'Top' Reputation Givers

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

No different, really, than any election in a democracy. Those who choose not to vote lose a chance to influence the results.

I totally accept your second sentence. Those who choose not to rep have to accept that others will determine the outcome. But in an election, if you choose to vote then your vote counts as much as any other person who chooses to vote. Whereas our system allows for one or more members to make their votes, and thus their opinions, to count for more by virtue of "energetic" repping.

I certainly agree that people should be encouraged to rep a post whenever they feel the inclination to do so. But I have some reservations about people going out of their way (and being encouraged to go out of their way) to do so. Because, for perfectly valid reasons, not everyone has the time or inclination to do so.

Ultimately, though, I do not have any problems with the way in which the Rep table is developing (how could I? ), and I think that it it is generally a very good and worthwhile system. It is, however, as well to acknowledge that, if certain members tend to rep much more than others, then the results will be skewed towards their tastes.

[HerenIstarion]

Whereas our system allows for one or more members to make their votes, and thus their opinions, to count for more by virtue of "energetic" repping

That true as well. But 'energetic' repping brings people to have more reputing/rating power than they originally had. The more I raise somebody's point score, the more points they themselves can give out. After all, each little square counts for one point power (?). Per instance, when the whole system was launched, my power must have been some six or seven, merely cause I've been around for so long, and posted so much. Now it is twelve (?). People who used to rate with 2 points now give 7, 8 or even 9. In addition to one point for each year of membership, one for every thousand of posts and what with that fourth dimension called time, I believe system tends to average, given that participants do not slack too much.

Besides, again, it is not my fault . Do you suggest I or somebody who is equally 'energetic' stop rating cause some anonymous 'shy guys' do not rate as much? I can't issue a bill for them to 'start rating this instant!', but it would not work other way round either

[Lhunardawen]

Has anyone else noticed that most of the top rep givers are also the top rep receivers? Does it help improve your reputation, then, if you keep on giving well-deserved reps with your name signed, ceteris paribus (i.e. keep on posting sensible posts)? Just wondering...ignore me...

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I think the factor of representative voting should be considered as well. Almost every survey is taken to be accurate, though only a fraction of the population is asked for an opinion, since each vote counts for many others. Those who have stayed around here long enough to pack some punch with their rep giving are normally those who are familiar with the spirit of the Downs and have indeed contributed to it substantially - otherwise they wouldn't still be here! I consider their votes representative for others who do not give out points as often. I doubt that there would be much difference if every active member rated every post - but as in every democratic system, those who are dissatisfied need to speak up and be heard!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Well, herm, I've been wanting to say something about this for a few days but it might prove a bit. . .that is, I don't want to appear. . .hoom hoom baroom boom. . .it's a bit awkward, but. . .well. . .the thing is. . .you see. . .I rather like the system the way it is, but not, you know, because I've been the fortunate recipient of so much encouragement!

For the reasons that Esty gives above, I think that the weighting system makes a certain amount of sense, and for the reasons H-I gives above I think that we should be encouraging people to rep more often.

I also agree with Saucy though that we don't want to encourage spurious posting just to get through enough that we can rep a particular post again. If I try to rep a post but find I cannot, then, well, like Sauce I just figure that another post from that person will come around. I do try to send off a PM though, to let the person know how much I liked the post.

I tend to be a rather streaky repper, however. I rep irregularly for a week or so, then sit myself down for an hour of Downs time with the express purpose of (re)reading the threads that I've been enjoying in the last while and repping those posts that have been making the thread so good. On days like this it does become, sometimes, an exercise is 'getting back' to people as there might be a post that, at the beginning of the binge, is one I cannot rep, but by the time I'm finished, I can.

I think that bottom line to all this is that everyone has their own way of repping. I also think that so long as the repping is being done judiciously then no matter how one is going about it, the results will be generally reflective of the consensus hereabouts. . .urm. . .that is. . .I hope it is. . .oh dear, this is genuinely embarassing. . .

[Lalwendë]

Dare I say this? I have noticed that the 'rep' system is quite socialist. I mean, the wealth of points must be equally distributed, so as to ensure that all participants get a chance of points...

But yes, more people should get involved and have a go at handing out some points. I think the reason for people not doing this is firstly a certain amount of shyness/uncertainty, and also members may not be sure if their 'rep points' are worth anything; I know that both of these things held me back at first.

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

But yes, more people should get involved and have a go at handing out some points. I think the reason for people not doing this is firstly a certain amount of shyness/uncertainty, and also members may not be sure if their 'rep points' are worth anything; I know that both of these things held me back at first.

The rep may not carry points but it is not worthless.....

[Bêthberry]

In terms of Sauce's concern over "energetic" reppers, it should be remembered that there is a limit on the number of reps that can be given out in any 24-hour period, so it is not as if there were carte blanche on the 'ballot stuffers'.

And, also, no post can be repped twice by the same username. It isn't quite "vote early, vote often" !

However, there is that old chestnut about justice: not only must it be done, but it must be seen to be done and I think here I share some of Sauce's concern. The operation of the repping system must be seen and understood and it should particularly be recognised that not all reppers have the same repping weight. My analogy to democracy really breaks down here, as some votes here do carry more weight than others. I suppose Estelyn's analogy to surveys fits more properly, although our system hardly has the statistical controls of good surveys.

Lhunardawen posted:

Has anyone else noticed that most of the top rep givers are also the top rep receivers? Does it help improve your reputation, then, if you keep on giving well-deserved reps with your name signed, ceteris paribus (i.e. keep on posting sensible posts)? Just wondering...ignore me.

We never used to include our names with the rep until Piosenniel made her very well-received point about anonymity. Maybe there are some who develop a 'reciprocity' habit; I can't see into the minds of people here and know their intentions, just as I believe we cannot know in its entirety an author's intention (What?--an allusion to that C-thread? ). What is it that accounts for 'presence' on an internet forum? After all, SaucepanMan apparently has a fan club, but I don't.

Fordim posted:

I tend to be a rather streaky poster, however.

Streaking, Fordim? Now, are you asking to be stalked?

[HerenIstarion]

Justice, than:

If anyone is bothered by not being able to give out more points, look from another angle - those with superior rating power inevitably receive less points than they give out

Or, not to play burra (btw, another missed one) here - I see it as very balanced system - every advantage one may enjoy has another side to it.

cheers

EDIT: when I say receive less, I mean at one go. END OF EDIT