Reputation revamped

[whatifidogetcaught?]

It's pretty obvious in the forums that reputation directly ties into the amount of posts you put up. I believe that this should changed. The amount of posts you put up should not rely on potentially mindless spamming. People who truly deserve it usually don't stick out at all compared to the usual people.

My proposed change is this: Instead of what I am guessing is +1 rep for every post (forum games I think are included), the rep should be completely reliant upon what other users give you. Lots of posts doesn't necessarily means you have contributed. Because of this, the section labeled "Reputation power" underneath your amount of posts would have to adjusted accordingly. Maybe 1 reputation power for every 10 rep, giving forum members who truly deserve it to stick out as opposed to people that haven't quite contributed anything important yet (like me =p)

I propose that negative rep is also possible, and that people with massive amounts of rep can give more than just one.

I trust that the system won't be abused, after all, it would be somewhat apparent already if it was.

[Kamietsu]

I do not believe reputation is tied to forum posts(especially not Forum Games. That section do not even count towards your post count.) But the more posts you have, the more opportunities are available for people to give you reputation. The people you see with a lot of Rep are that high for very good reason. Most of them have contributed greatly to the forum. The most reputable member is Zanzarino aand he has very few posts. All of that has been given to him little by little from everyone in the forum.

[ddevans96]

I do not believe reputation is tied to forum posts(especially not Forum Games.

Forum posts are a direct part of reputation. Not a very large one, but it is included.

[willng3]

You get +1 reputation for each reply you make to a thread.  You get +3 reputation for each thread you create.  And unless things have changed recently, yes, you do get reputation for posting in the Forum Games section even though those posts don't go towards increasing your post account.

I'm indifferent to removing receiving reputation from posts since it's never been much more than a number for me anyways.  However, the "negative reputation" feature was available before the karma system became the reputation system, and that was abused heavily from what I understand.  Even if the community as it stands currently is more mature as a whole than what it once was in the past, it only takes one act of apathy to push some newer members away from the community.

[whatifidogetcaught?]

The most reputable member is Zanzarino aand he has very few posts. All of that has been given to him little by little from everyone in the forum.

True, but I have a reputation power of 10. That is more than Helston, who has accomplished much more than I have.

You get +1 reputation for each reply you make to a thread.  You get +3 reputation for each thread you create.  And unless things have changed recently, yes, you do get reputation for posting in the Forum Games section even though those posts don't go towards increasing your post account.

I never knew that and is good info. Thank you for the knowledge.

I'm indifferent to removing receiving reputation from posts since it's never been much more than a number for me anyways.  However, the "negative reputation" feature was available before the karma system became the reputation system, and that was abused heavily from what I understand.  Even if the community as it stands currently is more mature as a whole than what it once was in the past, it only takes one act of apathy to push some newer members away from the community.

I didn't know that, and I understand why your are indifferent to it then. A negative aspect does not need to exist if it is so easily and frequently abused. I do think that the reputation is wildly inaccurate for certain members though, such as myself.

I am a lurker in the forum games section, so I have built some reputation that way, along with the occasional deck creation and card idea. If it were changed in the way I suggested, I would only have have 1 rep power, while someone as awesome as say zanz would have a lot more, and someone who contributes consistently such as OldTrees would have a sizable rep. I just don't like how post amounts tie into it.

[Elbirn]

Who's to say that your contribution via forum games doesn't make you a reputable member of the community? You're not a senseless spammer, so there's no reason to discredit your posts. Therefore, I must conclude that, though you may not make game related contributions/accomplishments, like oldtrees, helston, or others that you have mentioned, you are still a worthwhile member of the community, just in a different way. Forum games are fun; you help keep that section alive, and that's vital to the community.

[OldTrees]

Funny note: Certain people contribute by posting rather than by a few strategic posts. If someone goes around helping new members they will have almost no cases of others giving them reputation.

Edit: Certain people have less reputation than their post count. (aka less Rep power than posts/100)

[Helston]

I agree that post count shouldn't really affect reputation - you can see from the stats page the best reputation list is almost the same as the top posters list, and what's the point of having two numbers tracking the same thing? - I don't think it really matters that much. There are other ways people are shown as being a respected voice, such as the colour of their name, whatever title they've got, what type of avatar they use (none/card/custom), and however many fancy pictures they have between their avatar and their name. *looks at will's five pictures*

For me, the reputation system is a way to give personal positive feedback, and show someone that you really appreciate what they've posted.

[Jenkar]

I'm indifferent to removing receiving reputation from posts since it's never been much more than a number for me anyways.

I think that is a "problem" in the current system. Having reputation only being given by people would make it oh so much more valuable. I still remember getting +rep from someone i admired a lot as one of the most rewarding moments in the forum.

[willng3]

Yeah, that's sort of my point.  I'm not concerned with how big the number is, the knowledge of who sent that action of gratitude and why is more than enough for me.  Actually, my biggest problem with the system at the moment is probably that the list of people and the comments they sent to you each time they +rep'd you isn't infinite.

But I think one of the reasons the system was changed from karma (which only displayed the number of times that someone +'d one of your posts) to reputation was because the reputation system serves as an easier way for newer members to feel...self-important?  Otherwise getting a value other than zero pretty much becomes completely dependent on how useful you're seen in the eyes of the community, and I think that actions of members with more seniority probably stick out more than people who don't have an avatar for their name.

But of course the current system also promotes less content-filled posts which could arguably be seen as spam, so I guess there's pros and cons all over the place in both scenarios.

[ARTHANASIOS]

True, but I have a reputation power of 10. That is more than Helston, who has accomplished much more than I have.

Helston's reputation power is going to rapidly increase as soon as the War begins. Warmasters always gain a lot of +reps from community members. Furthermore, they post a lot & create a lot of War-related threads. Because of this, don't worry, those who truly contribute on a daily/weekly/monthly basis are going to gain the reputation they truly deserve, sooner or later.

[Drake_XIV]

But what is the value of Rep here?  Is it really something that is noted often?