Who had the lowest rep out of anyone with this new system?
3
Who had the lowest rep w/ the new system?
Started by OneThreeThreeSeven, Apr 16 2011 10:04 AM
19 replies to this topic
Sponsor:
#2 Crossbones+ - Reputation: 1531
Posted 16 April 2011 - 11:22 AM
Some user that got banned at -66 rep now has -140 or something...BB and then some numbers was his username (BB1965 or something?). I think he was just trolling.
Note: I was once known as the screen name "Sir Mac Jefferson"
I have since discarded that name, and now use my real name.
#4 Crossbones+ - Reputation: 1531
Posted 16 April 2011 - 11:50 AM
Yeah, Aersix was like, -49 or something when he was banned (I think).
It does seem like it's a bit easy to intentionally bombard someone with negative rep, especially if you have a few friends. Couldn't you just run by every post they have (via searching the forums or something) and rate it down?
If so, it doesn't sound very troll-proof.
It does seem like it's a bit easy to intentionally bombard someone with negative rep, especially if you have a few friends. Couldn't you just run by every post they have (via searching the forums or something) and rate it down?
If so, it doesn't sound very troll-proof.
Note: I was once known as the screen name "Sir Mac Jefferson"
I have since discarded that name, and now use my real name.
#5 Marketplace Seller - Reputation: 8947
Posted 16 April 2011 - 12:16 PM
Well, you can only rate up or rate down 'x' number of posts a day (I think 5?).Yeah, Aersix was like, -49 or something when he was banned (I think).
It does seem like it's a bit easy to intentionally bombard someone with negative rep, especially if you have a few friends. Couldn't you just run by every post they have (via searching the forums or something) and rate it down?
If so, it doesn't sound very troll-proof.
Also, you probably want to read this post of mine.
All glory be to the Man at the right hand... On David's throne the King will reign, and the Government will rest upon His shoulders. All the earth will see the salvation of God.
Of Stranger Flames - [indie turn-based rpg set in a para-historical French colony] | Indie RPG development journal
#8 Members - Reputation: 1283
Posted 16 April 2011 - 05:51 PM
OP is at -14 already. Were you curious how low it could go? 
As I mentioned before the "trick" is to post and answer questions in for beginners or the other forums. Pretty easy questions usually. Then you can take your points and "spend" them in the lounge.
As I mentioned before the "trick" is to post and answer questions in for beginners or the other forums. Pretty easy questions usually. Then you can take your points and "spend" them in the lounge.
#9 Banned - Reputation: -52
Posted 16 April 2011 - 07:25 PM
OP is at -14 already. Were you curious how low it could go?
No, I saw a user named Fl4sh (banned) with -66 so that's why I asked.
But what's the point of a -rep system if admins just ban you? O_O
#11 Senior Staff - Reputation: 4277
Posted 16 April 2011 - 10:28 PM
lol! I just noticed that the aforementioned BB1995's reputation (which I watched go from -17 to -95 in just one day) has gone back to 0 since she was (rightly) banned. Problems with rep maybe?
Reputation can go below zero now.. we just don't show it. This was done to address some problems some people had with early negative perceptions.. since there is no grace period for users they can get slammed fairly quickly if they don't fit the mold most people tend to expect for these forums.
#12 Staff - Reputation: 8920
Posted 17 April 2011 - 12:41 AM
We don't ban people based on reputation, we ban people for bad or anti-social behaviour, and only in cases where the offending behaviour is repeated after warnings have been issued or for particularly bad offences. It just so happens that banned users often happen to have a low reputation because the community objects to the same behaviour we have warned and banned them for.But what's the point of a -rep system if admins just ban you? O_O
Unless you do something really bad (posting porn or signing up just to spam might be examples) you would usually receive several warnings, and perhaps be temporarily suspended once or more before we resort to a ban.
To provide a concrete example, the aforementioned BB1995 was unofficially warned (that is, told in-topic to behave, but no official warning was recorded) a number of times, given 4 official warnings, temporarily suspended for 7 days once, and was then banned. They were trolling with pointless and/or simple-to-answer topics in which they then complained about the legitimate responses they were given and/or simply ignored the replies, and were abusive to other members and/or staff a number of times. The low reputation is a result of the community objecting the this behaviour, and is independent of the user being banned.
- Jason Astle-Adams.
From my blog: 20 ways to advertise your game | What next? Intermediate to advanced C++
How to make games WITHOUT programming | 4 reasons you aren't a successful indie developer
#13 Members - Reputation: 1403
Posted 17 April 2011 - 01:54 AM
Reputation can go below zero now.. we just don't show it.
So now it is impossible to distinguish between someone new on the forums and someone who is persistently hostile and has already proven on numerous occasions to give unsafe or counterproductive advice?
#15 Staff - Reputation: 8920
Posted 17 April 2011 - 06:35 AM
That's a pretty good point really -- perhaps you could consider showing the real value again once it gets below a certain threshold; say -10 or so. You then get a bit of both world, where new users aren't affected immediately by a couple of down-votes, but so that consistently being down-voted shows up. Genuinely unpopular posts do still show up though, as it's just the total reputation that has been clamped (and I don't think it has been in the profile, only the forums??), the per-post votes will still show up on each post now that part has been fixed.
Reputation can go below zero now.. we just don't show it.
So now it is impossible to distinguish between someone new on the forums and someone who is persistently hostile and has already proven on numerous occasions to give unsafe or counterproductive advice?
- Jason Astle-Adams.
From my blog: 20 ways to advertise your game | What next? Intermediate to advanced C++
How to make games WITHOUT programming | 4 reasons you aren't a successful indie developer
#16 Members - Reputation: 630
Posted 17 April 2011 - 11:05 AM
That's a pretty good point really -- perhaps you could consider showing the real value again once it gets below a certain threshold; say -10 or so. You then get a bit of both world, where new users aren't affected immediately by a couple of down-votes, but so that consistently being down-voted shows up.
Reputation can go below zero now.. we just don't show it.
So now it is impossible to distinguish between someone new on the forums and someone who is persistently hostile and has already proven on numerous occasions to give unsafe or counterproductive advice?
To counter that, I find rep goes down based more upon having a non-popular opinion on a subject than the validity of what your saying regardless of hostility. For some reason I've actually found that rep moves slower with the new system than the old one, which is odd because it's so much easier to down or up vote people.
The only problem I have with the rep system now is that rep tag of "Excellent" is the same for someone with 32 rep as 1000 rep. Not that I mind having excellent rep, but it kind of cheapens the feeling of it a little.
#17 Banned - Reputation: 356
Posted 17 April 2011 - 11:14 AM
Indeed. There is an asshole who rates me down every time I criticize down-rating. Should I stop saying that because he is an asshole? I DON'T THINK SO.To counter that, I find rep goes down based more upon having a non-popular opinion on a subject than the validity of what your saying regardless of hostility.
Remove downrating privileges from assholes and make Jebus smile.
I like the Walrus best.
#18 Members - Reputation: 1403
Posted 17 April 2011 - 11:25 AM
In my experience, rep of people who did not participate in the more controversial lounge discussions was highly indicative of the expected quality of content in posts of those people. Generally when I observed it, having a controversial opinion was only a problem if you were unable substantiate the opinion with verifiable facts or completely ignored facts on the opposing opinion side during the discussion.
#19 Members - Reputation: 82
Posted 17 April 2011 - 11:35 AM
I am shooting for triple neg digits. If a bunch of people who take 5 years to get std::cout << "WHY ISNT THIS WORKING" << std::endl; compiled hate me that much I am doing the right thing!
"It's like naming him Asskicker Monstertrucktits O'Ninja" -Khaiy
#20 Members - Reputation: 821
Posted 17 April 2011 - 01:25 PM
There are always problems inherent to rep systems in forums where there is a "technical" section and a "lounge" section. In the same way that some people's rep gets slammed in controversial threads (almost always a lounge thread), other people go rep farming in those same threads. Unless the site admins want to divest the rep gained in the technical forums from the social forums, these issues will continue to exist, and rep within a certain range will more than likely represent social prowess rather than programming ability/helpfulness.
