Reputations

[mormegil]

So people actual do appreciate a bit lengthy of a rep. I tend to cut mine a bit shorter than I would like because I thought people would get annoyed with a longer than average response.

Anyone else have opinions on that?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by mormegil

So people actual do appreciate a bit lengthy of a rep. I tend to cut mine a bit shorter than I would like because I thought people would get annoyed with a longer than average response.

Send pages - I'll read them.

I think that one can be succinct yet still let the poster know what made the post worthy of attention.

[davem]

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.

[Lalwendë]

Well sometimes I feel like 'teacher' if I write too much on a rep comment I send to someone, so I try not to write too much! As for what I rep, I often simply think "that was good" and hit the button, and it might be as simple as a joke that made me laugh out loud, or it might be a good question posed, or in fact anything that I liked. I have no more elaborate criteria beyond that.

[Kuruharan]

In sort of a related line to what davem just said, I've sometimes wondered if what is going to happen eventually is that everybody's reps will be leveled and we will all start again from scratch. The people at the top have maxed out their little green boxes and their titles, and inevitably most of the rest of us will get there too. What then? There doesn't seem to be as much point when all of us have eleven boxes (although we probably won't get to that point for quite a bit yet, but still...)

[Ainaserkewen]

I think the point is that all us underlings have to aim at impressing the top guns around here...

Seriously, it's all relative. People have liked your posts enough to get you that much rep weight to begin with rignt? Hence, you are supposed to have a better feel for "good posts". It's like if Ken Jennings got to decide who would get to compete on Jeopardy.

[Encaitare]

As to the issue of long rep comments... bring 'em. I love reading long comments because it means that someone has cared enough to take the extra time for it. Although, really long comments are not always necessary; if I like something in Captions, I'll usually just write "LOL! ~ Enca : )" and with much enthusiasm if something had me in hysterics. I try to say more than "nice post" if I can help it. Usually I try to say exactly what I liked about it.

RPGs, as Child put so well, definitely deserve recognition for exceptional writing or characterization.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

In sort of a related line to what davem just said, I've sometimes wondered if what is going to happen eventually is that everybody's reps will be leveled and we will all start again from scratch. The people at the top have maxed out their little green boxes and their titles, and inevitably most of the rest of us will get there too. What then? There doesn't seem to be as much point when all of us have eleven boxes (although we probably won't get to that point for quite a bit yet, but still...)

I think the moderator will cross that bridge when they get to it. But as Ainaserkewen said, does it really matter how many reputation points you get? I mean, it just goes to show that you've posted some good stuff.
We can expect new systems of repp when it gets to the stage you're talking ab out Kuru.

[Lhunardawen]

Child,

Eep! Yet again another misunderstanding due to my wrong choice of words. I wasn't saying anything against repping RPG posts. That statement was in response to the previous posts saying that they tended to rep non-RPG posts more. I was just wondering why if that were so, the most repped post once upon a time was, in fact, an RPG post. I did not mean to say that RPG posts are less deserving of reps; I have never been in an RPG and have no right to say that. Although I do know for a fact that it is hard to write RPG posts...my brother Nilp tells me so. For that alone it makes such posts worthy of recognition!

[Mithalwen]

I think there may be a case for capping rep weight at a certain point . When I was fresh carrion and the rep system was in it's early days I remember being amazed to get 10 whole points from one of the great and the good. Now I pack twice that and I certainly do not regard my opinion or judgement now twice as good as theirs was then - in fact I feel I have sneaked in like Sam at the council of Elrond. . But as my original kind benefactor pointed out .. one gives the points one have to give. I don't begrudge them but it does seem disproportionate. If it were restarted there perhaps should be a certain point decided 10, 15 points whatever .. a point by which if you reached it you had shown "your quality" as Sam would say, and that would be enough and as good as it got rather than gathering rep weight ad infinitum ( to the point where we would explode on the consumption of a " 'waffer'-thin mint" ? ) which must be a bit dispiriting for newcomers. I mean it is one thing for the person at the top to have 10 times more but if it got to 40 or 50 times more...