Reputation System - Alteration

That will pickle off the gang.

I don't really understand the neutral rep,either you like a member or you dont

(03-11-2012 14:52 )Gaz "AV1" Aston Wrote:  

(03-11-2012 14:27 )elgar1uk Wrote:  I think it's a good move to get rid of negative reputations because I always thought it was a flawed concept anyway, in that newly registered members could give negatives out without contributing anything to the forum.

Yet its ok for current members to flood models and "pink" names with positive reps after having contributed nothing...???


Its equally flawed the other way..

Amber springs to mind having not even posted on the forum yet flooded with reps...


Also when people have come back repping and neg repping who have had multiple accounts which even led to one person having a positive, a negative and a neutral all from the same person!!!

http://www.babeshows.co.uk/reputation.ph...993&page=1

Just proves my point!


Get rid of it altogether or re-instate the negative option and... i dunno...?? maybe put some rules in place that mean people who abuse the rep system get suitably punished! Just an idea!

(03-11-2012 15:07 )Stillroom Rock Wrote:  I don't really understand the neutral rep,either you like a member or you dont

The neautral was a "I'm indifferent about you" rating.The neautral may now become the new negative,only in a much more polite way.

Any hostility which is placed upon members may be unjustified...but does it warrant policing ? I think so...

The truly sad part about all this is, if the forum was a giant kid's game of "war", none of you children would die.

If this matters to you in any way ... it's already too late for you.

I don't know if it's possible to do, but instead of getting rid of the negative reps why not instead only allow someone with over 500 posts and been on the forum for at least 3 months before they're allowed to gives out rep. This will stop most people bothering having multiple accounts and repping themselves or negatively repping someone else.

Either that or just scrap it altogether.

At the moment, I don't really have any major gripes about the way reps work - although I do accept that there can be abuses of it.

If the system is to work without prejudice, then maybe it should be purely merit based? So reps could be awarded for number of posts, as that denotes more interaction between that user and the site. Further reps could be awarded for capping, or for sourcing or adding video. In essence, a person's reputation is built solely on making positive contributions to the site and for nothing else.

For example: When adding a rep, why not have a dropdown menu of pre approved reasons for adding that rep. If the reason you want to add a rep isn't on it, then you simply can't do it. It means the reasons for a rep are genuine and rather than get a negative rep, non contributors or muppets just don't get a rep at all.

Thank you very much for my nomination in
Best Cap or Cap Set Of The Year 2013
for Dannii Harwood Posts 781 & 782

Thread of the year anyone?

EDIT....2000th post for me...your welcome folks

(03-11-2012 18:28 )seth Wrote:  I don't know if it's possible to do, but instead of getting rid of the negative reps why not instead only allow someone with over 500 posts and been on the forum for at least 3 months before they're allowed to gives out rep. This will stop most people bothering having multiple accounts and repping themselves or negatively repping someone else.

Either that or just scrap it altogether.

What makes you think it's just those under 500? Biggest flouters of rules and regulations I've seen on this forum are those who have been on the longest with the most post, the ones who have the mods ear.