neg reps

[evilfusion]

What I'd like is a real argument about the benefits of neg reps, since a lot of good points were made on why it's a bad thing. That's all that's really left for the topic to be worth leaving open.

[Guest Welche]

I think to explain neg reps better needs a slightly longer explanation and history of the reputation system, so let us go back to the beginning (or as early as I knew). Originally YCM had a very different rep system than it does now. When a member wanted to rep a user, they didn't select a particular post to rep and instead just repped the user as a whole. At this time, reps were much less common because you couldn't just tap a button. The advantage of this system was that you were able to leave a comment with each rep explaining it. This effectively made it impossible to revenge rep or to mini mod with reps because a user could report that. (Just to explain why this system was here, YCM originally had yugioh card trading forum and these reputations were meant to tell you who is trustworthy)

 

This all changed when YCM took the leap from being a MyBB to a IPB forum. With this jump came a massive overhall to the user interface of YCM. First, suddenly profiles became more useful, there was now a status bar and most importantly for this topic, you now repped individual posts. There was no longer a way to give a reason for the rep and I believe there was no way to tell who gave you the rep. This had a very different effect on neg reps. Suddenly revenge repping became easy. Suddenly minimodding was rampant. The TCG section users are a great proof of this.

 

The member Shard was considered a total idiot and he ended up with -100 reps. Did that help make him smarter? Not really. Instead it was users who were actually nice and helped him that improved his skill at the game.

 

Anyway so them came the faithful update that removed reps altogether and replaced them with a like system. This new system was inherent in the software and so that is the path YCM took. On a side note, I like to think it was me who caused this with my thread on removal of neg reps but that is not really possible. Anyway neg reps were then removed to the dismay of many members, but if you look at what has happened since you will understand. Shard has become so much better at the game. He actually tried to learn. It's been great.

 

Anyway there is a short history of the neg rep.

[evilfusion]

There was a way to tell who gave neg reps. You clicked on the number on the post and saw every person who gave a positive or negative rep.

[Guest Welche]

But no reasons were possible right? I think only Matts forum did that.

[evilfusion]

Yeah, the lack of reasoning was a touch annoying, especially for neg reps. Positive reps usually had some mundane reasoning.

[Sleepy]

I think to explain neg reps better needs a slightly longer explanation and history of the reputation system, so let us go back to the beginning (or as early as I knew). Originally YCM had a very different rep system than it does now. When a member wanted to rep a user, they didn't select a particular post to rep and instead just repped the user as a whole. At this time, reps were much less common because you couldn't just tap a button. The advantage of this system was that you were able to leave a comment with each rep explaining it. This effectively made it impossible to revenge rep or to mini mod with reps because a user could report that. (Just to explain why this system was here, YCM originally had yugioh card trading forum and these reputations were meant to tell you who is trustworthy)

 

^that is the better Rep System, that actually had a use to Neg Reps, and if I recall, there were also Neutral Reps, which were usually more passive sort of negs and were usually temporary (because the members either deleted them, or eventually replaced them with negs).

 

Although despite the fact that reasoning for the given reps needed to be provided, there was also a lot of spam going on. I remember looking at another person's Rep history and looking reason's along the lines of "This is team red providing the best of their service. Hurr hurr hurr hurr!" and "Team green has arrived! The resistance will prevail!

Of course, no system is perfect xD

 

 

so heres my new argument if neg reps were so bad why did we have them in the first place shurly ycmaker would of though of all that when he did it

 

Reasons:

-The first time is completely experimental. You try something, if it doesn't work, try something else.

-The original Rep System provided reasons, which could be tracked down by mods, who could punish you if you used them to spam, and Reps could be deleted by staff instead of only by the person that gave them.

-With the newer Rep System, since reasoning was no longer a must, you could neg to your heart's content without having to explain it. That took out a lot of the value reps had. I myself collected valuable +Reps and was proud of my clean record in the old days. Then the system changed and something as subtile as a difference in opinion, regardless of the back up it had, was apparently worthy of negs just because people felt like it, had a bad day or something. Particularly in sections like TCG, you could receive dozens of them because of one same mistake in one lone post just because someone influential negged you the first time.

-Then without Negs anymore, If you had been here at that time during the first few days, you would have realized some people were able to speak their opinions more openly because regarless of how insignificant a neg is, it holds some weight on the people you give them to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just for the record, I only ever got 2 negs in my almost 4 years of being here, and they were for the same post ;D

[Guest Welche]

Yes there were neutral reps and as I said, the system was based of trading cards. If you received the cards very slowly say you may not be in a good mood to give a positive rep but a negative rep is definitely not deserved. Instead a neutral rep would be what you used.

[kevin7653]

so how about bringing back neutrals?

[Guest Welche]

Why would we ever do that? The entire point of a neutral is in a trading system. There is no point now.

[Sleepy]

Well, there would somewhat be a point other than trades, if reason could be stated. As is, I agree.

 

 

 

 

Because nothing is more productive than to give a rep that is neither positive nor negative, and whose reason is not specified to the person to whom it is given[/sarcasm]

If negs is a bad idea, neutrals are not per say "bad" but totally pointless.

[evilfusion]

What would a neutral rep do anyway? Neutral means it's neither good or bad. If there's no "bad", then there's no "neutral" to give. Something's either good or it's neutral. If it's neutral, you don't give them a positive.

 

Plus, since the current system is giving reps to specific posts, signified by "X likes this", what a neutral do? "Y is neutral about this"? Yeah, thanks for telling me. I wouldn't have known that a certain person could be bothered to mark my posts with a neutral indicator, which does absolutely nothing.

 

Even neutral reps with the original system made no sense to me.

[Ярополк Пономарёв]

Let's just hypothetically say that everyone did want neutrals and negs with reasons back. Well, they can't be put in. IP.Board (the forum software we use) has no support for it, and would need a Modification. Now, YCMaker can't get a Modification because he's never online long enough to do it. And the modification would most likely cost money. And would mean more stuff to update.

[kevin7653]

all the more reason

[JadenxAtemYAOI]

Why do they even matter? I recall a member named Deidara asked for nothing but neg reps to get laughs. They don't keep people in line. For some, it could just be a way to show off who is a meaner person. Positive reps don't mean anything at all either. I have what, 75? Yet I'm known for being an idiot, sadistic, and a bit mean. There isn't a point in reps.

[Simping For Hina]

all the more reason

Spend money on useless updates that do nothing for the actual welfare of the forum? Stupid.

[kevin7653]

from now on if don't support my idea don't post in tbis thread

[Ieyasu Tokugawa]

from now on if don't support my idea don't post in tbis thread

Why? We gave reasons why at least.

[Sleepy]

from now on if don't support my idea don't post in tbis thread

 

Overuled!

If you or any other member that agrees with you can't give any decent reasoning, I don't see a point on your idea to be listened to, and I'm saying this with a mind willing to change opinion if you provide a good point to render the counter-arguments null and/or overcome the already shown changes of not having negs. That's as much support as this thread is going to get, and that's already pushing it. Threads with the same suggestion have been done and locked not too far in the past.

 

Also, all those posts you don't want are perfectly legit and on-topic so far. What would the problem be?

[evilfusion]

from now on if don't support my idea don't post in tbis thread

 

I'd ask for the logic behind that, but you haven't delivered on the other requests for your logic, so I won't hold my breath.

 

Just because someone has an idea doesn't mean the idea if infallible, and denying people the option of debating the idea completely defeats the purpose of posting the idea. If the only people who post are the ones who want the idea to pass, it doesn't give an accurate representation of the general public's opinion, nor provide any true evidence as to why something should, or should not, be implemented.

 

We already explained that the old system was flawed and any attempts to re-establish the system would take far more time and effort than it is worth and the system was never really a good thing in the first place. Even the original system, which was superior to the system we had before dropping negs entirely, did not have any genuine practical purpose.

 

This has gone on far too long and is no longer producing anything of merit. We can drop the subject now.