Alternative to the * system

[Scotty.]

Now that the * system has been removed, I don't know how much of a necessity it is to come up with a replacement, but here is an idea that I really like.

I have recently started using the bodybuilding.com forums, and I really like their "Reputation System." Here is the basic outline of how it works:

Every poster has a little section below their avatar showing the amount of reputation they have. For every post someone makes, other posters have the option of giving it positive or negative reputation, which makes the original poster's overall reputation go either up or down. A poster with a highly positive reputation will have a lot of rep points, and green bars by their name indicating this. A poster who is given a lot of negative reputation with have negative points and red bars by their name.

Each poster's ability to give out reputation is also different. On BB.com the method they use is you earn 1 additional point of rep-altering power for every 1000 posts, 1 point for every year you have been a member of the forum, and 1 point for every 1000 positive reputation points that he/she has received themself. This way, the posters who have been around the longest, have the most posts, and the most positive reputation are able to have the most influence on others' reps. A person with an overall negative reputation has 0 rep-altering power.

That is a basic outline of the system. There are other measures in place to limit abuse of the system. Full details can be found in the FAQ on the bodybuilding.com forums. I think this system would be especially useful for the strategy forums, and being able to identify good posters.

This would obviously require a software update in order to implement, and I have no idea how difficult the logistics of this would be.

[UATrewqaz]

You mean allowing the forum as a whole to decide if someone is a good or bad poster? Rather than the subjective opinion of a single "internet tough guy" mod?

Intriguing...

I have seen this on other forums as well btw, Casinomesiter I believe.

[Scotty.]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean allowing the forum as a whole to decide if someone is a good or bad poster? Rather than the subjective opinion of a single "internet tough guy" mod?

Intriguing...


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, although the mods on that forum all seem to have an exceptionally high rep-altering power. I don't know if they actually earned it, and that is one reason they are a mod, or if they are given special powers as a mod. Either way, I don't see any reason why we would have to copy every single detail of their system, so yes, we could have mods being equal to others with rep-altering abilities - at least until they earn more power.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean allowing the forum as a whole to decide if someone is a good or bad poster? Rather than the subjective opinion of a single "internet tough guy" mod?

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't sound at all like someone with an ax to grind.

[btmagnetw]

i've been on forums with these, and i find it retarded.

people are constantly saying REP ME! REP ME! most people won't care about their rep points, and those who do are annoying as [censored].

why is it necessary?

[kyleb]

The alternative should be to ban more often and for longer periods of time.

[Scotty.]

[ QUOTE ]
i've been on forums with these, and i find it retarded.

people are constantly saying REP ME! REP ME! most people won't care about their rep points, and those who do are annoying as [censored].

why is it necessary?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the people begging for reps get negged.

It isn't necessary, and is far from perfect. It certainly is helpful in separating decent posters from bad though.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
ban kyleb

[/ QUOTE ]

[kyleb]

sure why not

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ban stabn

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
I fear OOT will degenerate into a BBV4L if retard threads remain unlocked, and bans are reduced. I hope I'm wrong. We'll see. I'm sad to see the * system go. I do believe it kept out a decent amount of retards.