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.
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.
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.
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.
But Reton, that isn't a solution. It would help if someone CONSTANTLY votes down your stuff, not if 30 people disagree with 1 or 2 things you say.
Yeah, it wouldn't work, unless all 30 people constantly voted you down so that the algorithm would take effect. But that wouldn't work either.
The only thing I could think of is something like this: You get 15 negative votes. The give a constant - 1 rep. Then for each vote after 15 it decreases. -0.9 -0.7 -0.4
But that system would work because certain voters would have more power depending on when they vote down the comment.
Or, for example, like with what Pazx said a disagreement flag. So it could be something like this, in the WEPR section, and only the WEPR section, there is a disagreement flag (instead of just directly voting a comment down). After so many people disagree with a post it counts as one negative vote. So after 5 disagreements it would = 1 negative vote. There would still be the regular flag to flag inappropriate content.
But, all the stuff I said just sounds to complicated to implement and explain or use anyway. So who knows.
About the WEPR discussion, a disagree would be a good idea, then an agree should also be there. Agrees and disagrees would then counter each other. If agrees and disagrees were included in WEPR, then that would leave the normal up/down vote for other reasons.
I just want to point out the way Newgrounds does their ranking stuff.
Man, that's a LOT of different point values to keep up with, Reton8. I do like the 'broken whistle' idea though.
GoM: I'm not big on the idea of having to explain why you're voting for a comment, though. As Reton8 said, it would make too much chatter on the system for us to sift through.
that system would work because certain voters would have more power depending on when they vote down the comment.
Well, sorta, but it's got nothing to do with *when* they vote on a comment, it has to do with their relationship with the author when they vote for it.
A disagreement flag would only work on hot topic threads like WEPR. It wouldn't have any use in a "count to 100" forum game. And as we've already stated, we don't really want to get into programming custom controls for some forums and not others.
(other than spam) What would you vote down? I'm actually struggling to see a need for a negative rep button and if there is one implemented I don't believe it should affect your rep, it should be "This is a bad idea D:<"
So if someone constantly votes your stuff down 'cause they don't like it, their votes will be worth less.
What about if somebody constantly votes your stuff up? They could be using alts, or they could be popular.
- People that try to troll. - Useless posts that aren't considered spam but are still useless. Example: Random Video Game Thread I like this game because it's fun and it kept me entertained for a while. <----- I would vote that down. - Someone trying to flame another user.
