6 hours ago, jpetrie said:

I don't think that's fair to say. The particular behavior that occurred in this scenario involved a user systematically and maliciously seeking out every post by another user and downvoting it regardless of context. This is not only (a) not new behavior (it happened on the old version of the site) but also (b) not very common. It's very much an outlying data point and I don't think it says anything concretely one way or another about how real people vote for real.

I have to say it was my fault for not making it clear in my post that my observations that "people vote people on prejudice", was not specifically referring to the original issue of the OP. It was general observations I made recently which was why I referenced that lounge post as an example. I just didn't want to start a new thread on it since this thread topic was similar enough. But yeah I wasn't referring to that particular issue

6 hours ago, jpetrie said:

What data do you have to verify this? Nothing about the ability to mechanically vote on posts changed except for the layout (the button is in a different, arguably less-visible spot) and the effect (it doesn't contribute to the same point system as other activity does).

Apart from my general observations, yeah I don't have the kind of analytical data you're probably talking about. I suppose it would be over-the-top action for me to  start linking all the posts that I felt were such examples, yeah that would be stupid. Which is why I merely gave the comparative impression of "liking the post" of the new system as opposed to the "value of the post" of the old system and how this probably affected voting. But you're probably correct that "pixels" makes up for forum activities and minimal rep point. (though despite all I've read about I still don't fully get it)

4 hours ago, Scouting Ninja said:

I haven't seen it, thanks for the link. I knew it had to be done, all the old members have huge scores compared to new ones.

The reason many people feel new members should be able to catch up with older still-active members is another thing that mystifies me. I have been here for just over 2 years. So If a member has a 6 to 12 years head start on me and lets say I am a prolific helper as a user (which I'm not) but lets say this is the case and these older  members are too, why should their 6 to 12 years head start on me not count? I feel it has to count as they have held up the forum for those many years and there is no logical reasons for newer members to try to catch up (OR its just me not being that competitive)

5 minutes ago, grumpyOldDude said:

The reason many people feel new members should be able to catch up with older still-active members is another thing that mystifies me.

Except that's not what it's about.

It's about normalizing reputation into a value that represents peer-voted reputation. Time has nothing to do with it.

In the old system reputation was a mix of peer votes and your own activity. In the new system pixels represent your activity/contributions to the site in terms of tangible actions. Reputation is strictly voting. We just need to get the old values adjusted to the new values, which is what the blog post talks about. 

6 minutes ago, khawk said:

Except that's not what it's about.

It's about normalizing reputation into a value that represents peer-voted reputation. Time has nothing to do with it.

In the old system reputation was a mix of peer votes and your own activity. In the new system pixels represent your activity/contributions to the site in terms of tangible actions. Reputation is strictly voting. We just need to get the old values adjusted to the new values, which is what the blog post talks about. 

Thanks for clarifying

Yeah separating reputation from forum activities make good sense.  

Still actual reputation could increment/decrement by more than one point per up/down vote though.  I doubt if this is just me being too used to the old system as I wasn't up voted too many times anyway. It just seems to be more valued if its more than one point per vote

1 minute ago, grumpyOldDude said:

Still actual reputation could increment/decrement by more than one point per up/down vote though.  I doubt if this is just me being too used to the old system as I wasn't up voted too many times anyway. It just seems to be more valued if its more than one point per vote

It could be setup that way, but it really has always been one point at time - for actual reputation/peer-vote. Everyone just accumulated rep faster because of activity, so it felt like you were earning more.

I've been noticing pixels are accumulating faster than planned because of the earning from activity, so there's been some adjustments recently.

35 minutes ago, jezham said:

Sorry to disagree with this particular post

Which post? Your quote doesn't link anywhere and doesn't contain any information (poster or content).

2 hours ago, Kylotan said:

I think Jezham is mostly angry that he doesn't have the points that he previously earned. The reputation system was apparently okay when he was gaining points before, but isn't okay now that he isn't.

That's certainly possible, I was just trying to get the necessary context for the post to make sense in this thread =)