I think that 20 is a good number. Even though only a few people are involved with a good topic (and usually topics such as the chapter by chapter are long), that means those people will keep on getting reputation because they are so smart. Eventually a clique will form which is what the BDs want to avoid. Twenty will more effectively keep that from happening instead of ten.

I don't know if I'm reading more into this statement, but spreading reputation isn't the point of the forums. If people go out of their way to spread reputation so that they can give to their favourites, it will destroy the whole point of the system. It will give rep to people who don't necessarily deserve it just so that the faves can get get two little green squares beside their name. Eventually, if that continues, everyone will be No Fool of a Tooks and then eventually everyone will have two squares. Thus the two squares just become another thing and not a badge of worthiness.

Old discussions? What about new discussions? Surely there has to be more than just a few new good discussions and posts? And even if there are, why is that a bad thing? The lack of reputation will surely inspire some budding corpse to create good topics? *coughFordimHedgthistlecough*. But please do not understand me to say that I believe that there are no good old Discussions. That is the fartherst thing from my mind. I just find it silly to look for good Old Discussion when good new ones are around you.

But those are just my humble thoughts.

Yes, I noticed that too. There are very few people left with the base rate, and even fewer who are slipping. But I think that's because the Downers typically make good posts, and there's the tendency among us to award good posts rather than punish bad ones.
Not really, no, but it has become a big part of it. It's a way of providing feedback. It's a way to express your opinion about a post, when you don't really have anything else to contribute to the discussion that is going on the thread.
I'm sure there are. When I said old discussions, I was referring back to HI's post, where he said:
Of course old discussions is just a way of saying 'any discussion that you know is good. It can be from a year ago or from a day ago.

Accused returned guilty, mea culpa, mea culpa. My compliments on expressing your views in a clear and comprehensive way you do :)

But!

Good defense, that one, thank you, Evisse. I could not have said it better myself. Still more, if you look from the opposite end of it, I suppose one can not possibly deny the worth of a good post on a mere ground it is old, as one would not deny the worth of new posts, Eru forbid

What makes you reluctant to praise the value of both?

Another point in defense of 'good ole discussion', it is that sometimes, however similar the issue raised, the responses got may vary, as people respondig are different . It seems appropriate to link newer discussion with older one, even if and especially when both deal with the same subject.

Meep! Let me explain myself.

My last sentence:

was going back towards Evisse's statements that

Granted, I chose very poor words but do let me redeem myself. Old threads are not bad. However, I think that going back to old discussions just to be able to rate a current favourite member (which is the impression I received from Evisse's post) is just...silly.

So, HI....I do not think that you giving rep to people who posted on Old Threads is bad. However, as you yourself said,

was the gist of what I was saying...

But I rather think aforesaid does not imply that old discussion which gets rated does so only for the sake of new favourite. It has its own merits, even if re-reading began as the way to give reputation to some other and newer post.

One minor point, however - everybody having two squares is not such a bad thing. For one thing, reputation, whatever number of squares, after all, is just another thing. For another, with so many wise Gandalfs around, anyone prone to 'slipping' and 'behaving like sandyman' would think twice before each post, as being red-coloured on the background of load of Gandalfs would be more, (what was the word ;)?) - silly.

It only creates possibility of someone (and, no offense meant, possibly someone young) taking pride in being 'slipped' and, thence, 'sandymaning' on purpose. But possibility is one thing, and probability another, if you follow my meaning.

And even then it would be hard to do, as the greatest part of members does not give out bad reputation, unless very much provoked. Hence so many 'no fools' and people 'getting hang of' things.

We are, after all, what C.S. Lewis called 'mutual admiration society', in a way. We admire each other, so what so surprising in having so many people praised?

And, finally, as an experienced intriguer, I may add up the question of older threads yet again - that is, if, to use your own expression, any 'budding corpse' is inspired to write in a way to win some good fame, why not pay tribute to older skeletons, which, probably, haven't showed their nose (do skulls have noses?) in in a while, but have been mightily creating mighty threads in the mighty days of, hehe, mighty ancestors?

Ancestor worship? Nay, merely fair play, I believe

But!

All of the above is written for the look of the thing, mainly. The real stress of the post falls here:

You explanation, is, of course, accepted. I think we have the gist of it seized firmly now :)


cheers

Oh God, am I that bad at expressing myself. Yes I am. Ok, let me try again: I meant that I was at that moment engrossed in a thread which I haven't checked out in a long while, which meant I had a lot of catching up to do, and into which a limited number of people participated in, and made wonderful posts. So as I was reading, I was giving reputation, and as they posted more than once - damn their brains overflowing with ideas :p - I found that soon enough I could give no more reputation for the posts on that particular thread, given the (relatively) limited number of participants. Which meant I had to go in search of other discussions and spend reputation on other members, before I could go back and try to rate again - something, that I really didn't feel like doing. But now that I restated my whole point, I see that my pseudo problem is probably due to laziness. And of course, Imladris, you're right in saying that reputations aren't what this forum is really all about. Although I stick to my earlier comment about the magical number 10.

*sigh* Leave it to HI to turn such an argument into an opportunity to meditate upon such matters as 'ancestor worship.' :smokin: ;)

I'm going to toss in my two cents. We should be required to write a comment, yet have the option to remain annonymous. I understand the point it to allow members to see which of their posts are liked, but the point seems defeated when there is a positive AND negative on the same post, as happened to one of mine. Actually, there are two positives, which say what they like, and a negative. As the post was fairly long, I would appreciate knowing which aspect(s) the person didn't like, even if I don't know the person's name.

Annonymity would remain a must to encourage people to be honest, even if it means telling a friend that s/he posted a bad post. But to require a comment is what will help.

Reputation 'spread' changed to 10
 

We had been considering changing the reputation 'spread' from 20 to 10 since implementing the reputation system several months ago, but there was always the concern that people would misuse the system if we did so. The 'spread' is the number of different people that you must give reputation to before rating the same person again. This limitation is set so people aren't tempted to hurry back to a friend (or enemy) to unfairly enhance (or destroy) their reputation. But, since there is already a limit of giving only 10 repuations a day, it would take a very dedicated person to abuse the system if we set the spread to 10. So, we have done so.

You can now give reputation to someone a second time after giving reputation to only 10 different people. Since there are so many good members on the Downs, I'm sure everyone will find this change beneficial.

Remember:
(1) Always give comments!
(2) Be positive instead of negative unless someone is really misbehaving. No reputation at all is usually better than negative (and says just as much to the poster).
(3) See what our members with the highest reputations are doing and use them as an example.
(4) Don't mess around with the system. There's a whole world outside of your computer to bother people, so you don't need to be a nuisance here.

Thanks!

:(
I'm such an addled old thing, I can't remember who I've already given Reputation to...I wish the system let us keep track.

I'm not sure it really matters if you give rep to the same person, over time, because the actualy rep is given for the post. Some people can write many excellent posts and so deserve multiple reps.

So, unless you start looking back over old threads to give rep to people, you won't be "double repping" the same post accidentally. Stay with new threads. The 'system' keeps track of how many reps you give and if you try to rep someone before repping 10 other people, the system won't allow it. The system also will allow you to give out only 10 reps every 24 hours.

It's the post that counts!

I see, thanks for that Bethberry.

But I'm a bit worried that I might accidentally freak someone out by giving them multiple reps, they might think I was stalking them!

No...I think that they'd be thrilled that someone would be willing to put two boxes beside their name more quickly. ;)

Ah, good point, Lalaith!

Beware the Grim Repper. :D

The mysterious ways of Reputations...see, the posts I get complimented for, I seem never to get rep points for. Yet with others that I wasn't aware people had noticed...I mysteriously get quietly complimented through points.

Hmmm ;)

well, well...
 

Lalaith, same post can not be rated twice - when I accidentally try to do so (and it happens any time I stumble accross Phantom Finance thread, per instance), system reprimands me with firm 'you can not give reputation to same post twice!' message.

Stalking re: hey, folks whom I rated more than once, do you think I stalk you? You're right, I do follow you about :p. On the other hand, maybe we just frequent same threads as our interests are common, and you are just jolly smart clever chatterboxes I so much enjoy discussing things with :p

They won't have a clue unless you voluntarily leave your name! :cool:

Umm...
 

I don't know why but I find that remark unsettling. ;)

Up to an extent, up to an extent. Arguably, one can figure that out:

Per instance, if on this thread I'll get 5 anonymous points, it'd be 50/50 bet that it is you, Legolas. The reason being

1. You've been posting on this thread, so it is certain that you've read the post I get rated for
2. As any member beyond 50 posts, you have 2 basic reputation points to give out
3. As a member registered in 2001, you have 2 more points for each full year of membership
4. As a one with 1459 posts, you have one more point for full 1000 of posts

It gives total of five, and I expect I'm not short of the mark in my calculations

Of course, said does not eliminate possibility that someone else, who refrained from posting and has equally 5 points to give out, rated some particular thread, one never knows, but sometimes one can figure the sponsor out :D

ROFL.
HerenIstarion, have you taken the Geek Test in Novices and Newcomers yet? ;)

31 something, total geek

BTW, what does ROFL stand for? (BTW being By The Way). My dictionary said it must be remotely operated longwall face but I somehow fail to fit such a thing (what is remotely operated longwall face, my precious-ss?) with what was said im my previous :)

Ah. Sorry. What would the Professor think of me, using lazy internetspeak. It means Roll On Floor Laughing.

I just want to say thanks to the Barrow Wight for making the 10 Rep points possible. Cross my heart and hope to die I won't abuse the system and I'll start signing and explaining the reputations I give. Although, if everyone will start using the 'sherlockian' system that HI detailed a few posts up, I won't need to. ;)

HI - I find it so funny that, despite your supreme geekness you're unaware of such popular net terms like ROFL. :D

Total Geek and his geeky reputation...
 

Ah, there are loads of things I'm unaware of. But now I have a reputation ;) to live up to...

So how many titles are there?
 

Is "--- has shown the wisdom of Gandalf" as high as it goes? Because I must admit, I've been hovering my mouse over Saucepan Man's rep wondering if I'm going to get to see "The Saucepan Man IS Eru" at some point. :p

We don't seem to get to see a lot of the lower ratings. So I can only imagine.

--- is slipping

--- is more stinker than slinker

--- works for Saruman on the side

--- breath is death

--- is an oathbreaker

--- is a bloody orc

--- is the flea on the hide of a bloody orc


Gee, could I go any lower? :D

I've seen someone, whom I happily forgot by now, having been 'acting a bit like Ted Sandyman', yes sir (m'am), with my very eyes...

--Oily sludge at the bottom of a Dagorlad ash pit

I think that it might be, since it is continues to apply when the "green square" count increases from two to three. Although I suppose that titles might become more spaced out as the points tally increases. Perhaps one joins the ranks of the Valar on acquiring four green squares. :eek: :) Looks like we're counting on Fordim Hedgethistle to find out for us. :D

"--- has been acting a bit like Ted Sandyman" is the lowest that I have seen, although I suspect that it might go lower than that. Given the high standard of posting on this site (and the fair-minded nature of our members), we might never know.

There are definitely more levels to discover in both directions.
That three squares don't equal a new level is coincidence, or rather, the lack of one. The titles are set to certain threshold numbers, as are the squares, but they don't necessarily coincide in all cases.

Last time I looked I was 'newly deceased'. I like it. :)

And I have been 'acting a bit like Ted Sandyman' too. I have a funny feeling that I have sinned.

There is a (I guess) former Downer who made one post ever, and this person is ahead of such greats as HCIsland and Lord of Angmar in the reputations list.

Wow. Must have been some post!

Sounds like an Urban Myth to me. :p

Not a myth, it's true
 

I plead guilty :D, I did it, I did it.

The member in question is WhyDoYouCrySmeagol

The post in question is the post #107 of the Geeks thread.

As, having in mind all the statistics, I must be giving out what? some 8 or even 9 points, my positive rating brought said one-poster up, to surpass mentioned members. So what? The post was sincere, and the nick funny.

With this, let me remind you all that we do not rate people, we rate posts. Even if there are few posts, and poster a stranger, yet post worthy. The best example of it being Fordim, for the time being leader of the rating, with less posts than many.

cheers :)

Meh. I wonder what one of the cranky Downers would think of that....

It is almost like saying that that one post was better than every single post made by (in my opinion) highly interesting and intelligent Downers combined, who contributed a lot to the forum.

Do not be to hasty, pray do not. The maxim you pose on me is like saying 'how can you eat that steak, when people in [insert approriate place of your choice here] are starving'. I can feel for that people, I can care for them, I can send some help along when I have the means to afford it, but steak in question is mine, and I'm going to eat it whatever anyone says.

I agree with H-I on this one. For example, just because H-I gave reputation to WhyDoYouCrySmeagol for a post he happened upon and liked, should he feel obligated to go and seek out posts by 'greats' such as Angmar and HC to give reputation to?

*Raises hand timidly* Well, if they make a valid point then does it matter who it is? Like SoN said, H-I shouldn't feel obligated to go looking around for the posts of the greats just because he gave rep to a newbie who has only posted once. As I have said, if one goes about looking for reputation to give, then it destroys the whole point of the system.

On the flip side of that, if one does not give reputation where reputation is due, that also destroys the system.

No of course not.

I believe the new reputation squares work just fine -- I think they give a more accurate rating of one's cumulative posts (you Gandalf people know who you are :)). However I admit at experiencing nostalgia the first time I returned to the Downs since the renovation -- my first reaction was "oh no my bones are gone!?" and so forth...But one tries one's best to adapt again. Hah!

At no point did I urge you HI to seek out every deserving post. I am merely pointing out what I believe to be a flaw in the system. I accuse you of nothing! Please, enjoy your steak friend! I hope it is a good 'un!

A reminder
 

Remember that it is considered bad form to leave negative reputation without a comment.