Returning Banned Members

[H2Oxide]

Don't you guys remember what happened last time we played around with the rep system?

Lots of other forums experience rep inflation too. It's typically just dealt with by, as diachi suggested, raising the rep/bar ratio.

I don't care about rep at all personally, and would be fine if were removed. BUT it's obviously a bad idea to screw around with it too much (as evidenced by last time), so if we have to change something I think we should try to keep it as minimal as possible.

Just my 2¢.

 

[lasersbee]

Your $0.02 are well noted...
You may have a point..

Jerry

 

[Cyparagon]

It's not just the tossing positive rep around like confetti that causes inflation. It is inherent to the system itself.

Everyone started with almost zero. Say a post was upvoted by 3 people today, and gained 50 power. That same post, upvoted by the same 3 people, if made 7 years ago instead, would get less than 1 power. I remember long ago when you'd see that power number tick up ONE every few weeks.

Roughly, it's a reflection of who has been active recently. Does anyone remember Daguin? Arguably the best, most popular, most helpful guy on the forum, yet he's only got a few hundred power, because he hasn't been active recently.

 

[Alaskan]

That's true, if someone isn't active, it is much harder to both remember to rep them for past posts you might have liked, and to dig up that post again to give a rep. So, it isn't very common for inactive individuals to get repped. If we did divide the reps down, it would not be fair to individuals who built their reps up in that past and have not been active in the last year to catch the high tide we have had.

In the past, Cyparagon was either the highest repped member, or at least one of the highest, but he has not been active for awhile and from that falling behind. At this rate, any of the current high rep members who become inactive will fall behind quickly. It would be cool if the forum software was smart enough to adjust for inflation, but it doesn't. I know I rarely rep anyone who is no longer posting. Although sometimes I will go back and rep Pi R Squared, in remembrance. I think we have lost him due to illness.

Link to rep him too: http://laserpointerforums.com/search.php?searchid=1872238 - Not that it matters to him, it does to me.

 

[H2Oxide]

I wish we could find out what happened to Pi...

Did he ever give out his last name to anyone or anything else that might be useful?

 

[CurtisOliver]

I hope we haven't lost him. But either way we seem to have lost him on here. :can:

 

[Alaskan]

I have his mothers first and last name, assuming he has the same last name I then have it, but I cannot find any obits for him.

 

[Accutronitis]

I think when it comes to the idea of "rep" I believe that there is one telling aspect of it which is that it's not how high the count is but rather the ratio between the number of "Posts" made and the "Rep Power" count that is of most importance and telling of a person, And I believe IF a person's "Post" count is higher that his "Rep Power" count that person should realize that he is not as well liked by this community as a whole as he might like to believe and the higher the ratio the less liked that person really is by said community, Soooo how's your ratio doing ???

 

[BowtieGuy]

That is not true at all, with the large rep numbers members have today, a new member with lets say 10 posts, could have 100 or more +rep points in a single day just by posting a good hello in the welcome section!
In the past this was a more accurate statement though, members could be here for a year and not see 100 +rep points.

Go back and look at some old threads and see what kinds of +rep most of the members had, for the most part, it was less than 10% of what we see now.

 

[Alaskan]

I would agree that his thoughts on the ratio thing is correct for the past, but today, hell no. I for one only have the reps I do because I work to use up all of the reps available to me each and every day and a lot of folk who have been here awhile pass them back. Whether I get repped back doesn't matter to me, I will still continue to rep the same guy. Some have never repped me back after giving them hundreds of points, at least not that I've noticed. However, I don't look to see who has repped me very often, maybe every 2-4 weeks I might look, but sometimes only after a couple of months, so I could miss them as they scroll off. My reps are for who ever I see posting who has been here awhile and not fighting, especially if they post photo's of something.

I don't feel particularly deserving of a high rep, for one reason, I have not posted a decent project in over a year.

 

[Accutronitis]

Well think of it this way, You can have a lot of posts but if your rep power is lower people aren't really digging what you have to say, But I suppose I can be wrong and I don't understand how it really works yet....

 

[Alaskan]

I said exactly the same thing in the past too, just that the ability to rep someone with a large number of points from just one rep is too high now. I can rep 45+ points each time now. If someone only has 1 post (although it won't actually show for awhile) then that ratio is probably higher than it will ever be for them again at that moment. I don't normally rep new members, only after they have been in the forum for a period of months.

 

[BowtieGuy]

Well think of it this way, You can have a lot of posts but if your rep power is lower people aren't really digging what you have to say, But I suppose I can be wrong and I don't understand how it really works yet....

Take a look at the top 10 posters if you will, all of them have been here for quite some time, all have many posts, and all of them are very knowledgable members, yet not one of them has a rep count that equals their post count.
Heck, 4 of them are, or have been LPF forum moderators!

If you look at more current highly respected posters, such as ultimatekaiser, diachi, Alaskan, etc.; none of them have more +rep than post count.

These days, I'd say +rep count is one of the least important things I'd consider, that is unless there are a lot of red squares, that's definitely a red flag.

 

[CurtisOliver]

The thing it comes down to most is experience. If you've been on the forum for sometime, you don't need to look at the rep power or post counts for most regular members. You know who is experienced, knowledgeable, friendly and helpful and who is not.
It is only the new members or the ones I don't see often that I sometimes refer to it. Also being the highest poster/repped member does not make them the end all forum king. To put it bluntly, if I see a low rep member being respectful and knowledgeable, I respect them. If I see a high rep member posting rubbish, and being disrespectful to others. I simply don't. Be a judge of character and do not rely on the rep/post count alone.
I am lucky as I came in on the real start of the rep inflation. That is why I have more rep than posts. The ratio thing is a load of rubbish now. I once thought that, it only took a little look around and some experience to see that it was in fact BS.

 

[lasersbee]

Well think of it this way, You can have a lot of posts but if your rep power is lower people aren't really digging what you have to say, But I suppose I can be wrong and I don't understand how it really works yet....

That's BS...
You haven't been here long enough to understand the Rep
inflation factor.
When some of us joined the Forum at the beginning.. to get
our reps up to 300 it would take at least a year or two and
that was with a lot more posts than you have posted and
double posted.
Your Rep to Posts theory is not valid or good today.
There are many long term members here that don't have a
high rep count but are highly respected for their contributions
to the Forum.

As of today your Rep to Post ratio means didly-squat....IMO


Jerry

 

[CurtisOliver]

That's BS...
You haven't been here long enough to understand the Rep
inflation factor.
When some of us joined the Forum at the beginning.. to get
our reps up to 300 it would take at least a year or two and
that was with a lot more posts than you have posted and
double posted.
Your Rep to Posts theory is not valid or good today.
There are many long term members here that don't have a
high rep count but are highly respected for their contributions
to the Forum.

As of today your Rep to Post ratio means didly-squat....IMO


Jerry

Well said.