Let's see what changes they introduce to the rep system. Might be some good stuff for all of us, we'll just have to be patient until then.

Agreed - but not enough input into this thread by the GOG team like they do when it's 'lighter fare'. (Yes, I do expect -1's for that comment about GOG, but....)

I think a lot of you are being inconsiderate towards the needs of others. I doubt I am the only one here who relies a regular ration of resentment. The reputation system costs you nothing but it means everything to us. Without the prejudice it brings we would starve, die slowly and painfully. This is not appealing to us and so we emplore GoG administration to maintain the reputation system.
For only a -1 a day you can provide food, shelter, and an education to poor starving trolls in need. Click now.

Uhm.... updates? New features? What?!? A flying flash banana over the forum? A giant killing mosquito to splash while posting and surfing and rating? A big red button to press and play with endlessly? Cool, the future is bright....
Ok, forgive my dumbness, tonight I'm feeling very asshole-inspired XD

If only it was reserved for trolling or flaming. But I have seen a -1 for a post that just more or less said 'could someone enlighten me to what's going on here?'!
Quite often I am mystified why a particular post has a +4 or another a -3.There seems no logic! I have seen posts where someone said 'you are an idiot' and was +3 and the post that replied 'I am not an idiot' had a -2. Now it doesn't take a genius to see that those -1's probably came from the same people that gave the +1's to the first post. Now, should we have a system that allows this additional 'slamming' after the fact. So the guy called an idiot also has to deal with the -2, and the guy calling someone an idiot is getting extra boosting by attracting +1's from like-minded posters?
Examples abound just within this thread, but keep an eye out and you see ridiculous, illogical and unfathomable plus and minus post rep's being given more often than you think.

Many times when I am collecting berries in the forest I witness great atrocities. Why is that dear allowed to live while a young bear cub goes hungry for human flesh and must settle for fish? Do you consider that justice? I cannot explain why the universe is cruel and unfair, only assure you that indeed it is. But take heart: Nature's ways are fickle, and just like that cub will grow strong and one day slaughter a troop of boyscouts, reputations will even out and; in the long run, you will see the forest instead of just the trees.

It just seems imbalanced, and having it balanced out would be great.
from what I gather it takes either 3 -1's or 4, to result in a -1 reputation. While it takes upwards of 10 +1s on a single post to get a +1 to your reputation.
Ideas like having to post a response as to why you did a -1, would make a -1 more acceptable. Also, you can't change your vote on a post, even though the creator can edit it. I've mistakenly pressed the - button by accident, I'm sure there are many others who have as well.
Other ideas like requiring a person to have rep, or be at zero rep, before being able to down or up vote a post have also been suggested.
Also, the way it is currently set up, is if you -1 a post, it will always be hidden unless you specifically tell it to unhide that once. I have had instances where I told the webpage not to hide any posts, but it will still hide my own posts, just because they had a -8 or more.
the system as it is, is broken.

Nice way of putting it - here's a +1 for helping people understand from a different perspective! :)

my 2p worth into this thread :
I have only ever seen two forums with a working rep system and there it only worked because it was not taken (by anyone - its a smaller forum) seriously. There are people with huge negative rep just cause they wanted it and others with huge positive rep (the rep the person above you thread helps a lot with this ;)).
The other site took repping more seriously and used it as a rewards system for constructive commenting (it was a photography review forum). To get a rep for a post the post is first flagged by a member (can only be done once by anyone) which is then reviewed by a mod/selected group/official - if the comments given of a certain standard the rep is awarded - the person gets a point and the post is highlighted for being good. Something like that works very well in a very large community since it keeps things on a single level - you know where you stand and abuse is not as easy.
Other sites where the system has been implemented have mostly failed with the system - either abandoning it or having long long arguments about it every few months - simply put at the end of the day there are people out there who are a pain - some just hand out reps for nothing - others try to register as several different people (often school kids using a school server and home) to rep a single master account in to high rep. There are dozens of other abuses of the system which come into play and in the end it just sits as a painful or highly controversial system
At the end of the day I see GOG as becoming a large site with a big community - with a lot of new members appearing - especially as more and more games are added and marketing about the site gets out there. Under those conditions I would say either abandon the scheme now or formalise it

overread - good way of putting it and good input from experience. Would love to know if either forum allowed 'guests' or needed registration. Because I thought one mistake when we came out of closed beta was GOG allowing people to post without registering, That and this message rep system is a combination that could be very bad for any site that has a 'retail element', because if these forums go the way of many forums, with lots of let's say 'childish.behavior', it will impact on GOG's reputation and sales.

All that bothers me is with a system like this from my experience on other forums using the exact same system, that if you have an opinion and don't play the yesman/woman card all the time, people give you a negative rep. So essentially it's hard to trust anyone, because a lot of the high rep people on those sites come across as phony/fake. I know some off those forums and what they write to everyone else, and what they say to me are two different things. I think childish people should just be warned or some sort of warning system by the administrator should be put in place. Just if someone posts they dislike some game or something that a fanboy/girl likes, they risk getting a negative rep or downvoted by that person, which is wrong. Just remembering all the Spider-man fans on the Dark Knight forums getting flamed and downvoted and anyone who would post a simple "I love Batman" getting their rep pumped up, sucked. I love Batman myself better and if I had posted that on those forums people would have shot my rep up. That's where I saw the system fail and that site finally just a month ago, abandoned this reputation system.

My 2 cents:
I haven't paid attention to it and find it trite, contrived and pointless. This one post will probably be the last time I ever care enough to say anything about it.

Exactly what I am saying. It doesn't matter, it's a simple system of voting which is completely and utterly pointless but offends people if their pointless hard work is not "justified" with a good score.

John - both forums required registartion before you could make any posts or allocate rep points. Though one did have a non-registered users section to deal with account activation problems as and when they occured - this was separate and the rep system not active in it.
Considering that here you need to register to purchase a product and that most short term posters tend to be after technical support I don't think a non-registered section will be of much use. Many people posting for tech advice with original game versions and compatability problems will probably be advised to try getting the GoG version and since GoG do not make/offer patches for existing game versions and their prices are fair I can't see the forum developing a need for a no registered members area to deal with tech support problems.