first one to the bottom Wins!!!!
I must agree though.
I have done Nothing Wrong, I Deserve the Right to Vote,!!!
in the immortal words of William Wallace!
Derrick wrote:They cannot be as of a couple days ago.
I'm not sure if it's as abusable as it may appear, but time will tell.
not broken ... just abused!chumbucket wrote:Protip: The fact that you have bad karma doesn't mean the karma system is broken.
Actually, it's quite evidently broken when some of the most helpful players here for years are negative karma and now can't rate others due to some anonymous user(s) hissy fit. I was negative karma SOLELY due to religion post in the Other forum, although rating in the Other boards is now disabled this is still directly evident to someone rating based off of not liking myself.chumbucket wrote:Protip: The fact that you have bad karma doesn't mean the karma system is broken.
Sorry, I guess I'm just above caring what forum griefer's think.Klein wrote:only reason one chooses to give negative karma is to keep hearing people complain!!
so once again griefers +1 = win..
Many of these helpful players are complete douches. Some aren't and don't deserve bad karma, e.g., Cattie, but many, many, many of them are generally disliked despite their "good reputation." It's karma!Hemperor wrote:Actually, it's quite evidently broken when some of the most helpful players here for years are negative karma and now can't rate others due to some anonymous user(s) hissy fit.
I can't tell if this parody or not. You are Hemperor. You have bad karma. Nothing about that is surprising. (Also, the cA karma conspiracy is after you!)Hemperor wrote:I was negative karma SOLELY due to religion post in the Other forum, although rating in the Other boards is now disabled this is still directly evident to someone rating based off of not liking myself.
I agree with a lot of this, but I think the system would be fine with some small tweaks.Hemperor wrote:I thoroughly appreciate Derrick's constant work however I feel this system acheives nothing and if anything is only detrimental. I haven't seen a shard with better community support than this one, so why the need for the addition of something like this that really doesn't fit in the scopes of UO anyways? Word of mouth, "your name" count for a lot here and this has always worked... I don't see the need for a system where people can disabled others and make them look negative anonymously for no reason.
If Darkwing and Guardianknight are to be believed, [cA] will go to any length to "exploit" anything, but I seriously can't imagine anyone bothering to go through all that trouble to give someone else bad forum karma. Seems boring.Hemperor wrote:Another thought, is this only encouraging the creation of more new never used forum accounts?
Subject: Reputation system for forumsHemperor wrote:I haven't heard Derrick say anything about it.
I don't think there's any reason to consider it a failure; it's been a very short period. The suggestions on tweaks are being heard though.Derrick wrote:To give some background on why we implemented this system: It's been desired by traders for some time, but there has never been a stable reputation system for phpBB; I've been looking for one for years. This one finally seems to fit the bill in terms of being production ready.
There's also an excessive amount of trolling in these forums, and the level at which staff will take action is pretty well known and skirted. I feel that a peer review system will help with this, and reduce some of the frustration that board admins and moderators feel about some of the postings in these forums.
It may work, it may not; but we're going to try it regardless. I do expect that it'll take a couple months to make any determination at all on whether this was a good idea.
We can continue to take good ideas on modifications to the system, but spitting on it is not going to be helpful at this time.