Reputations

[The Barrow-Wight]

Some of you have already noticed that we have activated the Reputation system of the Downs. If you haven't, look on any post on the forum, and you'll see a small icon beneath the name of each poster (right after the number of posts that member has). Hovering the mouse over that small icon will reveal that member's reputation on the Downs. Everyone starts out with the the reputation of "<member> has started on the path to adventure"

Looking below the Reputation icon, you'll notice another new icon in the shape of a scale. Hovering your mouse over it reveals the message "Add to <member's> Reputation." Clicking the icon brings up a small window where you can do one of two things: (1) Approve of the post; or (2) disapprove of the post. Both options allow you to add a comment stating why you made the choice you did.

As you can see, the idea is to rate the post, not the member. Your rating of the post, postive or negative, will affect that members reputation up or down. As reputations change, the Reputation messsage changes.

Please don't abuse the Reputation system. Don't use it as a way to play games or disrespect each other. Instead, use it to give your true opinion of the posts you rate. In doing so, you will give people a better idea of what we'd like to see on the Downs.

Thanks!

[The Barrow-Wight]

You can see the reputations you have received, along with their comments, in your User CP. This means that user can see what rating you give to their posts!

[piosenniel]

Will we have the opportunity of choosing to turn off the 'Reputation' function?

[The Barrow-Wight]

No, you will not be able to turn off the reputation feature for now. Unless the system becomes widely abused, we want it active so people can see what others think of their posts. Though the system is designed to make misuse quite difficult, if such a thing does happen and we are unable to control it (by censuring the abusers) we may consider allowing people to turn it off in the future, but I don't forsee the need for that.

[The Barrow-Wight]

I just noticed that by clicking the scale icon on one of your own posts you can see how many reputation points you have. It will also indicate if you are negative, even, or positive for that particular post.

[Eruwen]

I have a question about the reputation points. I know people give you your reputation, but on all of my posts it says that I have 14 reputation points and that the post is even. Even on posts that I just got done posting, it says that. Does the number of points ever change?

[The Barrow-Wight]

Even means just what it says, not postive or negative. That means no one has rated the post OR the total ratings for your post equal zero. On brand new posts, even obviously means no one has rated it yet.

[Elennar Starfire]

You can see the reputations you have received, along with their comments, in your User CP.

How do you do that? I couldn't figure it out. :confused:

[Imladris]

Click on the User CP and scroll to the bottom (after the list of threads you've recently posted on). If you have Reputation, there will be a box that says "Latest Reputation Received." If you don't have any, that box won't be there.

Cheers!
Istawen

[The Saucepan Man]

This means that user can see what rating you give to their posts!
Does that mean that people can see which member commented on their thread? I think that Sharkû posted on the Questions thread that the system was not anonymous, but I can't find any indication of who has made the comments in the Reputation Box in my User CP.

For those who haven't discovered it, you can check out who's who in the Reputation stakes by going to the Member List and clicking on "Reputation" so as to order the list by Reputation. (Of course, I wouldn't have pointed that out if I hadn't been lying in fifth place. :rolleyes: :D )

[Mister Underhill]

It turns out that ratings are anonymous, except for Admins. Only the Barrow knows...

[symestreem]

The little green icon doesn't work for me. Will it only work with certain browsers? I have Safari 1.0. It seems to work fine in Internet Explorer 5.2.

[The Barrow-Wight]

The little green icon doesn't do anything. Click the scale icon to give reuptation ratings.

[symestreem]

The little green icon's not supposed to do anything? I thought if you hovered your mouse over it, it was supposed to to the little pop-up thingy with people's reputation phrases. That's what I'm asking about.

[The Barrow-Wight]

Ah, sorry... the icon does have hover text. That's true. Maybe it's something in your settings. All of those icon have ALT text, and perphas your browser has an option to turn those on or off?

[Lyta_Underhill]

I suppose the thing I don't get is the points scale. I am told I have 17 points and I have two entries in my reputations area in User CP, but I do not know how many points are allotted to each, nor how to control the number of points given when rating another user's post. Perhaps there is a default number that is entered when you choose to approve or disapprove? And I am supposing this point count is cumulative? I am a little unclear on how many points equal "approval" and how many equal "disapproval" and how to tell on individual entries how many points go with them. It also tells me I have started on the path to adventure, but some have "username is getting the hang of it." I guess these users have more points than I do. I suppose I'll "get the hang of it" eventually! ;)

Cheers!
Lyta

[Lindolirian]

I tried to rate NightKngiht on some questions he asked in the Quiz Room and it gave me this:
Quote:
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to NightKnight again.

Just out of curiosity, how much reputation do I have "to spread" before I can rate one person again? Evidently this is not something to be used on every post you may like or dislike... :rolleyes:

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Lyta, we cannot choose how many points we give on the reputation function - a user has points based on various factors, including her/his own reputation. A click will give whatever rating "weight" I have to give.

[The Saucepan Man]

Just out of curiosity, how much reputation do I have "to spread" before I can rate one person again? Evidently this is not something to be used on every post you may like or dislike... I don't know the answer to the first question, but it seems a fair principle to me. First, it helps prevent people working together to "bump up" each other's Reputation. And secondly, it emphasises the point that Reputation is not to be given just for any old post that may take your fancy or state an opinon with which you agree (just as it should not be taken away simply because you disagree with a post).

Reputation should only be awarded in respect of those posts which you find particularly insightful, helpful, well argued, well written, witty etc. In this regard, it's worth filling out the reason for approving (or disapproving) a post, since identifying what exactly it is that you like about a thread will help you in working out whether it really merits a Reputation boost (and it will also tell the recipient exactly what he/she is doing right (or wrong)).

[Lindolirian]

Yes, I had originally thought it was some sort of "Hey that was a nice post" thing that you could give out whenever. Indeed I shall use this power wisely, now that I now what it is!

[Niluial]

I still don’t get it. If I click on my reputation scale it says you have 10 reputation points. Does this mean 10 people have given me a reputation on that one post or throughout the few weeks?

[Thorongil]

I guess the number of points is divided between the posts below the score. But it didn't say how many points there were for each rating.

[HerenIstarion]

10 points is the startup capital. I believe each additional positive rating brings along five more. But it should be checked with administration rather :)

[The Barrow-Wight]

The power of your reputation-giving goes up with your reputation and your time on the board (how long you have been a member). Older members have more reputation 'weight' than newer members, and those with high reputations have more 'weight' than people with lower reps. The weights are usually anywhere from 1 to 10 points, depending on the member, but people whose reputation drops below 0 have no weight at all and are wasting their time giving reputations. Stay above zero, or get above is you have already slipped.

[Imladris]

This question has been bugging me.

Please don't abuse the Reputation system. Don't use it as a way to play games or disrespect each other. Instead, use it to give your true opinion of the posts you rate. In doing so, you will give people a better idea of what we'd like to see on the Downs.

So what happens if somebody is obviously doing this? What do you do?

[The Barrow-Wight]

Tell one of the admins, and we'll check out.

[Thorongil]

Someone added to my reputation and the mark was blue. My points didn't go up or down. What was that?

[Fingolfin II]

Someone also added to my reputation and the box was grey. However, my points are still even also. What does this mean in terms of what the people rated me?

[The Barrow-Wight]

There are two colors of box: green and blue/grey. Green is positive and blue/grey is negative. In the case of both of you (Fingolfin II and Thorongil), a brand new member who has no reputation 'weight' has gone around giving reputations to everyone - with no comments. When I say that he has no weight, I mean that even though he is clicking the reputation button, his action does not add or subtract any points from you. Let me explain why.

The reputation system is well designed. It does not allow people to just indiscriminantly run around the forum changing peoples reputations. It has a series of rules that determine how often you can give reputations and how much weight you have. Let me explain weight.

Weight is the number of points that you can change someone else's reputation up or down. Each person 'weight' is determined by the following formula.

1 point for every 365 days you are a member
1 point for every 100 points of your own reputation
1 point for every 1000 posts

If you don't meet any of these criteria, you add 0 points when giving reputations and are wasting your time.

If your personal reputation falls below 0, you lose all reputation giving weight until your bring your reputation back up.

Translating all of this into English, you need to have been a member for a year, OR have at least 1000 posts, or have a 100 reputations points of your own if you want to give reputations points. Obviously, the easiest way for new members to get the power to give reputations is to get a good reputation. You do so by impressing others with good posts.

There are other rules:

1) You must have 50 posts on the forum before you can give reputations
2) You must have 10 reputations points of your own before you can give reputations
3) You must give reputation to 20 different people before coming back to the same person
4) You can only give 10 reputations a day



To the 'wizard' who is running around giving reputations and still hasn't posted once, you are wasting your time. Either discuss Middle-earth or find a new playground.

Sincerely
BW

[Thorongil]

Thanks for clearing it up. And it is better if people give a comment, so you know why, If it's positive or negative.

[mark12_30]

BW-- Thanks for the info.

Green is good; blue/grey is negative? Then what's red?

[The Barrow-Wight]

I hadn't realized there was a red. Since the blue/grey we were talking about before added 0 points, perhaps blue/grey is neutral and red is negative. The descriptions I gave were educated guess, because I didn't recall seeing the icons described on the documentation.

An amended description of the reputation icons:

http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/images/reputation/reputation_highpos.gif high positive
http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif positive
http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/images/reputation/reputation_balance.gif balanced / neutral (0 points?)
http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif negative
http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/images/reputation/reputation_highneg.gif high negative

[The Saucepan Man]

Thanks, BW. That's useful to know.

I have received three blue boxes with no comment, none of which affected my reputation count. Each of them relates to posts which really had nothing in them to either approve or disapprove of (particularly as two were simply setting questions in the Quiz Room). Since these were all received within a week, and given the rule about spreading reputation around, either there is more than one of these 'wizards' or he/she has been very busy indeed.

Also, can members with under 50 posts still approve/disapprove of posts (even though they cannot add or subtract reputation points in doing so)? If not, this 'wizard' cannot be a brand new member, since he or she must have at least 50 posts in order to be able to bring up a blue box in people's User CP.

[The Barrow-Wight]

I think it must be a flaw in the software that those people actually show up on your list. Optimally they would not even be able to open the reputation box, or at least their clicks would never register. But until vBulletin sends out a fix, we will continue to see when people are doing this.

In the meantime, I will contact people who are abusing the system and get them to stop.

[Amanaduial the archer]

Same as Saucepan Man - I have had two of these neutral reputation boxes with no comment within the last week. However, one of these had mysteriously vanished when I looked this morning.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

You mean, I can't give reputation points to anybody???? I've not been around for a year, I don't have 1000 posts and I don't have 100 reputation points of my own -- so I'm a zero?

How depressing. I didn't know that. I've been trying to give reputation points to the posts I really love and it's all been for naught.

Ah well, it will be more inspiration to get my reputation points up there so I can no longer be a zero! :D

[The Barrow-Wight]

Fordim, at the rate you are going you should have 100 reputations points soon. Your good conversation is going to give you weight!

[Sharkû]

Also you start out with a weight of 1 as soon as you are able to give reputation (50 posts).

[HerenIstarion]

I can see the ratings I've got in my CP. Can I see also the list of posts I've given reputation to myself? Or may be such an option be added in the future?

[The Barrow-Wight]

No. Once you click the give reuptation button it is property of the person you gave it to. vBulletin is constantly upgrading their program, so perhaps some day they will make possible.

[HerenIstarion]

thanks

[Nurumaiel]

3) You must give reputation to 20 different people before coming back to the same person.

This rule compels me to ask a question.... are we supposed to keep track of who we have been giving reputation and when so we might follow the rule? Or will the system keep track of it? In example, if I were to give reputation to someone twice without those twenty other people in between, would the system cause the given reputation to be rendered ineffective?

I gathered from what has been previously posted that it was the system that kept track of it, that is, considering Lindolirian's post:

'You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to NightKnight again.' Just out of curiosity, how much reputation do I have "to spread" before I can rate one person again?

as well as considering that the others rules that were mentioned in the same group all seem to be dealt with by the system.

I'd just like to confirm that it actually is the system in charge of that, though, so I know I don't have to keep track of who I've been giving reputation to!

(And, by the way, would the same answer apply to only giving reputation to 10 people per day?)

Thanks in advance! :)

[Lindolirian]

Hmmm say someone with 40 posts gives reputation, it give no points right? Then a few days later they pass the fifty mark. Is that already given reputation suddenly worth one point? Also for example, I personally have three weight points because of two years of membership and 1,000 posts. Now when I reach 2,000, will the reputations that I have already given be worth four? Sorry if it's confusing, but I think that I might have been rated by someone with no wieght to give and want to know if it will ever be worth anything... :rolleyes: :D Thanks!

[The Barrow-Wight]

The points you give are calculated when you give them and are added immediately according to your current weight. Gaining more weight at a later date will not affect previously given reputations.

[Lindolirian]

Just what I wanted to know, except you made it sound so much simpler! :D
Thank you!

[HerenIstarion]

So, tricky question:

What happens if the post which has been rated is deleted?

edit: or edited?

[Evisse the Blue]

SO I understand that a red icon is negative. Well, I got a reputation marked with a red icon but the comments are positive... :rolleyes: Could a mistake like this happen? Can it be mended, one way or the other?

[mark12_30]

Here's a brilliant one: I just got marked down for bringing up an old inactive thread.

Apparently the BD policies have changed, and it's now preferable to start new threads instead of revitalizing the old ones? Yeah, I thought so. :rolleyes:

...edit... ....And... I just got a blue-neutral vote on this very post.

[Lalaith]

Erm...can I just clarify something? If you get a blue-neutral vote, does that mean that someone with no weight has been trying to either approve or disapprove of your post? Are there any other circumstances where you can get a blue-neutral?

[HerenIstarion]

My tricky question too, please :)

[HerenIstarion]

Another thing - is the length of the comments one is allowed to make along one's rating in some relation to the rank of the rate-giver? I have noticed that more points I'm awarded at one go, more lengthy the comments are. Well, maybe verbosity of more rated members is natural thing to them, but it seems to me that it must be somehow related - my own comment limit is sort of shorter (or may be I'm seeing things) than some I've seen on ratings given to me.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

~*Sigh*~ It is truly a great disappointment that we cannot continually rate a member who consistantly posts well with out first spreading the weath of points alloted us. It seems to cheapen the system and is hard on those of with little time to browse around.

[bilbo_baggins]

I am rather angry. There are those who go around giving worthless reps, but the opposite can be true, as experienced by me.

I recently got a rep from some annoying person with only one point, and s/he dissapproved, obviously as they gave me a negative point. That's all well and good. The part I don't like, I really don't like, is that the comment was blank. Someone can dissaprove of one of my posts, but they could tell me what they didn't approve of.

There can be some mean people out there, who get a point and then start to ruin people's reps. I wish something could be done about it.

[Firefoot]

Hey bilbo, I know how that is - I had someone give me a negative rating with a comment that said "weird, huh?" What is that supposed to mean? :( Also, I got one of those blue boxes for the Quiz Room. :rolleyes: Most people I have received ratings from have used the system well but there are obviously some people abusing the system.

[The Saucepan Man]

Bilbo and Firefoot

Look back to the previous page of this thread (posts #26 to #35) and you will see that you are not alone. I got three blue boxes without comment within a week, although they have stopped now.

If you PM B-W or one of the other admins about it, I think that they can identify the culprit(s) and take appropriate action.

[piosenniel]

I'm going to chime in here and say I really don't care for the option of giving or recieving 'Reputation'. I despise the anonymity of it and the inability to discuss the perceived problem.

I prefer to handle personal biases by PM.

If I think a post is off-base, unkind, needs to be worked on for grammar, spelling, and/or composition I'll PM the author. I want to give specific reasons why I think the post is below par and offer him/her the opportunity to dialog with me about it. That way, the person knows who doesn't care for the particular post and why.

In like manner, if I like the way a person has expressed themselves, I want them to know it was I who found the writing/ideas/presentation appealing and why I found it so.

I have used the 'Reputation' option rarely - and only for positive feedback. And I've signed each comment so the recipient knows who likes what they've written.

It just seems pointless to me to leave anonymous ratings/comments for a person. I've always thought a person should step up and take responsibility for his opinions of the actions of others.

[HerenIstarion]

Obviously, our Gov is doing somthing against spooky rep wizards :):

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

So things probably are bound to improve

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

The idea of signing each comment is a good one. I think that I will adopt it.

[Amanaduial the archer]

Same as Pio - I have only given out positive Reputations, not least because mine would count for quite alot. To be given such an anomymous negative comment hurts - often you can guess who gave the comment, but still, when it is often simply a personal disagreement which could be resolved by PM, it seems daft to give a strongly negative rating.

However, I prefer this system to the bones rating system of the old board - this way a particularly good post can be encouraged and rewarded rather than having to give a 'mark' for every post the person has made.

[Imladris]

Along the same lines as Pio and Aman, the system, even with all the requirements the Barrow-wight listed, is still easily abused. I can understand the reason for anonymity, but that also gives free access to deal out negative reputation on a pet peeve of theirs -- which is another form of cowardice and "bad form" in my humble opinion. *shrugs*

[The Saucepan Man]

Actually, I quite like the Reputation system. :cool: ;)


I despise the anonymity of it and the inability to discuss the perceived problem.But, Pio, isn't it quite good that people have the choice? I can understand why people might prefer to remain anonymous when commenting on a thread (whether good or bad), but if they want to identify themselves then, as you say, they can sign the comment. And if someone wants to expand on a comment that they have made, then they can always PM the recipient.


Along the same lines as Pio and Aman, the system, even with all the requirements the Barrow-wight listed, is still easily abused. I agree that this is a potential concern, but I am confident that most people here are sensible enough to use the system properly. Any suspected abuse can always be reported to one of the admins for investigation.


Same as Pio - I have only given out positive Reputations, not least because mine would count for quite alot. Yes, I have tended to avoid giving too much negative Rep too. When given, it should always be accompanied by explanatory comments. Constructive critcism, as they say. I certainly avoid commenting negatively on anyone's first few posts. I have noticed that a few people have been relegated to "slipping" having made only a handful of posts. Seems to me that everyone who joins should be given a bit of leeway to find their feet. Otherwise, new members might end up being driven off.

[The Barrow-Wight]

I think that if people would concentrate on making the best posts possible, they would get more positive reputations, and the negatives, fair or unfair, would be negligible. Those who have the least power to affect a reputation are the ones most likely to abuse the system, and from looking at the Members List, I don't see anyone suffering too terribly from this abuse. Considering that reputations have absolutlely no true effect on how good or bad your posts are, everyone should stop worrying about the 'bad' ones so much and concentrate on getting good ones.

The perfect way to counter bad reputation givers is to always give positive wherever it is merited.

[Samwise]

...but this whole 'rep' thing dosen't seem the least bit fair, and quite honestly, a bit dumb (though I never liked the old rating system, either.). I've never looked at my 'rep', 'cause I don't really care what people think of my posts. I don't rate other peoples', either. I'm not a Tolkien expert, and I don't ever plan on becoming one. So if people are going to waste their time rating my posts low 'cause I don't know enough about the books or movies or whatever, I really could care less.

I apologize for this sounding like a rant; I guess in a sense it is, but I don't see the importance of one person rating another person's thoughts. :rolleyes:

[Lyta_Underhill]

I do enjoying rating posts sometimes, but I understand this system is ripe for abuse. The question though, is, are there any REAL negative consequences of having a "Ted Sandyman" reputation? If Ted Sandyman said something interesting, I would still read it and perhaps comment upon it. I put it down to a fluke when I saw Lush with a "slipping" reputation awhile back, as I always enjoy reading her posts and I've never known her to "slip". Since she is definitely opinionated and uses colorful turns of phrase, I am sure that very characteristic is liable to produce polarized results, thus the smattering of negatives. In a way, that would make the "slipping" 'Downer more interesting to read, as you would wonder what made someone react so strongly as to rate the person 'down.' A 'slipping' 'Downer is often one who has created a controversy. (I noticed Knight of Gondor had slipped during the "Good vs. Evil" movies thread controversy as well). That doesn't make me any less interested in what KoG has to say. In short, I don't see any downside, except a bit of a frowny face beside one's nickname...hardly a handicap at all! That's just my own opinion!

Cheers!
Lyta

P.S. I normally subscribe to the doctrine of only speaking well of someone and keeping mum when the stupid or irritating posts come along...

[The Saucepan Man]

So if people are going to waste their time rating my posts low 'cause I don't know enough about the books or movies or whatever, I really could care less.As far as I'm concerned, it's not about how well you know the books or the films. It's about how well-expressed, thoughtful, witty, insightful, informative etc your posts are. In other words, how much your post contributes to the particular thread that you post on (whether that be in the Books, the Quiz Room, an RPG or whatever).

We are all here because we enjoy reading posts made by others and posting ourselves. It seems to me that any system which encourages us to post well, and therefore makes us think more and elicits more interesting or funny material for us all to read, is something which is worthwhile.

That said, I agree to some degree with Lyta. Reputation is an interesting feature, and should be meted out (whether positively or negatively) with care. But people shouldn't take their personal Reputation ratings as the be all and end all.

[Durelin]

I'm fine with the reputation system. I wouldn't say I like it, but it is a good way to recognize someone as a good poster. Hopefully the giving of reputation through good comments, as well as the taking away of through bad comments, is deserved. It is hard to tell. I too only give good comments, as I find there is little sense in taking giving them a bad reputation for a post I have some minor problem with. And I have never come across a post that I had a major problem with. Plus, I don't think my giving of a good comment even gives much reputation at all... I guess it does give some posters more motivation to think through posts, check spelling, etc. And it rewards many posters who deserve to be.

Concerning signing you comments: I thought I remembered something you could set to make your comments signed or not, but now I think I was dreaming. :D Do you need to literally sign your comments, or am I not losing my mind? (I seriously doubt the latter).

Thanks.

-Durelin

[Amanaduial the archer]

Durelin, the idea of signing was mentioned: if you wish, you can 'sign' your rating comment, but it isn't mandatory on the system.

[Lush]

Lyta,

Actually, someone with what must have a lot of weight, rated down a post of mine for being "too long." not for any of my so-called opinions. Maybe. ;)

I pouted at first, but if they got a kick of wielding the power, then who am I to take that pleasure away from them?

Like Pio, I prefer to compliment others and leave the negative stuff to someone else.

[Son of Númenor]

I tend to side with others like Lush & Piosenniel in being skeptical of negative ratings. If I have a major problem with someone else's post, I will Private Message the person or, if my criticism is content-specific & appropriate for the theme of the thread, I will state my criticism kindly in a reply. I personally would not want the content of one of my posts to be subject to skepticism because an anonymous B-Der rated me down on another of my replies. My humbly submitted suggestion would be to disallow anonymity by reputation-givers & make commentary mandatory along with the basic 'I approve' or 'I disapprove'.

[Legolas]

The Saucepan Man is right...Reptuations aren't the rating of a member's knowledge or intelligence. They help put into perspective that person's contributions as a poster and ways that may be able to improve. They're post-specific, as noted by the Barrow-Wight's initial post here.

That's the point - Reputations aren't for "major" problems with others' posts. It's just for pointers, positive feedback, and general comments - simply "Hey, I like how you said..." or "Maybe you would consider trying to...". It's not a way to confront members you are experiencing problems with or anything - that should be handled through others means (as always, by notifying a moderator). Additionally, if one person rates you down unjustly, it's no big loss - you lose one or two points in most cases - little effect if you're conducting yourself properly on a regular basis. The thing to remember is to give positive reputation whenever possible/inclined in order to make sure the system works. Your Reputation rating isn't something that will be held as a screening tool - members (who are conducting themselves properly also) will not consider your reputation as a final testament to your worth as a member. The posts are what really count.

[Lhunardawen]

A million thanks, Saucepan Man and Legolas. I was beginning to take the Reputation system too seriously.

Is there any way we could possibly know what "message" corresponds to a certain number of points? I've seen "no fool of a Took" and other different ones, especially Saucepan Man's very interesting "faithful as Samwise" accompanied by two boxes. Or are they confidential?

[The Barrow-Wight]

I chose to keep the text of the different levels secret as a kind of incentive to strive for the next surprise. Giving the list would likely have turned into a discussion of the list, which I didn't want.

* Keeping giving positive reputations where it is due.
* Know which members have the highest reputation.
* Read their posts to figure out why they have such high reputations.
* Emulate them.

If you want to see who has the highest reputations, click MEMBERS LIST near the top of the screen, then click REPUTATION over to the right. This will list people by their reputation points, highest to lowest. Click the little blue arrow by REPUTATIONS to see the list in reverse. :eek:

[Lhunardawen]

Thanks, BW. The idea is sheer genius. Aside from looking forward to being a Ghost Prince by posting more, I am also given an incentive to post better. :)

[Bombadil]

I read this thread, and am not sure if this rule holds, but are others allowed to give reputation to those under 50 posts? Because newbies to the Downs are bound to make mistakes. (As I did, creating a thread that had been discussed before :o ) This can be very frustrating to regular Downers, and it might drive some to hit that disappove box! Therefore if it is not in place that one cannot affect the reputation of a person under 50 posts, I propose this new rule. Thanks for your time! :D

[The Barrow-Wight]

All members, new and old, are vulnerable to the Reputation system. As in real life, it is often best to 'learn the hard way' than to be coddled through infancy. We have many years of experience running this forum, and we have learned that a short, sharp shock has a more lasting influence than a gentle hug. Of course, if anyone considers losing a couple of Reputation points as shocking, they really need to re-evaluate their value system. :rolleyes: We hope that people will strive to have positive Reputations here on the Downs, but people need to realize that this is just a web site. Getting a bad Reputation is not the end of the world (though it could be the end of a membership if someone is truly a menace to the Downs), and a bad Reputation is easy to correct. So, instead of adjusting the rule system for newcomers, I'll offer a few lines of advice.

Ask yourself....

Does my idea already exist on the Downs? Use SEARCH or simply skim the first page or two of the forum you want to post in. Starting a new thread is fun, but you might be missing out on so much good reading if you rush to ask your question.
Am I discussing or chatting? "I agree." is chatting. "I agree and here's why...." is discussing. Discuss!
Did I read the FAQ (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?t=6010)?
Did I leave a comment with Reputation I gave to someone else? If you give someone Reputation, positive or negative, leave a comment. Don't be cowardly or lazy and leave it blank. Tell them what you liked (or disliked) about it. Don't leave them in the dark. It is sometimes very dark here in the Barrow.
Am I being fair? Did my buddy deserve the good Reputation I just gave him, or am I just helping a friend out. Did I give someone a negative Reputation because their post was bad (in my opinion), or because I am mad at them? Make sure you give Reputations because of the post you are reading, and not because of the poster. Again, leave a comment.
Who has the best Reputation? Here is the Member List by Reputation (http://www.forum.barrowdowns.com/memberlist.php?&order=DESC&sort=reputation&pp=30&ltr=). Look who is on top of the list and read their posts. You get a great idea of what people consider postive.


I hope people find this little essay useful.

Sincerely,

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

I would still say that having to rate 20 other members before rating the same one again is excessive and would lead to folks rating people (good or bad, justly or unjustly) so that they can get in their 20. Wouldn't 10 be a more realistic figure? Or am I just being stingy?

[HerenIstarion]

...excessive and would lead to folks rating people (good or bad, justly or unjustly) so that they can get in their 20

No need to do it [in my case, that is] - there is a plenty of old discussion here which I occasionaly reread, so it gets reputed and my twenty pass by in a wink of an eye. And sometimes I set out on the mission of finding out good threads I remember on purpose, just to rate them. It seems proper that older posts, even if their originators appear less frequently, should get some positive reputation.

With this in mind, can it be done so that there was a list by posts, not by posters only? Something like - find most reputed post on the downs, and read away.

cheers

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Yes, I see what you mean. It is just that I have been rather involved in RPG's for the last year or so, and do not have as much time to read other forums. Seeing as I am involved with the same group of people it is difficult for me to rate them on outstanding posts. Therein lies the frustation. Though I can see if you were in The Books Forum it would be easier, (though I'd be more apt to develop high blood pressure :D !)

[Durelin]

Sorry to begin again the constant onslaught of questions, but I do hope mine are worthy of answer...

There are two colors of box: green and blue/grey. Green is positive and blue/grey is negative.

What about the red ones?

And...

SO I understand that a red icon is negative. Well, I got a reputation marked with a red icon but the comments are positive...

This has also happened concerning me. But, what it says concerning the rating is something along these lines: 'The Rating for this post is Partially Negative'. Could it be that your own weight, or perhaps other reputation receivings could effect a post rating?

Once again, I ask forgiveness for this pestering, but I would like to get above 10...oh wait, now 11, reputation points. :D

-Durelin

[Evisse the Blue]

It is sometimes very dark here in the Barrow. Yes, and I confess of being guilty of spreading to that dark. Out of laziness, of course. :p Which only adds to my frustration now that I can no longer give reputation to a certain group of members (whose number is increasing!) because I have to 'spread' it around.

I think that in the light of the new subforum (chapter by chapter discussions), which has such valuable posts that one is simply bound to use the reputation function, this rule of not being able to rate a person twice if you haven't given it to 20 people in the meantime is only adding to the frustration of not being able to express your view of how well-expressed, thoughtful, witty, insightful, informative a post is. Keeping in mind that you can't go on giving the same persons reputation points, I however agree with Hilde about 10 being a more realistic figure. And when you're engrossed in a wonderful post that only a handful of people participate in, whom you'd like to award, it's rather hard to stop in the middle of it and search for old discussions to spread more reputation.

[Imladris]

And when you're engrossed in a wonderful post that only a handful of people participate in, whom you'd like to award, it's rather hard to stop in the middle of it and search for old discussions to spread more reputation.

I think that 20 is a good number. Even though only a few people are involved with a good topic (and usually topics such as the chapter by chapter are long), that means those people will keep on getting reputation because they are so smart. Eventually a clique will form which is what the BDs want to avoid. Twenty will more effectively keep that from happening instead of ten.

it's rather hard to stop in the middle of it and search for old discussions to spread more reputation.

I don't know if I'm reading more into this statement, but spreading reputation isn't the point of the forums. If people go out of their way to spread reputation so that they can give to their favourites, it will destroy the whole point of the system. It will give rep to people who don't necessarily deserve it just so that the faves can get get two little green squares beside their name. Eventually, if that continues, everyone will be No Fool of a Tooks and then eventually everyone will have two squares. Thus the two squares just become another thing and not a badge of worthiness.

Old discussions? What about new discussions? Surely there has to be more than just a few new good discussions and posts? And even if there are, why is that a bad thing? The lack of reputation will surely inspire some budding corpse to create good topics? *coughFordimHedgthistlecough*. But please do not understand me to say that I believe that there are no good old Discussions. That is the fartherst thing from my mind. I just find it silly to look for good Old Discussion when good new ones are around you.

But those are just my humble thoughts.

[Evisse the Blue]

. Eventually, if that continues, everyone will be No Fool of a Tooks and then eventually everyone will have two squares. Yes, I noticed that too. There are very few people left with the base rate, and even fewer who are slipping. But I think that's because the Downers typically make good posts, and there's the tendency among us to award good posts rather than punish bad ones.
spreading reputation isn't the point of the forums. Not really, no, but it has become a big part of it. It's a way of providing feedback. It's a way to express your opinion about a post, when you don't really have anything else to contribute to the discussion that is going on the thread.
I just find it silly to look for good Old Discussion when good new ones are around you. I'm sure there are. When I said old discussions, I was referring back to HI's post, where he said:
there is a plenty of old discussion here which I occasionaly reread, so it gets reputed and my twenty pass by in a wink of an eye. Of course old discussions is just a way of saying 'any discussion that you know is good. It can be from a year ago or from a day ago.

[HerenIstarion]

I just find it silly to look for good Old Discussion when good new ones are around you.

Accused returned guilty, mea culpa, mea culpa. My compliments on expressing your views in a clear and comprehensive way you do :)

But!


Of course old discussions is just a way of saying 'any discussion that you know is good. It can be from a year ago or from a day ago.

Good defense, that one, thank you, Evisse. I could not have said it better myself. Still more, if you look from the opposite end of it, I suppose one can not possibly deny the worth of a good post on a mere ground it is old, as one would not deny the worth of new posts, Eru forbid

What makes you reluctant to praise the value of both?

Another point in defense of 'good ole discussion', it is that sometimes, however similar the issue raised, the responses got may vary, as people respondig are different . It seems appropriate to link newer discussion with older one, even if and especially when both deal with the same subject.

[Imladris]

Meep! Let me explain myself.

My last sentence:

just find it silly to look for good Old Discussion when good new ones are around you.

was going back towards Evisse's statements that

nd when you're engrossed in a wonderful post that only a handful of people participate in, whom you'd like to award, it's rather hard to stop in the middle of it and search for old discussions to spread more reputation.

Granted, I chose very poor words but do let me redeem myself. Old threads are not bad. However, I think that going back to old discussions just to be able to rate a current favourite member (which is the impression I received from Evisse's post) is just...silly.

So, HI....I do not think that you giving rep to people who posted on Old Threads is bad. However, as you yourself said,

What makes you reluctant to praise the value of both?

was the gist of what I was saying...

[HerenIstarion]

However, I think that going back to old discussions just to be able to rate a current favourite member

But I rather think aforesaid does not imply that old discussion which gets rated does so only for the sake of new favourite. It has its own merits, even if re-reading began as the way to give reputation to some other and newer post.

One minor point, however - everybody having two squares is not such a bad thing. For one thing, reputation, whatever number of squares, after all, is just another thing. For another, with so many wise Gandalfs around, anyone prone to 'slipping' and 'behaving like sandyman' would think twice before each post, as being red-coloured on the background of load of Gandalfs would be more, (what was the word ;)?) - silly.

It only creates possibility of someone (and, no offense meant, possibly someone young) taking pride in being 'slipped' and, thence, 'sandymaning' on purpose. But possibility is one thing, and probability another, if you follow my meaning.

And even then it would be hard to do, as the greatest part of members does not give out bad reputation, unless very much provoked. Hence so many 'no fools' and people 'getting hang of' things.

We are, after all, what C.S. Lewis called 'mutual admiration society', in a way. We admire each other, so what so surprising in having so many people praised?

And, finally, as an experienced intriguer, I may add up the question of older threads yet again - that is, if, to use your own expression, any 'budding corpse' is inspired to write in a way to win some good fame, why not pay tribute to older skeletons, which, probably, haven't showed their nose (do skulls have noses?) in in a while, but have been mightily creating mighty threads in the mighty days of, hehe, mighty ancestors?

Ancestor worship? Nay, merely fair play, I believe

But!

All of the above is written for the look of the thing, mainly. The real stress of the post falls here:

You explanation, is, of course, accepted. I think we have the gist of it seized firmly now :)


cheers

[Evisse the Blue]

Old threads are not bad. However, I think that going back to old discussions just to be able to rate a current favourite member (which is the impression I received from Evisse's post) is just...silly.
Oh God, am I that bad at expressing myself. Yes I am. Ok, let me try again: I meant that I was at that moment engrossed in a thread which I haven't checked out in a long while, which meant I had a lot of catching up to do, and into which a limited number of people participated in, and made wonderful posts. So as I was reading, I was giving reputation, and as they posted more than once - damn their brains overflowing with ideas :p - I found that soon enough I could give no more reputation for the posts on that particular thread, given the (relatively) limited number of participants. Which meant I had to go in search of other discussions and spend reputation on other members, before I could go back and try to rate again - something, that I really didn't feel like doing. But now that I restated my whole point, I see that my pseudo problem is probably due to laziness. And of course, Imladris, you're right in saying that reputations aren't what this forum is really all about. Although I stick to my earlier comment about the magical number 10.

*sigh* Leave it to HI to turn such an argument into an opportunity to meditate upon such matters as 'ancestor worship.' :smokin: ;)

[Araréiel]

I'm going to toss in my two cents. We should be required to write a comment, yet have the option to remain annonymous. I understand the point it to allow members to see which of their posts are liked, but the point seems defeated when there is a positive AND negative on the same post, as happened to one of mine. Actually, there are two positives, which say what they like, and a negative. As the post was fairly long, I would appreciate knowing which aspect(s) the person didn't like, even if I don't know the person's name.

Annonymity would remain a must to encourage people to be honest, even if it means telling a friend that s/he posted a bad post. But to require a comment is what will help.

[The Barrow-Wight]

We had been considering changing the reputation 'spread' from 20 to 10 since implementing the reputation system several months ago, but there was always the concern that people would misuse the system if we did so. The 'spread' is the number of different people that you must give reputation to before rating the same person again. This limitation is set so people aren't tempted to hurry back to a friend (or enemy) to unfairly enhance (or destroy) their reputation. But, since there is already a limit of giving only 10 repuations a day, it would take a very dedicated person to abuse the system if we set the spread to 10. So, we have done so.

You can now give reputation to someone a second time after giving reputation to only 10 different people. Since there are so many good members on the Downs, I'm sure everyone will find this change beneficial.

Remember:
(1) Always give comments!
(2) Be positive instead of negative unless someone is really misbehaving. No reputation at all is usually better than negative (and says just as much to the poster).
(3) See what our members with the highest reputations are doing and use them as an example.
(4) Don't mess around with the system. There's a whole world outside of your computer to bother people, so you don't need to be a nuisance here.

Thanks!

[Lalaith]

:(
I'm such an addled old thing, I can't remember who I've already given Reputation to...I wish the system let us keep track.

[Bêthberry]

I'm not sure it really matters if you give rep to the same person, over time, because the actualy rep is given for the post. Some people can write many excellent posts and so deserve multiple reps.

So, unless you start looking back over old threads to give rep to people, you won't be "double repping" the same post accidentally. Stay with new threads. The 'system' keeps track of how many reps you give and if you try to rep someone before repping 10 other people, the system won't allow it. The system also will allow you to give out only 10 reps every 24 hours.

It's the post that counts!

[Lalaith]

I see, thanks for that Bethberry.

But I'm a bit worried that I might accidentally freak someone out by giving them multiple reps, they might think I was stalking them!

[Imladris]

No...I think that they'd be thrilled that someone would be willing to put two boxes beside their name more quickly. ;)

[Bêthberry]

Ah, good point, Lalaith!

Beware the Grim Repper. :D

[Amanaduial the archer]

The mysterious ways of Reputations...see, the posts I get complimented for, I seem never to get rep points for. Yet with others that I wasn't aware people had noticed...I mysteriously get quietly complimented through points.

Hmmm ;)

[HerenIstarion]

Lalaith, same post can not be rated twice - when I accidentally try to do so (and it happens any time I stumble accross Phantom Finance thread, per instance), system reprimands me with firm 'you can not give reputation to same post twice!' message.

Stalking re: hey, folks whom I rated more than once, do you think I stalk you? You're right, I do follow you about :p. On the other hand, maybe we just frequent same threads as our interests are common, and you are just jolly smart clever chatterboxes I so much enjoy discussing things with :p

[Legolas]

But I'm a bit worried that I might accidentally freak someone out by giving them multiple reps, they might think I was stalking them!

They won't have a clue unless you voluntarily leave your name! :cool:

[Kuruharan]

They won't have a clue unless you voluntarily leave your name!

I don't know why but I find that remark unsettling. ;)

[HerenIstarion]

They won't have a clue unless you voluntarily leave your name!

Up to an extent, up to an extent. Arguably, one can figure that out:

Per instance, if on this thread I'll get 5 anonymous points, it'd be 50/50 bet that it is you, Legolas. The reason being

1. You've been posting on this thread, so it is certain that you've read the post I get rated for
2. As any member beyond 50 posts, you have 2 basic reputation points to give out
3. As a member registered in 2001, you have 2 more points for each full year of membership
4. As a one with 1459 posts, you have one more point for full 1000 of posts

It gives total of five, and I expect I'm not short of the mark in my calculations

Of course, said does not eliminate possibility that someone else, who refrained from posting and has equally 5 points to give out, rated some particular thread, one never knows, but sometimes one can figure the sponsor out :D

[Lalaith]

ROFL.
HerenIstarion, have you taken the Geek Test in Novices and Newcomers yet? ;)

[HerenIstarion]

31 something, total geek

BTW, what does ROFL stand for? (BTW being By The Way). My dictionary said it must be remotely operated longwall face but I somehow fail to fit such a thing (what is remotely operated longwall face, my precious-ss?) with what was said im my previous :)

[Lalaith]

Ah. Sorry. What would the Professor think of me, using lazy internetspeak. It means Roll On Floor Laughing.

[Evisse the Blue]

I just want to say thanks to the Barrow Wight for making the 10 Rep points possible. Cross my heart and hope to die I won't abuse the system and I'll start signing and explaining the reputations I give. Although, if everyone will start using the 'sherlockian' system that HI detailed a few posts up, I won't need to. ;)

HI - I find it so funny that, despite your supreme geekness you're unaware of such popular net terms like ROFL. :D

[HerenIstarion]

Ah, there are loads of things I'm unaware of. But now I have a reputation ;) to live up to...

[Diamond18]

Is "--- has shown the wisdom of Gandalf" as high as it goes? Because I must admit, I've been hovering my mouse over Saucepan Man's rep wondering if I'm going to get to see "The Saucepan Man IS Eru" at some point. :p

We don't seem to get to see a lot of the lower ratings. So I can only imagine.

--- is slipping

--- is more stinker than slinker

--- works for Saruman on the side

--- breath is death

--- is an oathbreaker

--- is a bloody orc

--- is the flea on the hide of a bloody orc


Gee, could I go any lower? :D

[HerenIstarion]

I've seen someone, whom I happily forgot by now, having been 'acting a bit like Ted Sandyman', yes sir (m'am), with my very eyes...

[mark12_30]

Gee, could I go any lower?

--Oily sludge at the bottom of a Dagorlad ash pit

[The Saucepan Man]

Is "--- has shown the wisdom of Gandalf" as high as it goes?I think that it might be, since it is continues to apply when the "green square" count increases from two to three. Although I suppose that titles might become more spaced out as the points tally increases. Perhaps one joins the ranks of the Valar on acquiring four green squares. :eek: :) Looks like we're counting on Fordim Hedgethistle to find out for us. :D

"--- has been acting a bit like Ted Sandyman" is the lowest that I have seen, although I suspect that it might go lower than that. Given the high standard of posting on this site (and the fair-minded nature of our members), we might never know.

[Sharkû]

There are definitely more levels to discover in both directions.
That three squares don't equal a new level is coincidence, or rather, the lack of one. The titles are set to certain threshold numbers, as are the squares, but they don't necessarily coincide in all cases.

[E. Fester]

Last time I looked I was 'newly deceased'. I like it. :)

And I have been 'acting a bit like Ted Sandyman' too. I have a funny feeling that I have sinned.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

There is a (I guess) former Downer who made one post ever, and this person is ahead of such greats as HCIsland and Lord of Angmar in the reputations list.

[The Perky Ent]

Wow. Must have been some post!

[Diamond18]

Sounds like an Urban Myth to me. :p

[HerenIstarion]

I plead guilty :D, I did it, I did it.

The member in question is WhyDoYouCrySmeagol (http://69.51.5.41/member.php?u=3980)

The post in question is the post #107 (http://69.51.5.41/showthread.php?p=333697#post333697) of the Geeks thread.

As, having in mind all the statistics, I must be giving out what? some 8 or even 9 points, my positive rating brought said one-poster up, to surpass mentioned members. So what? The post was sincere, and the nick funny.

With this, let me remind you all that we do not rate people, we rate posts. Even if there are few posts, and poster a stranger, yet post worthy. The best example of it being Fordim (http://69.51.5.41/member.php?u=3558), for the time being leader of the rating, with less posts than many.

cheers :)

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Meh. I wonder what one of the cranky Downers would think of that....

It is almost like saying that that one post was better than every single post made by (in my opinion) highly interesting and intelligent Downers combined, who contributed a lot to the forum.

[HerenIstarion]

It is almost like saying that that one post was better than every single post made by (in my opinion) highly interesting and intelligent Downers combined, who contributed a lot to the forum.

Do not be to hasty, pray do not. The maxim you pose on me is like saying 'how can you eat that steak, when people in [insert approriate place of your choice here] are starving'. I can feel for that people, I can care for them, I can send some help along when I have the means to afford it, but steak in question is mine, and I'm going to eat it whatever anyone says.

[Son of Númenor]

I agree with H-I on this one. For example, just because H-I gave reputation to WhyDoYouCrySmeagol for a post he happened upon and liked, should he feel obligated to go and seek out posts by 'greats' such as Angmar and HC to give reputation to?

[Imladris]

*Raises hand timidly* Well, if they make a valid point then does it matter who it is? Like SoN said, H-I shouldn't feel obligated to go looking around for the posts of the greats just because he gave rep to a newbie who has only posted once. As I have said, if one goes about looking for reputation to give, then it destroys the whole point of the system.

On the flip side of that, if one does not give reputation where reputation is due, that also destroys the system.

[InklingElf]

I agree with H-I on this one. For example, just because H-I gave reputation to WhyDoYouCrySmeagol for a post he happened upon and liked, should he feel obligated to go and seek out posts by 'greats' such as Angmar and HC to give reputation to?

No of course not.

I believe the new reputation squares work just fine -- I think they give a more accurate rating of one's cumulative posts (you Gandalf people know who you are :)). However I admit at experiencing nostalgia the first time I returned to the Downs since the renovation -- my first reaction was "oh no my bones are gone!?" and so forth...But one tries one's best to adapt again. Hah!

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

At no point did I urge you HI to seek out every deserving post. I am merely pointing out what I believe to be a flaw in the system. I accuse you of nothing! Please, enjoy your steak friend! I hope it is a good 'un!

[The Barrow-Wight]

Remember that it is considered bad form to leave negative reputation without a comment.

[Son of Númenor]

I absolutely agree. I have only given negative reputation twice, and both times I have left an explanation and signed my screen name. I expect others to at least do the former for me, though I'll note that many have not.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I have only received one negative point and it came with a pretty offensive comment as well (and without a signature, of course :rolleyes: ). This irked me somewhat, especially as the post which prompted this proverbial assault was really a nothing post in which I criticised the Departure of Denethor in the film.

I would argue that it is bad form to negative-ise someone without leaving a comment as well as your screenname. It's not a playground, we should be able to deal with differences easily here.

[Diamond18]

I may just be paranoid, but the thought occured to me that anyone can sign their name as anyone. It's a little disconcerting. I seriously doubt anyone with much rep points to give would do something so immature, but the identity thieving comment would still be there, wouldn't it? I am paranoid. :)

Edit: Oh, duh. Nevermind me. I got the bright idea to go back and read the guidelines on the first page of this thread, and apparently anyone who hasn't been around very long/has less than 50 posts/has a low reputation, should not be able to give reputation points or comments.

[HerenIstarion]

The problem is solvable - if the person allegedly giving you bad rep have rated you before, you may know how much points his/her rate is worth. Per instance, if Mr BW rates you positive, you've got 10 points. If another instance you get negative of 2 points and it is signed BW, you know it's fake. The worth of rating of each member may increase (say, another 1,000 posts or similar will bring 1 point to the rating power), but over considerable period of time, and gradually.

edit: in answer to 'edit' of the preceding post :)

Anybody can give comments and points. Just prior to reaching 51st post (or so I gather) the points equal zero. So, the reputed member gets nice/grudgy comment and neutral blue-gray box with 0 points (not no points, 0 points, if you follow my meaning, kind ladies and gentlemen)

That is not deduction - I talk out of experience - several times I've been rated by newbies and the total score did not change, but the comments were there.

Thanks to all who took time, btw :)

cheers

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Erm, Child of the 7th Age wrote this in my reputation:

Interesting ideas, Hookbill! ~Child of the 7th Age

However it was attached to a negative reputation point thing. What's going on?
:S :confused: :o

[The Only Real Estel]

The reputation idea is fine by me, though no doubt it has some flaws (what doesn't?). Having said that, I personally don't put a lot of stock in reputations, because anyone could be making a lot of really excellent post & not getting them rated like they deserve because the right people aren't seeing them. Some people chose not to rate often, & some chose not to rate at all. As long as you're making good posts that contribute to the forums, it makes no difference (to me) what your reputation is :). As long as it's not negative (for a real reason) ;).


I may just be paranoid, but the thought occured to me that anyone can sign their name as anyone. It's a little disconcerting. I seriously doubt anyone with much rep points to give would do something so immature, but the identity thieving comment would still be there, wouldn't it? I am paranoid.

If anyone recieves a negative rating from 'me', PM me & find out if it was really me or not. I'm sure I wouldn't mind explaining it if it was me anyway...

[Mithalwen]

Possibley either an error or sarcasm..... why not PM to find out if you are bothered...

[tar-ancalime]

H-I said:

Anybody can give comments and points. Just prior to reaching 51st post (or so I gather) the points equal zero. So, the reputed member gets nice/grudgy comment and neutral blue-gray box with 0 points (not no points, 0 points, if you follow my meaning, kind ladies and gentlemen)

I have a question about this: are these non-scoring reputation comments considered in bad taste? I have wanted to rate many posts but have refrained from doing so because I know I wouldn't be giving out any points. (I've used PMs instead a few times.) And at the rate I post, it is taking me quite a while to get to 50. So what do you think: is it better to get a gray box with comments in it, or to get a PM?

[Firefoot]

Either way works, I suppose. I have gotten a few comments with the blue/gray box, and even though it's not worth any points it's still nice to know people appreciate your posts. I don't think you should not rate people just because you don't have any points to give. You're almost to 50 anyway though, so you'll have points soon. :)

[The Only Real Estel]

I'm with Firefoot. I personally would rather read what the person had to say about my post then quickly check & see how many points I got because of it. If I were you, I'd go with rating over PMs, rating is much quicker & more to the point.

[The Perky Ent]

True, but then, I'd rather receive a negative PM than a negatice rating :D I'm not gonna get two squares that way ;)

[The Only Real Estel]

Ah, but the key is-would you have deserved the negative rating? ;)

[The Perky Ent]

But, if you say rating is better than Pming, I'd rather receive a pm for a small negative comment, than a rating. No matter how minor the problem is, it can take away a lot of points!

[Diamond18]

No matter how minor the problem is, it can take away a lot of points!

That's why I've only given out one negative rating so far. ;) A post has to be really bad for me to want to lower someone's rating. (I.E. off topic, offensive, and inarticulate all in one). Though I have not computed how many points I actually have to give or take away.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Indeed, those who have the power should wield it carefully. :smokin:

[The Only Real Estel]

Posted by The Barrow-Wight:

It will also indicate if you are negative, even, or positive for that particular post

I'm guessing there are some in-between levels? For instance, I've seen at least one of my posts that was rated 'somewhat positive'...

[Rinfanawen]

We seem to have a new "high" on the rankings. Fordim Hedgethistle has now reached "---has the fame of Frodo". Hmm...wonder if there could be any higher? Possibly one naming Eru himself?

[Lhunardawen]

We seem to have a new "high" on the rankings. Fordim Hedgethistle has now reached "---has the fame of Frodo". Hmm...wonder if there could be any higher? Possibly one naming Eru himself?
I have noticed that, too. (Who wouldn't, anyway?) Congrats, Fordim!

I was thinking the next one would be related to Aragorn...or maybe not. Eru is a lot more appropriate.

[Firefoot]

Or maybe one of the Valar... Sharku said There are definitely more levels to discover in both directions. So I don't think it would go straight to Eru just yet.

[Lhunardawen]

Does that mean there could be up to ten little green boxes?! :eek:

[Mithalwen]

Please can someone explain how I have got a "somewhat positive " rating on a post with only one comment on it? I could understand say if there had been two ratings one positive and one negative ... but the positive one packed more points ...but ..it just puzzles me....

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I love this reputation system. Since it’s been in effect I think I've begun to improve my posts. Now that I know what people will not like and what people will like. All in all a good idea Mr Wight!

Oh yes, I recently got upgraded so now it reads;
"Hookbill the goomba is no fool of a took." Damn right I'm not! :D

[Sleepy Ranger]

Please can someone explain how I have got a "somewhat positive " rating on a post with only one comment on it? I could understand say if there had been two ratings one positive and one negative ... but the positive one packed more points ...but ..it just puzzles me....

Somewhat positive means you got one positive rating.
I should know that... :rolleyes:

[Hookbill the Goomba]

I received a *Blue* reputation point once. What's that all about?

[Mithalwen]

But I have other posts with one positive comment which are plain positive .... and the person who gave me them were lower in the rep ranking than the person who gave the somewhat positive rating :confused:

[Imladris]

Hookbill, blue ones are neutral. They are made by people with less than a fifty post count. They don't effect your score...

I'm sorry about the negative rep Aman..that's just mean.

[Amanaduial the archer]

And I'm sorry about that post being made - a case of, shall we say, 'mistaken identity'. There is another user who has my username and password and who I asked to come on to send a few PMs as to why I was AWOL (I anticipated not being able to get on for another week or so). I texted her before she actually sent anything on my account, but unfortunately it seems she didn't sign out - and thus that post was born.

Incidentally, I don't like answamachines...and I am liable to quoting films...but otherwise, that post is not true on my account.

My apologies for that :(

More levels in both directions? Hmm, I wonder how many more there are to go downwards...

How low can y'go...how low can y'go...

[The Barrow-Wight]

I've just sent out a few PMs reminding specific people that negative reputations should have a comment. If you've got nothing to say, don't click the button.

Also, for those of you who get negative reputations given, please don't write to me asking for an investigation. So far, everyone that has contacted me with a concern has each had a grand total of one (1) bad reputation with a point value of -1. This is nothing to panic about. The reputations system is a wonderful tool, and if you doubt me, just sort the Members List by Reputation and you will see how accurate it is.

Thanks

[Sharkû]

(Psst: if you find that an urgent reason to complain to the Wight, the bad reputation might have been quite accurate)

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Well said.

And special congratulations to Fordim and davem for breaking the illusionary glass ceiling!

[The Only Real Estel]

Also, for those of you who get negative reputations given, please don't write to me asking for an investigation. So far, everyone that has contacted me with a concern has each had a grand total of one (1) bad reputation with a point value of -1. This is nothing to panic about. The reputations system is a wonderful tool, and if you doubt me, just sort the Members List by Reputation and you will see how accurate it is.

Make sure that you don't just assume that your post shouldn't have been rated negativly & see if you can change the way you post in the future because of it. And if you actually didn't deserve it; then like the BW said, it's usually only -1 points anyway, don't sweat it! :)

[Encaitare]

I like the ratings system; I like being able to "reward" people for a good post even if I don't hold much sway. The desire to get a good rating has encouraged me to make better posts, so my argument skills (as well as Tolkien knowledge, of course) have increased.

I've only gotten one bad rep... it upset me at first but then I realized that a rude awakening was rather what I needed! The person who gave it was good enough to provide their identity, too. So even the negative option can be a good thing, as long as it's not obscene or anything.

[Rinfanawen]

I have a question, though I don't know if it can be answered. Is there any way of knowing how many reputation points we must get before our level changes? I mean, with the titles under our names, you reach a certain number of posts, and your title upgrades, if it can be said that way. Does anyone know what the point levels are for reputations?

[Encaitare]

I don't know, I suppose only the mods do. I suspect its 100 points per box, although I have no way of knowing.

[Imladris]

There are definitely more levels to discover in both directions.
That three squares don't equal a new level is coincidence, or rather, the lack of one. The titles are set to certain threshold numbers, as are the squares, but they don't necessarily coincide in all cases.

There's your answer.

And, to Quote the BW himself:

I chose to keep the text of the different levels secret as a kind of incentive to strive for the next surprise. Giving the list would likely have turned into a discussion of the list, which I didn't want.

I guess we're just going to have to accept that it is just one big mystery, the carrot in front of the mule, as it were, to get us all to write nice, informative, good posts.

I suppose that we'll just have to accept the fact that we'll change when we change.

I do know that when you reach 50 you become "No Fool of a Took" and "Faithful as Samwise" when you get passed 100.

[Son of Númenor]

I'm hoping for something along the lines of '...the Might of a Wight' or '...the Mana of Manwë.'

:rolleyes:

Sono apologizes for the off-topic post, sneaks out the back door.

[The Perky Ent]

Maybe we should keep a tracking device on Fordim or Daven for the answer :D

[mark12_30]

Dear Barrow-Wight,

Speaking of reputation, and rating posts:

Is there any way of seeing the top-ten rated posts of all time?

[The Barrow-Wight]

Excellent idea, mark12_30! I did a bit of evil wizardry and came up with the following list. It is rated by taking the total number of reputations (by individual members) each post got and multiplying it by the total reputation points it got. I did it this way so that posts that were only rated a few times by admins didn't rate unfairly high against posts that were rated by more people who had less rating power. I think I've come up with a fairly good top 10 list.

Special notice should go to our reputation hero, The Squatter of Amon Rûdh, who appears on the list three times!

1 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=328360) The Squatter of Amon Rûdh
2 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=317190) Fordim Hedgethistle
3 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=318372) tar-ancalime
4 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=343718) HerenIstarion
5 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=331321) The Squatter of Amon Rûdh
6 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=331553) Nurumaiel
7 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=326206) Joy
8 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=127819) The Squatter of Amon Rûdh
9 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=148826) Marileangorifurnimaluim
10 (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=343673) Fingolfin II

* Click the number to see the post.

[The Saucepan Man]

Interesting. 60% are the first posts on threads, most of which have become renowned/infamous on the Downs (including, of course, Fordim's opener on the Canonicity thread :rolleyes: :D ). So, thread-starting is good for the reputation (depending, of course, on the nature of the thread.).

[The Only Real Estel]

I'd say the most rated post on the barrowdowns has also got my vote for one of the longer ones I've seen.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

What???? The Canonicity thread is not first on the list?? A scandal, a shame, a downright bad bit of cricket I say! There's something funny afoot, I believe, something verrrry funny indeed. . .

(Thanks to the Squatter for the excellent posts, and congratulations to all BDers for having the intelligence to respond to his brilliance with such enthusiasm!)

[Mithalwen]

Number nine was a surprise (pleasant). I now have a vision of a hobbit version of Cissy and Ada whispering, over their fences of a comely neighbour, "They say she's into SHOES" -"Disgusting".

[tar-ancalime]

Thanks for sharing this list of wonderful posts! (She said shamelessly, batting her eyelashes...)

[The Saucepan Man]

What???? The Canonicity thread is not first on the list??Well, perhaps we can ask the Barrow-Wight to compile a list of improbably long and desperately complex threads that require a wet towel wrapped around one's head to read, let alone post on, yet are nevertheless strangely compelling. I'm sure that it would be right up there. ;)

Now that's enough talk of that thread, or are you simply looking to recruit more Canon fodder? Don't do it people, don't do it! I was free once ... :D

[The Perky Ent]

Actually, I think the longest thread is 20 Questions on ME! That thing has around 65 pages!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Don't do it people, don't do it! I was free once ...

mwa HA hahahahahhaaaaaa......

[The Saucepan Man]

Actually, I think the longest thread is 20 Questions on ME! That thing has around 65 pages!Ah but would you ever read it from start to finish? Alas, Quiz and Quotes Room threads are not the best places to gain rep. Unless, of course, you think of a really, really, really, clever question ...

Actually, I think the record is held by the original Palantir of Fortune thread, which currently stands at 82 pages! :eek:


mwa HA hahahahahhaaaaaa......Ah but Fordim, you are caught too. The monster has turned on its creator ... :D

[Fingolfin II]

Wow, well done Squatter! I agree with Estel, lots of the most highly reputed posts are some of the longest. They also use big words too :(. I was quite surprised that I made snuck into the top 10 :eek: and I think that SpM's astute pick up on the thread starters getting the most rep is quite, well, astute.

[mark12_30]

Fordie: ...Canonicity?

Well, some threads I run TO. Some I run FROM. And some threads fall into both categories depending on-- er-- the availability of mental energy, the level of stress in my life, and (as Saucie would say) the availability of wet, hot towels.

[The Only Real Estel]

I love the reputation system, but it can also easily be misused. A cousin of mine jokingly posted that another bder was 'posting just to post posts' following a post that didn't seem to follow any particular path (of course you could make an argument my cousin shouldn't have posted that, but that's not the point here), & was promptly rated negativly by the bder because he thought he was making a serious accusation. You've got to be able to take jokes & read the between the lines as well, not every post is going to be accompained by a smiley that signifies its meaning. Be careful with how you deal out your subtractions & you won't have to worry about rating anyone negativly for something that was meant innocently enough. :)

[rutslegolas]

Well thats right Estel.But what I want to ask is if someone rates posts negatively do they have to give a reason for it?? .( Because one of my posts has been rated negatively and the one has'nt left any reason :( :( ).

[Imladris]

Rutslegolas, they don't have to give a reason. It's jut bad form not to.

[The Only Real Estel]

Rutslegolas: Like Imladris said, it's not required that they leave a reason or a name, but it's definitly better to do so. You might as well let them know what you think they need to work on, & leave your name in case they have any questions about it. I'd like to think no one on here would use the name left on a negative rating so they could rate that person negativly back. (I'd like to think that made sense, but the jury's out :p)

[rutslegolas]

Ok Thanks for the information Imladris and Estel.

[Child of the 7th Age]

Just hearkening back to something that was said earlier on this thread about the fact that reputation is rarely given in the quiz forums. The same thing is true of RPGs. I think the structure of the rep system is more comfortably attuned to Books where a single quality post attracts many readers and can clearly be seen and rated as "outstanding".

Occasionally in the Shire or Gondor, I may see a single post so well done in writing and characterization that I will give reputation for it. However, generally, writing well in RPGs (and perhaps performing well in the quiz forum?) isn't so much a matter of one post but quality performance over an extended period of time. Nor are grammar and style of writing (that which is clearly visible on the screen to a casual reader) the only criteria involved. Elements like cooperation between writers, dependability, and imagination are just as important. Imagination may mean coming up with an idea that is played out over a series of posts, or it may be an idea that does not even pertain to your own character but to the plot as a whole. Moreover, much of the work for RPGs, especially the more complex ones, takes place behind the scenes using extended pms for planning.

As a game founder or moderator, I also think it is important to keep an eye on improvement in people's writing. One of the greatest rewards to me is to see a poster improve: to go from halting sentences with many grammar and spelling errors to expressing themselves with grace and fluency, or to see a game proposal slowly take shape after many drafts. For all these reasons, and because things aren't tidily tied up in a single post, I find the rating system more perfectly attuned to Books than to a long term, collaborative project like a good RPG.


I've noticed this same pattern in my personal profile. Ninety percent of my posts are in RPGs, and ten percent in books (with a few extras thrown in for good measure). Yet, in terms of rep points, ninety-eight percent of those come from Books, even though I spend far more effort and brain power planning, shaping, and writing RPGs. And some of these require a fair amount of reading and digging through the back waters of Tolkien. (HoMe and the Appendices are dream resources in terms of getting the seed ideas for imaginative plots and characters! :D )

I've come to the point where I do give reputation at the end of a game (where I'm involved as a writer or mod) for those who have shown dedication, good characterization, and writing. I simply attach this to a discussion thread post, with a brief note explaining why I am doing this. It's not the single post that counts but the effort as a whole. And what real matters, of course, is not the rep points, but the finished product of the story and the chance to say thank you to the people who have made it happen. Most often, I will do this with a brief pm where I can really say what I want in a more detailed fashion, but rep points are also a condensed means to acknowledge someone's effort.

Just curious, but do other RPG folk have any ideas of their own on this?

[Mithalwen]

To refer back to Rutslegolas' query ( and others ), while people are entitled to use the negative rep function ( I haven't yet, since I feel that an in thread reply or PM is usually more appropriate response but I would never say never!, I really think if they feel that strongly about something they should put their name to it. I think it is interesting that all my neg rep has been anonymous whereas almost all the positive has been signed . I doubt this experience is unique to me.

Anonymous positive rep is rather delightful - like a finding a mysterious bunch of flowers on your doorstep. Anonymous, bad rep without a comment can be the online version of ringing the bell and running away - it may NOT be obvious to the recipient what they have done 'wrong' (if it were there is a fair chance they would have never made it!). Anonymous negative comments could be as distressing as a "poison pen" letter. Indeed it is a power to be used wisely and on the whole it is better to encourage good posting.

On that subject, I have to admit, to my shame, that while I have been the flattered recipient of generous encouragement from the "valar and valier" of the board - it took a while to reciprocate simply because I felt I was unworthy to pass judgement on those I found so far ahead of me in intelligence and scholarship. I then realised this was grossly unfair so I got over that little hangup. :o

But I am nowhere near brave enough to tackle canonicity.....!!!!

[Mithalwen]

Just a little post script - you can quite often tell that some of the rep givers are teachers :p

[Imladris]

Half my rep comes from RPGs the other half comes from two topics I posted in the Book forums and a splash of posts in the Downs forum.

I do give ratings to people whom I think have improved their writing, to people who have original ideas in the RPG section, and to people who introduce plot twists. I don't believe I've ever given bad rep in the RPG section...namely because there's not reason to do so.

Basically I do what Child does...

[mark12_30]

Child, you do give these things a lot of thought.

Maybe because the game I am in (Tapestry) has lasted a lot longer than a Shire game, my view is quite different. I know each and every member of that team is hardworking, dedicated, clever, creative, etc.

--I never hesitate to reward outstanding posts in the game.

--There are times when I give a +-rating for outstanding dedication or perseverance.

--When I get mugged by RL and flounder, and someone else moves the game along, I've given more than one "Frodo wouldn't have got very far without Sam" kind of rating.

--The game is only as good as the players, and Tapestry is one magnificent game. How can I not reward that?

[Imladris]

So what are your standards when giving out rep of any kind?

It's easy to figure out which posts deserve good ratings, but what are your standards for negative rep? Some of you say that you prefer to send a PM instead...maybe sometimes it's best, but I think that ultimately if the post is bad, it's best to give the bad rep.

Why? The Reputation System is a tool and is to be used as such. It is only being half used when most people use it for good rep and are reluctant to use the bad rep.

My standards for bad rep are these:


Seriously off topic (a few off topic sentences at the end does not merit bad rep, imo...but if it is totally off topic it is definitely deserving)
Rudeness -- not to be confused with sarcasm or sardonicsm
Posts that are out of line -- a tricky situation at times.


Naturally, people with powerful rep (like ten point reps), need to be a bit stricter.

"With great power comes great responsibility."

[Firefoot]

I agree with Imladris, that the bad rep can be a useful tool as well as good rep. A pm would work well for something maybe not as serious, but sometimes I think a bad rep is in order. My standards are pretty much the same as Imladris'. There have been very few bad reps that I have given out (I could probably count them on one hand); far fewer at any rate than the good reps. This is probably because the forum does have pretty high standards and most people are able to meet them. The bad rep is one way to stop bad posting. I think it also encourages good posting, in order to get some positive rep. I do not think that there has been anyone that has been "slipping" or "acting a bit like Ted Sandyman" for much longer than a few weeks.

"The burned hand teaches best."

[Bêthberry]

There is a great deal of thoughtful consideration here and some very interesting ideas. This is what the Downs is all about--people reflecting on things and sharing their ideas intelligently and graciously!

I would have to say that I give rep as Mark12_30 does, for individual RPG posts, whether in games or in Inns. In fact, I have consciously made an effort to rep gaming posts as I recognise that many good gamers do not regularly post in other forums. And I have wanted to encourage gamers by showing that their good work and effort is appreciated.

To give a specific example, there were posts in a game I recently finished, Land of Darkness, which showed excellent writing and good character development (ie, an elaboration of something hinted at in the original bio, or a new aspect brought out by the interaction), and which extended the plot and reached out to incorporate other characters. I don't think one needs to wait to the end of a game to see imagination and interactive writing, although clearly such important qualities as reliability and dedication are probably best seen over the duration of a game. And while it is true that some aspects of a game might take several posts to develope, it is possible to see that development set in motion in posts.

In fact, I would argue that in interactive gaming, it is crucial to see that development in individual posts. For gaming to be truly interactive, the posts ought to be the main thing wherein the other gamers can take their cue. (I would argue that this is crucial for readers as well, in good games.) If too extensive planning is done behind the scenes--in my experience--the posts become plodding and perfunctory and gamers pick up a sense of "well, it isn't my turn" instead of responding imaginatively and creatively to the writing on the "page" in front of them.

[Edit added here] I'm not surprised that good rep is given out more often than negative. On the one hand, people respond best to positive measures than negative. And on this forum, the standard of decorum and civility is very clear and well moderated. [end edit] I've given negative rep for a post (really a series of posts) which attacked another Downer personally, in a discussion which got very heated on one side in particular. And I've done this when a PM did not seem to change the gamer's approach to handling difference of opinion. (This was on a thread about religion--of all places!) I suppose the internet lingo for this is "flame". We don't all have to agree all the time on everything and to me one of the great beauties of discussion forums is the way they incorporate differences and consider other points of view. I've learnt alot listening to people I haven't understood or agreed with. (Just ask davem ;))

There was one other time when I gave a negative rep to a post which concerned a gaming issue and one of the qualities or standards which Barrow Downs games represent, when I felt that repeated posts showed the gamer was not understanding the issue and I thought a wake-up call might be valuable. In retrospect, I probably should have used a PM. But I made up for it by repping excellent work from the gamer when I saw it. :)

To tell you the truth, Imladris, I don't know what a rep of mine is worth. And the value of a rep changes, as a Downer accrues posts and points.

[edit]And I will take this opportunity to thank everyone who has repped me. I am astounded to find myself with five 'boxes' and third after those titans, Fordim Hedgethistle and davem. I guess the words I use aren't too big after all. ;)[end edit]

[Lalwendë]

I simply click on the rep button when I've found a post particularly entertaining, interesting or when I want to say a virtual 'that was great.' Although I have to admit sometimes I'm so carried away with what I am reading that I don't always click on the button, or remember to go back and give someone a point or two when I get one of those 'you need to spread some rep around' messages. Which makes me feel bad...

I have never given a bad rep point, and I hope I won't do it. I rarely see a post which I find that bad. If I don't like what a post says, then I 'change the channel', so to speak. It would have to be incredibly offensive for me to give out a negative. Case in point, we have a discussion board at work, which obviously must adhere to equal opps policies, and I have on one or two occasions found something to be most offensive, but I just post explaining why I find the person's point to be disagreeable - even this makes me feel a bit guilty at times. One thing which I do avoid is pulling people up on their use of English, as I do not know that person's circumstances; as an example, some of the technology used to convert braille into text does not always pick up on spelling errors.

It's a good system though, and I would like to add here some warm - and not at all toady - thanks for anyone who has given me points - it's not something I expected at all, as in my experience forums can be cliquey and these things can be awkward - to my delight the Downs is not like that at all, and that's why I spend so much time here! :)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I am dreadfully remiss in giving out rep, I'm sad to say, particularly given how fortunate I have been in attracting rep from others. I tend to go long periods without repping anything, and then going on something of a binge -- such an approach tends to make any kind of systematic method impossible.

I seem to operate on a 'larger scale' than most. If there is a particular thread that I have found engaging I go through it and rep everyone who has contributed to the thread (well, almost everyone. . .I have never given negative rep, I just don't reward posts I don't like, nor do I respond to them in discussion).

Every once in a while there will be a post that takes my breath away and I will be moved to give rep beyond the confines of any binge. This rarely happens in the RPG forums however, where I find repping people to be difficult, as I believe, like Child that the contribution of a poster to a RPG is made over a series of posts rather than any one. I usually wait until the game is well advanced and then go back to rep a 'representative' post.

I will admit, as well, that there are several people on the Downs who I routinely rep every time I have "spread enough around" simply because I find their contributions to be so wonderful and widespread that I want to acknowledge and thank them.

One Last Note: I sincerely wish that people who handed out negative rep would leave comments. I've never once had an explanatory note for negative rep, so how am I to work to improve my posting. . .????

[Estelyn Telcontar]

What's to improve, Fordim?! If you got negative reputation points, I can only imagine that someone was disagreeing with your point of view - not necessarily the best reason to rate someone down; the negative box says "I disapprove", not "I disagree".

I do try to give rep whenever I read a good post, whether it be RPG or a Books discussion. Sometimes I can't, since there are people who write such good posts so frequently that I can't seem to spread fast enough to keep up with them. I'm fortunate to be on an RPG with excellent posting quality, so I have no problem giving points for individual posts there. I think it's a problem that RPGs are not as widely read as the discussion threads, and I know I can keep up with only the ones I write in, for the most part.

On the whole, I find that I give points more often than I receive them - isn't that called "blessed" in the Bible? ;)

[Mithalwen]

Well, awareness of the fact that it is " I disapprove" rather than "I disagree ", is a reason why I am reluctant to use neg rep - I would simply post my disagreement... I pm if I think someone is "out of order" ( eg deliberately spiteful) - but if they persisted I would probably use the neg rep...but I would sign it . I don't object to neg rep per se - just that it should be used constructively, not as a tool for vengeance.

[Diamond18]

Just curious, but do other RPG folk have any ideas of their own on this?

I have found that even though I hardly post anywhere but my RPG anymore, I do seem to get more rep points from outside posts. Which is odd until I realize that most of my rep points have come from H-I reading old threads back when I used to post more. :D

I don't have a record of the reps I've given out, but I know that I often give rep when I read a post in the REB that makes me laugh out loud. But, the REB is more like a string of jokes than a carefully crafted plot, so the immediacy of a hilarious post probably takes more precedence than the style of a single post does in a different sort of RPG.

[The Saucepan Man]

I see that davem is now welcome at Aragorn's court ...

Doesn't that imply, however, that those with the fame of Frodo or the wisdom of Gandalf will not necessarily be welcome there? :p ;)

[Evisse the Blue]

I see that davem is now welcome at Aragorn's court ...

Doesn't that imply, however, that those with the fame of Frodo or the wisdom of Gandalf will not necessarily be welcome there? :p ;)
I would have said there would be even more welcome in Aragorn's court than those with the wisdom of Gandalf and fame of Frodo, but apparenly Aragorn is very picky and only selects a few from those (already much esteemed) categories. ;)

Congrats, Davem!

[Kuruharan]

Because all of a sudden when I put my cursor over my squares I'm suddenly showing the Wisdom of Gandalf (yes, I can hear you all gasping with astonishment) even though I only have two squares.

Am I having a little glitch?

[Imladris]

Because all of a sudden when I put my cursor over my squares I'm suddenly showing the Wisdom of Gandalf (yes, I can hear you all gasping with astonishment) even though I only have two squares.

Am I having a little glitch?

I don't think it's your computer because I've seen others like that as well. I think it goes back to what the BW said that the squares and "titles" don't always conincide a few pages back.

[Kuruharan]

Yeah, but, Wisdom of Gandalf is somewhere between three and four squares (or at least it was). And I completely skipped being as Faithful as Samwise.

I'm wondering if there is a glitch, or there is some new system they are tinkering with.

[The Barrow-Wight]

The text coincide with points, not squares. The 'Wisdom of Gandalf' starts at 150 points.

[Kuruharan]

Hmm...I'm still a little confused...

But I'll shut up now.

[Imladris]

100-150 = Faithful as Samwise.

If I remember my own scenerio correctly, I got the third square when I reached 200 points.

Does that explain things?

[Kuruharan]

Not really, I was in that range for awhile and still Tooking (at least I think I was), but it doesn't really matter all that much. ;)

This will teach me to go out of town for the weekend. :)

[Mithalwen]

I see that davem is now welcome at Aragorn's court ...

Doesn't that imply, however, that those with the fame of Frodo or the wisdom of Gandalf will not necessarily be welcome there? :p ;)


And I am sure Fordim was the first to congratualte him ;)

[The Saucepan Man]

And I am sure Fordim was the first to congratualte himHe couldn't. He's not welcome at Aragorn's court yet. ;) :D

[davem]

Thanks, guys.

Can't say I deserve it for my mad ramblings, though.

Oops - have to go - Fordim's trying to kick the door in!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I always knock politely and ask for admittance.

And congratulations davem, well deserved indeed. Although I hope to be keeping you company at the court of Elessar soon. . . ;)

(Note to Self: stop repping davem.)

[Estelyn Telcontar]

You already are, Fordim! Congratulations to both you and davem!!

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Irony of ironies! It was davem himself who 'repped me up' to his own stratospheric heights!

(Note to Self: start repping davem again.)

[Boromir88]

Darn, I never knew you could gather this many "reputation jewels," oh boy, I got a lot of catching up to do.

Before I forget, congrats Davem and Fordhim, reaching the new level.

[The Saucepan Man]

I got a lot of catching up to do.Given that Child and I have only just acquired five squares, I would surmise that only Bethberry is in with any chance of catching our two runaway leaders.

Unless all three of them go on an extended leave of absence ...

Hmm, wait a minute, that gives me an idea ... ;)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

OK this is going to sound really dumb but. . .

I am red-green colour blind so I sometimes have trouble with things online. Is that newest little boxy-jewel thing a different colour from the others???????

[Aiwendil]

Looks just slightly brighter than the others.

Curious.

[Boromir88]

Yes, it definately does look brighter, still green, but a brighter green :) . Tis odd.

[Fingolfin II]

Maybe it means that you can't get any more boxes and that the next level will have two bright green squares and then three, etc.? Congratulations davem and Fordim.

[The Saucepan Man]

I am red-green colour blind so I sometimes have trouble with things online. Is that newest little boxy-jewel thing a different colour from the others???????Yes. It's a brighter green, signifying a "high positive" rating - see post #32 above (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=318772&postcount=32). :)

[Bêthberry]

SpM posted:
Given that Child and I have only just acquired five squares, I would surmise that only Bethberry is in with any chance of catching our two runaway leaders.

Unless all three of them go on an extended leave of absence ...

Hmm, wait a minute, that gives me an idea ...


Are you thinking of getting the three of us together at the Tolkien Society 50th Anniversary celebrations next summer, Sauce? :p

Despite waking up to discover I have received over 20 points overnight (my Galadriel post on the current Chapter by Chapter discussion) , I doubt I could ever catch up to our front runners, even should they choose to look casually over their shoulders. ;) They're in a league of their own I would say. :)

I do have a question, though, about this bright green jewel which now adorns davem and Fordim. Does this "high positive rating" refect the status of having over 500 points? Or does it reflect multiple reps for one post?

[Sapphire_Flame]

*stares rather morosely at her single jewel* Phoo. :( What are the different rep numbers you need to get more jewels?

Congratulations to davem and Fordim! http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de//party/biggrinparty.gif Is there even a higher rep to be had? :D Many huzzahs to ye both!

Abedithon le,

~ Saphy ~

[Boromir88]

I'm guessing its every 100 rep points. The only time I moved up, I was at 100 points. Now, I'm about 16 points away from 200, so I need to just make some spectacular posts (which I haven't been doing last couple days) and we'll find out then. Unless, someone for sure knows now.

[Imladris]

Yes, Boromir...you'll get another loverly little jewel when you get to two hundred points.

[Lindolirian]

Am I the first to notice? Bêthberry would also be welcome at Aragorn's court! Congratulations, Bb!

[Mithalwen]

Ooh obviously quite tight at the top of the board - Fordim will have to watch his back...

[davem]

May I also add my congrats to Bethberry on her accession to Aragorn's court.

(I suppose this means Fordim & I now have to stop lazing around in our underwear & drinking beer in here :(

Unless Bb wants to join us :D )

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

*Fordim quickly puts on a robe and pours his beer into a glass; adopts an elegant pose and lights his pipe*

Ah yes, greetings Bethberry, delightful to see you. Can I fetch you a sherry? Whisky neat? Oh, and yes, congratulations my dear dear lady. ;)

[Bêthberry]

*opens the windows to clear out some of the stale pipe smoke* (My allergies, you know, gentlemen. *coughs* I may on occasion wear George Sand's pants, but I haven't picked up her habit concerning cigars.) And I will have port, thank you, Fordim, unless the beer here is English.

Thank you Lindolirian and my esteemed colleagues davem and Fordim. But what's this? Aragorn's court is as slovenly as PJ's film hero? tsk.

To be honest, when I see so many very worthy Downers around I am surprised to find myself (currently) third. I pinch myself and wonder when the clock will eventually strike midnight and whether I will find myself barefoot. ;) :D :smokin:

[Sapphire_Flame]

Huzzah, Bethberry! http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de//party/biggrinparty.gif http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de//party/biggrinparty.gif So that's three in Aragorn's Court so far?

Geez, I don't even have 50 points yet. -,-;;; Oh well. I don't mind being a fool of a Took. ^_^

Abedithon le,

~ Saphy, a proud FoolofaTook ~

[HerenIstarion]

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/party/dance2.gif

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/jump.gif

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Oh Great and Mighty Barrow Wighty --

Is "Aragorn's Court" and/or six jewelly-box thingees some kind of plateau? I've just bust through what I thought would be the next level, but there was no new jewelly-box thingee.

I would have asked this via PM, but with davem and now Bethberry closing in on the same mark (or already passed it), and others just behind, I thought it might be useful to have this on the open thread.

[The Barrow-Wight]

The boxes are 1 per hundred, I think. The titles have different point requirements.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

The boxes are 1 per hundred, I think. The titles have different point requirements.

Herm. . .now I do think that davem, Bb and I have got to some kind of plateau, as I have gone above another 100-mark (600+) but there is no new box. Perhaps that is the meaning of that slightly brighter final box. . .?

[Mithalwen]

Ah Fordim! You will have to settle for quality (ie shininess) instead of quality... maybe when all the jewels are bright they will change colour!


Silk dressing gowns a la Noel Coward?

[Lalwendë]

Ai! All fear Fordim! He'll be after one of the Silmarils next, you'll see... ;)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Ai! All fear Fordim! He'll be after one of the Silmarils next, you'll see... ;)

Hey, it's not my fault that davem and Bethberry stole them! Frankly, I think it's a little ripe of davem to put them in a tiara like that, and as for what Bethberry did to the shrubbery on her way out. . .unforgiveable.

Now it's off to swear my oath and look for volunteers to come with me on what is sure to be a quest that will end extremely well for everyone involved. Except, maybe, those silly fools who get in my way. . .

(Oooooo. . .I am really going to catch it now from d and Bb.)

[Mithalwen]

Eeeeeeeek ................. by some quirk of fate, maybe he is a descendent of Feanor ......

[Lalwendë]

Fordim indeed. You have been exposed, Scooby-Doo style! Your real name is..........Feanor Hedgethistle!

(Oooooo. . .I am really going to catch it now from d and Bb.)

Better get that Mithril armour out now...

[Mithalwen]

And he would have succeeded too if it hadn't been for those pesky Valar....

Well Fordim would be a plausible corruption over many ages of the world, of "Feanorion", scion of Feanor... I man haven't got time to work out the exact vowel changes but...



PS Sorry BW... perhaps I should delete not edit :(

[The Barrow-Wight]

I may have to start neg-repping for all the chatting in this thread! :p

[Encaitare]

Oh Great and Mighty Barrow Wighty

*groans* :p

Hmmm... perhaps it's for the best that the purty lil jewels aren't continuing to come (at the same rate, anyway) because when I first saw the six, I was wondering if in time there would have to be two rows of shiny green to accommodate all of certain individual's rep points!

Maybe when you reach six you have to get, say, 200 points to obtain another box. Just a thought.

[mark12_30]

I may have to start neg-repping for all the chatting in this thread! :p

Don't suppose I could interest you in challenging each of them to a
duel? (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=358617#post358617) ;)

Or perhaps taking on the lot of them at once? :smokin:

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Greetings and welcome to Aragorn's Court Saucepan Man. Your smoking jacket is there on the hook, and here is your pipe. You can have a seat by the fire and chat with davem, or if you'd rather, I wouldn't mind a partner at billiards.

Where's Bethberry you say? She's just popped down to the kitchen to make us all a cup of tea. . . :p :D ;)

[The Saucepan Man]

Why thank you Fordim. :) It's a pleasure to be here. Hmm, I wouldn't say no to one of those big fat Havanas, if you don't mind. Oh, and Guinness on tap too. I must say that I really feel rather at home here. :smokin:

*Saucepan puts his feet up and starts to watch the footie*

Say, we'd best make the most of it before Child and Helen arrive and restore the gender balance. ;)

[Bêthberry]

Where's Bethberry you say? She's just popped down to the kitchen to make us all a cup of tea. . .

Say rather Bethberry is contemplating negative repping someone. :p :rolleyes: ;)

Welcome and well done, SaucepanMan. Perhaps as a lawyer you can point out to our esteemed colleagues that "court" is a formal place and not the smoking room. That is off to the side somewhere, perhaps down the line of negative reputations. *grins*

[Sapphire_Flame]

Well done, Saucepan Man! http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de//party/biggrinparty.gif http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de//party/biggrinparty.gif Drinks all around! http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de//party/drink.gif

I'm no longer a Fool of a Took! *sends hugs to Heren, Boromir88, and Encaitare* Less than 40 points to a new jewel. ^^

Abedithon le,

~ Saphy ~

[mark12_30]

Aragorn's court...

Alas, there is something in me that prefers having 'the fame of Frodo' to any of the other labels, and rather dreads losing that greatest and deepest of associations.

Sentimental, but I never was one for high society.

[The Only Real Estel]

I'm no longer a Fool of a Took!

You mean to tell me that a Pippin fan like you (or at least I'm guessing that by your avatar) didn't like being a Fool of a Took? :eek: :p.

[Mithalwen]

Actually I think being "no fool of a took" was fab but I don't necessarily want to return to it....

[Sapphire_Flame]

You mean to tell me that a Pippin fan like you (or at least I'm guessing that by your avatar) didn't like being a Fool of a Took? :eek: :p.

Well, I really did like being a Fool of a Took. But moving up means I'm that much closer to being as faithful as Samwise, which is a very cool thing to be. *nod nod* Only about 20 points left to go! :D

Abedithon le,

~ Saphy ~

[mark12_30]

My curiosity was recently piqued concerning the general pattern of “join date”. There are members on this forum of great antiquity ;) dating back to the the earliest barrows ever dug. Within the “Members List” page, there is a link named “Search Members” located just above the “Avatar” column. If one chooses the “Advanced Search” link, a wealth of options presents itself. I chose “Order Results by” Join Date and was easily satisfied, but the search is powerful and much more could easily be gleaned.

[Mithalwen]

Well, I really did like being a Fool of a Took. But moving up means I'm that much closer to being as faithful as Samwise, which is a very cool thing to be. *nod nod* Only about 20 points left to go! :D

Abedithon le,

~ Saphy ~


Isn't a little against the spirit of the thing to be quite so keen on advancement and to broadcast the details of who and how many? Might look likr bragging.. or fishing..... :)

[Boromir88]

I have another question about the repping system? How many points do I give out when I rep someone. Is there a formula to it. I have 3 jewels box things, and almost 500 posts, just curious to see how many points i "rep" somebody up, when I do rep them. Thanks. :)

[The Barrow-Wight]

Read The Barrow-Wight Explains Reputation Weights (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showpost.php?p=318757&postcount=29) for the answer.

[Boromir88]

Thanks for the link BW.

[Boromir88]

You know, I recently got "negative points" for responding to a thread that's been discussed too many times? Oh better yet, the person didn't leave his name, you might as well tell me who you are, instead of hiding. Anyway, I just felt like making it known, if you are going to give me points, fess up, write your name down, instead of hiding.

[The Barrow-Wight]

It was me!* :smokin: What are you going to do about it!?




* Not really. Hee. Stop complaining and make enough good posts to overcome occasional unexplained setbacks.

[Sapphire_Flame]

Thanks for that link, BW. I'd been wondering how that all worked out. :D

EDIT: *snackle* I'm as faithful as Samwise now! *polishes her shiny new jewel*

Abedithon le,

~ Saphy ~

[Nilpaurion Felagund]

If you get übermany reps, can you design your own reputation title? :D

Not asking for myself (obviously), but the idea of some people (coughdavemFordimBBSauciecoughheyitalmostrhymes!) getting certain priveleges with 10 or more boxes intrigue me.