|
Don't know if this has been brought up before because I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm a bit uncertain about the way rep gets built up.
Some of us near the top of the table rep wise hand out a lot of points (I think I'm currently throwing out about 34-35 points a time) each time we rep someone, while others 'lower down' may only give out 2 or 3 points. This means that a post which may get a number of favourable reps won't earn the poster as many points as a single rep from one of us in the 'higher echelons'. Is that really fair? A post which impresses half a dozen members enough for them to want to show their appreciation really should gain the poster more rep than they would get from from just one person. I wonder who would be top now if we all handed out just one rep point each every time we voted.
Of course, rep shouldn't be revelled in, & it certainly doesn't prove that those higher up have a greater knowlege (or, Eru forbid, love) of Tolkien, but I sometimes wonder if it doesn't give that impression.
Don't know if there's any way with the current system to reduce everyone to the same number of rep points to hand out, but I would stress that just because someone is higher up the table doesn't mean that they are more 'appreciated' by the membership.
|