Another idea I had a while back that came up in another thread, was the notion of a "decaying" reputation, where you'd lose some reputation over time if you don't keep contributing to the site. One user had the idea of a checkpoint system so it'll never decay past a certain point, but I think you'd have to maintain a certain reputation for a lengthy period of time before we could enable that checkpoint for you. We're still discussing decaying reputation internally, so don't read too much into it.
Achievements will be in a 'badge' sort of system, but we may call them 'shields' to keep with the theme of the site.
Actually, no. Points will be called something different.
I don't recall saying anywhere that we're not calling them 'oints'. I do recall saying that we didn't want to call community involvement "reputation points" because we don't want to confuse which 'oints' are what.
I rather like the idea because it would be more a challenge to get points because then people can't spam for them.
That is definitely true, and spam will be further reduced if the Reputation system is smart, as in adjusting values based on who's rating and other stuff like that.
Well, don't confuse the Reputation system and Armor Points, they are meant to be two very different things.
Giving points for achievements and game play will certainly help quell some of the spam as opposed to giving points for community involvement. We haven't worked out 100% of the details yet.
This thread is only about Reputation stuff though, so let's stay on topic, please.
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.)
