Little thing

Well can you add something so we can see who thanked us please??

It is better how it is, so you don't know who is voting which way. It shows your true rep

GummiBear wrote:

Well can you add something so we can see who thanked us please??

I'll try to do that later...

Shooter PK411 wrote:

GummiBear wrote:

Well can you add something so we can see who thanked us please??

I'll try to do that later...

We need to get your rep up.

Shooter PK411 wrote:

GummiBear wrote:

Well can you add something so we can see who thanked us please??

I'll try to do that later...

kk

Quote :

t is better how it is, so you don't know who is voting which way. It shows your true rep

I don't understand how that makes sense. How does not knowing who repped you have to do with showing your true rep?

I support having people being able to see it, to prevent reputation abuse.

Patric20878 wrote:

Quote :

t is better how it is, so you don't know who is voting which way. It shows your true rep

I don't understand how that makes sense. How does not knowing who repped you have to do with showing your true rep?

I support having people being able to see it, to prevent reputation abuse.

But even then, people well still do it and it is in your face and then your likely to trooll them or go to all their posts and rate down. It is better to keep it the way it is so no one starts flaming over one person lowering their rep. Maybe only mods and up can see it and whach for these things and ask why they voted which way if some one is abuesing the system.

I definitely agree with mods and up being able to view your rep.

But for regular members, of course people might still do it. The point is for staff to know, and for members to be able to report them. If you're likely to troll users who abused rep on you, then you are a noob and need to grow up. If flame wars happen, both parties will be given warnings.

I don't believe in reducing the possibility to break rules as much as possible. I believe in increasing the possibility and tempting them passively. Because I don't want having members to not break rules because they don't want to be banned. I want members to not break rules because they are mature and understand why it is bad, and more than just out of self-interest.

One of the main reasons why the predecessor of HTM, HHT, died in a major civil war of its members, is because so many members were afraid to break rules out of self interest. No one understood the reason why beyond the superficial level. And then they, including one admin, all rioted one day when the main admin went on vacation, uber-spammed the forums, and shut it down. Simply because then, the reason for them not to break rules was removed. The people who enforced them left temporarily.

Reasons for not hiding information like who repped you extends far beyond the intuitive reasoning that it will reduce trolling. After all, global features like that apply to everyone. And on that scale, it's not simply about individual cases. On that scale, behaviorial patterns are established.

Patric20878 wrote:

I definitely agree with mods and up being able to view your rep.

But for regular members, of course people might still do it. The point is for staff to know, and for members to be able to report them. If you're likely to troll users who abused rep on you, then you are a noob and need to grow up. If flame wars happen, both parties will be given warnings.

I don't believe in reducing the possibility to break rules as much as possible. I believe in increasing the possibility and tempting them passively. Because I don't want having members to not break rules because they don't want to be banned. I want members to not break rules because they are mature and understand why it is bad, and more than just out of self-interest.

One of the main reasons why the predecessor of HTM, HHT, died in a major civil war of its members, is because so many members were afraid to break rules out of self interest. No one understood the reason why beyond the superficial level. And then they all rioted, included an Admin, who uber-spammed the forums, and shut it down.

Reasons for not hiding information like who repped you extends far beyond the intuitive reasoning that it will reduce trolling.

i agree with you but it doesn't happen all the time. People would still abuse it even if it is showing.

Reread what I posted.

I just countered that argument.

And by the way, I edit my posts a lot, because I write lots of rough drafts. hohoho

Patric20878 wrote:

Reread what I posted.

I just countered that argument.

I know that is one example of it happening and the only one i have seen.

I have no clue what you just said.

What is "one example"?

And what "happened"?

Patric20878 wrote:

I have no clue what you just said.

What is "one example"?

And what "happened"?

oh english, isn't your first language then. One example is:

Ex: Here is just one


I don't know how to explain it that well.

And i said what happening not happened

English is my first language. ._. Are you serious.

I'm asking you what your one example is referring to. I am not aware of any example you posted up. And since I don't know what example you are referring to, I don't know what is happening. I use "happened", because by the way you say it's happening, you sound like it already happened at least once, and is an ongoing thing.

I quoted you for a reason. And the quotes aren't referring to the literal definition of those words either.

Patric20878 wrote:

English is my first language. ._. Are you serious.

I'm asking you what your one example is referring to. I am not aware of any example you posted up. And since I don't know what example you are referring to, I don't know what happened.

I quoted you for a reason. And the quotes aren't referring to the literal definition of those words either.

oh, ok. I was referring to the this part of your post:

Patric20878 wrote:

One of the main reasons why the predecessor of HTM, HHT, died in a major civil war of its members, is because so many members were afraid to break rules out of self interest. No one understood the reason why beyond the superficial level. And then they all rioted, included an Admin, who uber-spammed the forums, and shut it down.

Yeah.

You seem to be saying that even if the reputation is public, people would still be abusing it.

And I said already that making it public has Nothing to do with reducing rep abuse. It's about knowledge of it and empowering members deal with it, such as being able to report the abuser. Just reread my post again.

Patric20878 wrote:

Yeah.

You seem to be saying that even if the reputation is public, people would still be abusing it.

And I said already that making it public has Nothing to do with reducing rep abuse. It's about knowledge of it and empowering members deal with it, such as being able to report the abuser. Just reread my post again.

I think you should be able to your positives not the negatives, but the mods can see every vote. If a member sinces that some one is voting you down. you can have it re-viewed or if some one has -50, then a mod must look in it.

And you do know that when you have lots of reputation already, it's hard to know if you are being repped down unfairly? When you have hundreds of rep points, it's practically impossible to know when you are being repped down unless you monitor it.

Hence the reason for being able to see both. Reduce the guesswork already, and let members fend for themselves. Like first aid, you keep the person alive, and then the hospital treats them.

And really, you really expect a moderator to be monitoring a members rep? If you plan on having this forum have any more than 50 active members, there is no way moderators will have enough time and energy to be potentially be monitoring multiple people's rep from every single post, as well as warning, infracting, moving/pinning/deleting posts/topics, posting useful posts, handling reports, reporting things to the admin, and whatever much else they do.

i see what you are getting at. We could also ask the creator to makeit so we can only - one person like 10 or less times.

In my forum, it was once per post, and no more than 3 times in any given day.

It wasn't a big problem, because members naturally like to keep their reputation high, so they can tell if much of their posts are being repped down. But moderators don't need and shouldn't have to be monitoring people's reps for them.

It works really well really. The people at my forum who trolled at people who repped them down: got warned. People who abuse rep: got warned. And then, whenever a person was getting repped down, they would immediately notice, because a person would quickly tell a moderator that they think their very useful post got repped down for some reason, which the moderator would handle.

And if that kept happening, by the same rep abuser, the rep abuser got swift moderation.

Patric20878 wrote:

In my forum, it was once per post, and no more than 3 times in any given day.

It wasn't a big problem, because members naturally like to keep their reputation high, so they can tell if much of their posts are being repped down. But moderators don't need and shouldn't have to be monitoring people's reps for them.

It works really well really. The people at my forum who trolled at people who repped them down: got warned. People who abuse rep: got warned. And then, whenever a person was getting repped down, they would immediately notice, because a person would quickly tell a moderator that they think their very useful post got repped down for some reason, which the moderator would handle.

And if that kept happening, by the same rep abuser, the rep abuser got swift moderation.

ok, that sounds good.

Mmhmm.

All thought out and done over a course of several years. Hohoho

Patric20878 wrote:

Mmhmm.

All thought out and done over a course of several years. Hohoho

ah.....

What a big debate about it.

GummiBear wrote:

What a big debate about it.

it was somthing to talk about.