I assumed you were talking about his accusation being ridiculous or not. I assumed that because you directly responded to me (when I stated that it is ridiculous to change 100 accounts to 100 hours) by saying "no its not". Then for some reason you felt the need to justify that spiffy response by coming up with some even crazier stuff. I should have probably called it insane paranoia instead of wild shit, so I apologize for my rudeness.

Insane paranoia is a term I can accept for my post, even though I would say it's not paranoia but being overinformed. But then again, it depends on who is describing it.
Apology accepted.

ok, so you dont actually subscribe to the ridiculous accusation that I deliberatly changed accounts with hours, you just wanted to add some random paranoia.

I wanted to add that saying one would make 100 accounts isn't that far fetched. Whether you count that as paranoia (random or not) is not something I knew at that point, but it's not something I classify as paranoia. So my intent was to show that 100 accounts is quite possible, in a short amount of time (less than 2 hours), and it is time someone would consider spending.
Hell, we've been debating for about 2 hours ourselves right now, for something quite a few people consider pointless.

Ok, then your "Its not" was somewhat misplaced, because the entire post you replied to was about that ridiculous accusation.
Also I do not consider any discussion pointless, because fun is not pointless for me. Scripting lame bots to reduce meaningless rep points however...that is pointless if anything ever was.

It is possible. I just had a look and no-one participating has lost rep overall.

12 people have lost rep points since starting use of RepLog though.. that list of people was completely unsurprising..

No prizes for guessing who has lost the most.

That actually is a very interesting. I could think of several for all the different reasons. But after seeing how Ubivis was shafted, everything is possible.

Are you planning on making the log public?

It rolls down stairs alone or in pairs and over the neighbor's dog,
It fits on you back and makes for a snack,
It's Log Log Log!

I totally fucked up those lyrics. :-(

Well it isn't me. I am, however, joint second with 11 rep points lost (27 gained, 16 gained overall).

EDIT: Not joint second anymore as I just lost another one.

This one was just for "personal use" but RepLog 2 will be explicitly for data analysis purposes and therefore that data will be made fully public (maybe with anonymisation?).

It would be interesting to see though. I think anonymisation in RepLog 1 is not so much a problem, as all posted here has agreed to be logged.

A "top 10" list would be nice.

I would make it a simple "op in and out" list. You post in the "RepLog 2 thread" and you agree on your rep data being shared. It's public anyway, so people probably won't mind.

The anonymisation can be a problem depending on how I do it. If I just change the names, people will easily be able to match up the names to who they are by their current rep. Doing a random (but consistent for the user) adjustment of the rep to throw that off might interfere with people's analysis.

What are you thinking of a top 10 for? Rep gained, rep lost.. ?

well, both really

Indeed. The only reason why I am not giving out the RepLog 1 information out is because I haven't received permission to do so (and getting permission would be boring :P).

With RepLog 2, permission to share will be explicitly requested and granted by participating.

I think that there is 2 reasons for to ignore the ethics of anonymization in this instance

1 - we are all already anonymized via virtue of using aliases. Granted over own aliases has a meaning to us and is an representation of us, as long as you do not use your own real name as alias, then you are anonym. (like I suspect SimonG's real name is not really Simon)

2 - by posting in this thread we agreed that we would be logged, and part of the experiment. Agreeing to this removes some of the ethical problematics around anonymisation. Granted, as you yourself say, it is easy to find out who is who by publishing a log of rep with fake names anyway. It makes no sense having a rep log, and then adjust the rep's for anonymization, it screws up the data.

All ethical problems can be circumvented by adding a post, asking people who do not want to have a public log to tell you. You can then just remove them from the log. For ReLog 2 this can be part of your call for participants. In research, you do not need to have anonymous participants if the participants agree and understand that they will not be so.