Reputations

[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]

Originally Posted by Imladris

. 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:

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

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]

Originally Posted by Imladris

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!

Originally Posted by Evisse the Blue

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 - 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.'

[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.