It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
YnK: No. But think about it: users with rep as high as yours are pretty rare, as earning that many points takes a lot of time and effort.
Exactly.

It has taken me ~1080 days to earn this rep and technically, a fair amount of money.

It would take 1 person spending 5 minutes a day, 250 days to remove it and that's if they do it manually.
avatar
teshra: Notice how rep was never this big a problem until you showed up. Now pretty much every single rep thread has you as the focal point and if it doesn't, you make yourself the focal point. People seem to think its this roving band of rep abusers (or one rep abuser with 300 accounts who has it out for you). Again no...your behavior, your posting style (not always but way too freaking often) is just annoying to come across in almost every thread people happen to read.
Actually, tinyE isn't the first. You missed the first (that I know of) by several months.
Post edited August 13, 2013 by xyem
avatar
xyem: Actually, tinyE isn't the first. You missed the first (that I know of) by several months.
Gamerager? If you speak of him, what I understand is his behavior was extremely disruptive and he deserved it, eventually he saw his errors and became a better forum member? If not him, I've not heard of anyone being deserving of frequent derepping, fairly or unfairly.
avatar
StingingVelvet: "GOG-dot-com's got a bad reputation
What they need is adult education
You go back to Steam, is a bad situation
What you want is an adult education
Oh yeah!"

- Hall & Oates
avatar
tinyE: Was that off their "H2O" record?
It's not on an album. It was just a single, "Adult Education". Can't remember the B-side.
avatar
tinyE: Was that off their "H2O" record?
avatar
Alfie3000: It's not on an album. It was just a single, "Adult Education". Can't remember the B-side.
It was a new track on their first compilation album, Rock & Soul Part 1. IIRC, Say It Isn't So was the other new song on the album (you'll have to check wikipedia to confirm). I've got that album on CD around here somewhere. Yeah, yeah, I'm an unabashed Hall & Oates fan. You're out of touch, I'm out of time...
avatar
yyahoo: It was a new track on their first compilation album, Rock & Soul Part 1. IIRC, Say It Isn't So was the other new song on the album (you'll have to check wikipedia to confirm). I've got that album on CD around here somewhere. Yeah, yeah, I'm an unabashed Hall & Oates fan. You're out of touch, I'm out of time...
I assumed it was off something odd since I never heard it until I got their massive greatest hits compilation. Good song though.
avatar
YnK: No. But think about it: users with rep as high as yours are pretty rare, as earning that many points takes a lot of time and effort. Quite possibly, at the time the system was designed, it was more oriented on average users, who post occasionally and maybe help others sometimes (and indeed, newbies do notice rep changes and ask about it).
Or maybe it was designed to reward people who help in the actual game subforums and not those who spam every thread in general discussion? There is this guy Gremlion in the Eador subforum who has only posted there, never gifted anything, and is only registered for half a year, and he has over 270 rep.
And look at me, getting into long downreppable arguments in General D. all the time, but my rep keeps going up because I help people in many game subforums.
I think it is a much better system than in other forums where in a controversial discussion you have to fear all the time that some moderator on a power trip doesn't like what you are saying. Also for some reason I tend to pay more attention to "low rated" posts, they have a weird attraction.
avatar
xyem: tl;dr

The post rating system is not self-correcting and is biased towards negative outcomes.
I didn't want to post in another rep topic but this grabbed my attention. I suppose it depends on how you define "negative" but if you mean "low rated" then that statement seems false.

I did not do any tests, so correct me if I am wrong, but based on your own tests, doesn't the rep system work the other way around also?

It needs 5 accounts to get a post high rated (+1 rep), 6 to do it "stealthy".
It takes 9-10 knowing about the abuse and coordinating to fix the damage.

The rating system seems to have a loop-hole which permits abuse, but it's not biased towards either positive or negative outcomes.
I lost 12 rep overnight . I had 632 when I went to sleep, and today when I logged in I had 620. I thought that couldn't happen ?
avatar
xyem: Taking away someone's rep is "fun" because they actually put effort into earning it, while damaging it is really easy. Why would it be less fun to be able to destroy something that had even more effort put into it?
avatar
Vestin: Because I doubt many people would willfully commit an act they clearly saw as unjust.
Nice, helpful, compassionate and intelligent people aren't really in danger here.
It's a funny quote to come from you, I think you're aware of the subtlety in it; People very rarely see their actions as unjust. In fact I think that you could ask just about any of history's monsters why they committed these unjust acts, and their first point would be that in their mind it was not unjust. I doubt Attila The Hun rode into battle with the cry "FOR INJUSTICE!!".

In this case I suspect the people doing this are basically a really pathetic form of vigilante. In their mind their actions are justice. In actual fact they're probably getting a kick out of the power, and therefore having "fun" (as Xyem said) but the disproportionate response probably doesn't seem disproportionate to them, and the "fun" is concealed from their concious behaviour.
You guys are hilarious.
avatar
wpegg: It's a funny quote to come from you, I think you're aware of the subtlety in it; People very rarely see their actions as unjust. In fact I think that you could ask just about any of history's monsters why they committed these unjust acts, and their first point would be that in their mind it was not unjust. I doubt Attila The Hun rode into battle with the cry "FOR INJUSTICE!!".

In this case I suspect the people doing this are basically a really pathetic form of vigilante. In their mind their actions are justice. In actual fact they're probably getting a kick out of the power, and therefore having "fun" (as Xyem said) but the disproportionate response probably doesn't seem disproportionate to them, and the "fun" is concealed from their concious behaviour.
+1 fantasticly put
avatar
Licurg: I lost 12 rep overnight . I had 632 when I went to sleep, and today when I logged in I had 620. I thought that couldn't happen ?
That happens to me all the time. You'll get used to it.

A side note on the "unjust" discussion, VERY minor at best and does NOT speak for any but a very few in here, but I have had people post to me that they downrep people weather they deserve it or not for no other reason than they enjoy seeing them get mad about it. When I asked about that upsetting people who didn't do anything to 'deserve it' one of them responded "I could care less".

EDIT
Thank you! :D *kiss*
Post edited August 14, 2013 by tinyE
avatar
sanscript: I tried that too, but according to xyem, it takes at least 4 people to change 1 rep point. :p
It takes 5 accounts. It only takes 1 person with 5 accounts and getting accounts is easy (you can create over 200 an hour manually).
avatar
Aningan: I didn't want to post in another rep topic but this grabbed my attention. I suppose it depends on how you define "negative" but if you mean "low rated" then that statement seems false.

I did not do any tests, so correct me if I am wrong, but based on your own tests, doesn't the rep system work the other way around also?

It needs 5 accounts to get a post high rated (+1 rep), 6 to do it "stealthy".
It takes 9-10 knowing about the abuse and coordinating to fix the damage.

The rating system seems to have a loop-hole which permits abuse, but it's not biased towards either positive or negative outcomes.
My testing revealed that if your post gets low-rated, you always lose rep (until the loss cap), but high-rating only sometimes gains you rep.

It gets worse.

Rep: 3193
Post downrated to low-rated.
Rep: 3192
Post uprated (removes low-rating).
Rep: 3192.
Post downrated (became low-rating again).
Rep: 3191

... may I amend my previous statement to "extremely biased towards reducing rep"?
EDIT: In case anyone doesn't get the above, any time your post changes to "low-rated", you lose a rep point. So you could remove 5 rep from someone using one post by "toggling" it between neutral and low-rated.
Post edited August 14, 2013 by xyem
avatar
xyem: Actually, tinyE isn't the first. You missed the first (that I know of) by several months.
avatar
teshra: Gamerager? If you speak of him, what I understand is his behavior was extremely disruptive and he deserved it, eventually he saw his errors and became a better forum member? If not him, I've not heard of anyone being deserving of frequent derepping, fairly or unfairly.
The first user I can recall to really make himself unpopular on the forum was UK_John. If you can handle the insanity, here's the thread that destroyed his reputation back in 2008.