Why is rep still disabled in OT?

[fladdermasken]

Aren't you kidding yourselves that rep is more to people than just means of communicating without actually posting? Plus it's really kinda cute how it's still enabled in the recycle bin.

Time for a reform?

 

[takakenji]

no we arnt kidding ourselves only the hipster upper cliques use rep for such abusive preformance

 

[HammerFist132]

Personaly I dont like things on the hive like, OT give rep (like "lol I cant stop you are so funny) or rep. When I see to someone on hive, who havent created anything and just chat off topic have more rep then me, thats make me hammered, and I am planning to disable view of my rep thats why

 

[I3lackDeath]

I don't really see any explicit question in this thread.
Do you want Reputation enabled in OT?
Do you want us to fix Reputation being enabled in the Recycle Bin?

 

[Celaquil]

Why is rep still disabled in OT?

I'm pretty sure this is understandable. (Explicit even.)
- Then follows a rant about cute things.

 

[DESTROYER123]

There are 1000 ways to rep someone.
I don't see any problem.
Also there are not so many problems in OT to rep a guy who help you.

 

[fladdermasken]

I don't really see any explicit question in this thread.
Do you want Reputation enabled in OT?

I want to know why it was disabled. It was never announced back when it happened and the admins never answered any questions.

But if anything I want you to stop harshly moderating OT. Look at it this way, there are 46 forums to post in at THW (not counting subforums). OT is the one place around here where you used to be able to just vent stuff and have a good time. Can we maybe kinda not dial it up to super duper serial, disable rep and go on a closing frenzy every single time someone makes a funny?

... oh and I guess thanks for exemplifying harsh moderation by deleting what I had posted earlier in this thread. :/

 

[I3lackDeath]

I want to know why it was disabled. It was never announced back when it happened and the admins never answered any questions.

But if anything I want you to stop harshly moderating OT. Look at it this way, there are 46 forums to post in at THW (not counting subforums). OT is the one place around here where you used to be able to just vent stuff and have a good time. Can we maybe kinda not dial it up to super duper serial, disable rep and go on a closing frenzy every single time someone makes a funny?

... oh and I guess thanks for exemplifying harsh moderation by deleting what I had posted earlier in this thread. :/

This forum is reserved for any mumbo jumbo and hocus pocus, nonesense irrotence or your special interests that doesn't suit any other forum. The general site rules still apply however! Keep it clean!

Ever read those? If threads are clean, they stay the way they are.
If people can't manage to do that, something gets done about it.

If you continue using terms that are deemed highly inappropriate by this site, we are going to do something about that.
Either deal with it, "vent" somewhere else, or try your luck with admins / Ralle directly.

 

[Linaze]

Assuming OT is supposed to keep some sort of minimum level of seriousness (in lack of a better word), I don't see any relevance whatsoever in disabling reputation for that particular forum. For the record, I could see why it'd be disabled for a forum like SE.

 

[Gilles]

If you can't gain rep, you shouldn't be able to lose rep! Can you lose rep? I sort of assumed you can.

 

[Archian]

Back when we first introduced reputation here at Hive, we felt that reputation should be used mainly for awarding people who answered mod-related questions or made awesome resources. Not for posting a picture of something funny, for instance, in the off-topic forum. This is why we disabled reputation in the off-topic forum.

Also, about the recycle bin... Yeah, I'm not really sure about that one

Ralle may have an idea.

 

[Skycraft]

because the administrators are a lame bunch of poo-poo heads who don't know how to have any fun.

 

[Celaquil]

There are 1000 ways to rep someone.
I don't see any problem.
Also there are not so many problems in OT to rep a guy who help you.

And I could name 1000 other reasons than directly helping someone to rep for.

Far as I see things, Reputation is a tool of social happiness, you like gaining rep and you like giving rep. It's basically a complete self-indulgent affair. This is why I see no reason whatsofuckingever in limiting people's reasons for giving rep and furthermore no good reasons to limit the sections you can give rep in.

And if you're going to force your Mod-opinions on the general public in that regard, then you might as well make a system where you're completely unable to rep anyone lest it's been Moderator approved as "help" or "good resource." (And I'll promise you, that wouldn't be fun for the users NOR the Moderators.)

Of course you can pull the witty card and pew "you can rep in other sections" from your arse, and while that is completely true it's still no good reason to disable rep in another section. Following that philosophy you might as well disable rep in all sections save for one; REALLY. That's. Not. The. Point.

 

[Rui]

Back when we first introduced reputation here at Hive, we felt that reputation should be used mainly for awarding people who answered mod-related questions or made awesome resources. Not for posting a picture of something funny, for instance, in the off-topic forum. This is why we disabled reputation in the off-topic forum.
(...)

If you want people not to use something in a way other than that which you idealized, you should not allow them to use it, ever, not block it in a forum.

I remember proposing that only staff would give reputation in the so called Hive 2, among other things to compensate people who weren't getting the rep they deserved, but it always was begging to ask people to do something, resulting in opting for little pragmatical decisions as is disabling reputation in OT.

As it stands, reputation is definitely just for social uses. Disabling it in off-topic is nonsensical, people will just circumvent it and rep another post. I do that, for instance. So unless you are going to apply sanctions for doing that and force people to pretend to have a reason to rep someone in a random post, I'd lift it.

 

[Archian]

We want reputation to display a member's helpfullness to the modding community. And as the off-topic forum is not related to modding, we don't want poeple to be able to give reputation in that forum.

 

[Linaze]

We want reputation to display a member's helpfullness to the modding community. And as the off-topic forum is not related to modding, we don't want poeple to be able to give reputation in that forum.

And all other forums are related to modding?

Hint: No.

 

[Archian]

Well, again this was when we first introduced reputation back in 2005 or 2006 (?). But to avoid any misconceptions, answering a question in e.g. the Site Discussion forum, or making an awesome suggestion for future site features etc. is also worth reppin', even though it doesn't specifically go under the category of modding etc. but don't take me at my word here

However, which forum(s) do you refer to?

 

[Linaze]

So answering someone's question about say signatures in Site Discussion is rep-worthy, but helping someone with their math homework (or whatever) in Off Topic is not?

As for which forums I refer to... Well, everthing that wouldn't directly be labeled as modding forums, I suppose. The Town Hall and Gamer's Hub are the first that come to mind.

Honestly, I think it would be both easier and more consistent to simply allow reputation in all forums (except possibly the recycle bin).

 

[Celaquil]

We want reputation to display a member's helpfullness to the modding community. And as the off-topic forum is not related to modding, we don't want poeple to be able to give reputation in that forum.

You let this serve as your final statement on the matter, when there's been mentioned oh so many good reasons against it, even without providing any proper counter arguments.
- I fail to see the logic in this.

And then you follow-up with:

Well, again this was when we first introduced reputation back in 2005 or 2006 (?). But to avoid any misconceptions, answering a question in e.g. the Site Discussion forum, or making an awesome suggestion for future site features etc. is also worth reppin', even though it doesn't specifically go under the category of modding etc. but don't take me at my word here

However, which forum(s) do you refer to?

Now you provide your own preferences as to what rep can be used for that goes beyond your former statement, and saying "don't take my word for it" is immaterial in the matter, because it's been said and it serves to stand as your opinion.

This in turn goes in direct conflict with your "final" statement on the matter.

Sure, this might seem like we're bickering about a really small matter, but it's a small matter that doesn't make sense to us. And if small matters don't make sense, it's a sure bet bigger matters may result in the same response.
- Small things quickly develop to become serious Sam.

Now, I'll rant:

You say this site is all about modding and that a social tool like "Reputation" should be limited to modding and modding alone. Fact is, though, that Wc3 modding is a dying business, the hive community is not.
- Even though it suffered a great flesh-wound some time ago, but let's not go there.

My personal view on the matter is that rep is fun and that it's a big part of what makes this community thrive, like it or not. Removing it would be foolish and limiting it just makes people angry. The community is all a site has, and the community is what a sites leaders should care for, adapt to survive or die on self-justified bias.

All in all, heed our words or provide us a proper explanation as to why not. For as long as people can rep in other sections for the things they wanted to rep for in the off-topic section, then that makes the removal of the capability to rep in the off-topic section a superfluous move.

 

[Boris_Spider]

I don't understand why the rep was disabled. Mapping can be frustrating as hell...

Browsing Off-Topic and getting a few good laughs was crucial to me being able to finish my maps once I went back to working on them. I found it worth repping anyone who improved my mood (thus, allowing me to resume modding quicker). Besides, rep is useless. The way this site acknowledges helpful people (well... usually) is by making them mods/admin in the sections they excel at if they desire.

//\\0o//\\

 

[Rui]

We want reputation to display a member's helpfullness to the modding community. And as the off-topic forum is not related to modding, we don't want poeple to be able to give reputation in that forum.

I reiterate my former statement. Yours carries about two assumptions:

• Every rep given outside off-topic is directed at someone being helpful at modding (?).
• Every rep given inside the off-topic community doesn't reflect a member's helpfulness to the “modding” community.

Both of which are wrong.
The protruding is meant to protrude that it is (or should be) well known how social areas of the site, among which Off-Topic is found, are crucial to attract people to stay rather just come here. I suppose I don't have to elaborate, as we've been over this.

 

[Ralle]

You guys are posting so much sense.
Disabling rep in Off-Topic (not to mention the old "Something Else" forum) was merely a way to cut back on some of the random rep being dealt. This is of course a hack and far from a solution.
We would like rep to represent the level of contribution to the modding aspect of the site rather than the popularity of certain members. But it does not.
The fact that anybody can rep for any reason changes the definition. The rep a user has represents the number of times other users have had any reason (be it for submitting a nice resource, for posting something funny or helpful or no reason at all) to give them rep. Therefore there is no reason to have it disabled in Off Topic.
I am not sure what value rep has. Why don't we just toss it out the window? What is the value of it? Discuss.

 

[General Frank]

You guys are posting so much sense.
Disabling rep in Off-Topic (not to mention the old "Something Else" forum) was merely a way to cut back on some of the random rep being dealt. This is of course a hack and far from a solution.
We would like rep to represent the level of contribution to the modding aspect of the site rather than the popularity of certain members. But it does not.
The fact that anybody can rep for any reason changes the definition. The rep a user has represents the number of times other users have had any reason (be it for submitting a nice resource, for posting something funny or helpful or no reason at all) to give them rep. Therefore there is no reason to have it disabled in Off Topic.
I am not sure what value rep has. Why don't we just toss it out the window? What is the value of it? Discuss.

Random rep is nice. I get it every day, but that's because I got a shitload of stuff. So please, put the 'random rep' thingy besides.

 

[Aeroblyctos]

Well, it sometimes motivates you when people rep you. But other than that it's your internet dick.

 

[Linaze]

I am not sure what value rep has. Why don't we just toss it out the window? What is the value of it? Discuss.

That's the point, it carries no real value these days (I'm not sure it ever did). I'd prefer a reputation free Hive any day of the week, for several reasons really; People are given reputation for all the wrong reasons, it makes it harder to integrate new users into the community, it's an system that's always benefited certain categories of modders (and users in general) more than others etc.

 

[Aeroblyctos]

I can already imagine what kind of chaos it will bring if we remove the system. Thousands and thousands of teens whining "where's my rep!?".

 

[Linaze]

Making good decisions isn't about populism.

 

[Aeroblyctos]

You're right about that.

 

[Hakeem]

Do you want Reputation enabled in OT?
Do you want us to fix Reputation being enabled in the Recycle Bin?

You assume correct on both counts.

Barring the word "want." As fladder responded, if it were about want, it's about moderators doing a less than stellar job of coexisting with the community.

All anyone is really saying here is, "Incompetence exists prevalently on THW, I cite: ..."

I don't see any problem.

Me neither, but it's fun to pretend.

Good old rep threads. I missed these things.

Ever read those?

Pretty sure we all have.

[RAINBOW](Disclaimer:

Spoiler

If the rules have been updated since I was last here, I haven't actually read them and probably never will again unless explicitly asked to review them. They're just going to say the same thing they always did, anyway.

)[/RAINBOW]

If people can't manage to do that, something gets done about it.

If you continue using terms that are deemed highly inappropriate by this site, we are going to do something about that.

Wait, so I can get a thread closed by swearing? I'm probably missing the context here but it totally sounds like one of the moderators, probably you and you alone, is closing threads they don't like for personal reasons but giving flimsy excuses based on an arbitrary, vague, and manipulable rule set th—Actually I'm probably missing the context here. Hell, I know I'm missing the context here.

[RAINBOW]I HEREBY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO READ AND REPLY TO THREADS IN WHATEVER CHRONOLOGY I CHOOSE.[/RAINBOW]

Ralle may have an idea.

I propose a wager.

That's. Not. The. Point.

Then what is the point here? :V

From my reading, there never was a real point:

Back when we first introduced reputation here at Hive, we felt that reputation should be used mainly for awarding people who answered mod-related questions or made awesome resources.

If you want people not to use something in a way other than that which you idealized, you should not allow them to use it, ever.

The principle of varying principle. Always important.

I fail to see the logic in this.

I fail to see the logic in yer mum. Doesn't mean we can't share a laugh. (But seriously though your post was full of logic, the same flavor of logic that brought me to Hive once, and the flavor I crave for which I have returned.)

Now, I'll rant:

You call that a rant?! Why, back in my day...

Even though it suffered a great flesh-wound some time ago.

T'is just a flesh wound!

You guys are posting so much sense.

Agree to disagree there. :V

I am not sure what value rep has.

Flavor.

Why don't we just toss it out the window?

It's like candy; eat too much and you get sick, but it's super-nice in small amounts every now and again.

What is the value of it?

It makes fun threads in Site Discussion every so often. Truth be told I'd rather things were left how they are just 'cuz it amuses me. It's the small things. Like not being able to rep in OT but RB instead.

Discuss.

NEEEEVEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrr.......!!

 

[I3lackDeath]

Goddamnit Hakeem, that's one extensive quote digestion.

Off-topic shizzle to dismiss Hakeem's claims

Wait, so I can get a thread closed by swearing? I'm probably missing the context here but it totally sounds like one of the moderators, probably you and you alone, is closing threads they don't like for personal reasons but giving flimsy excuses based on an arbitrary, vague, and manipulable rule set th—Actually I'm probably missing the context here. Hell, I know I'm missing the context here.

Nope, threads won't get closed (by me?) when people swear in it. It seems to have been dealt with like this in the past, but that's not what I do, or did.
In this case, I edited fladder's posts to get rid of the term "(iron) fisting". While it may be used as "to rule with an iron fist", his previous comment, stating merely "fisting", led me to interpret both of them as inappropriate material. If that was not his intention and he truly meant to use the term in its proper way, then I apologize for editing the comments.

Also, nope, I don't close threads because I "don't like" them (and I assume it's the same for everyone else).
Example: one now rather old discussion thread about "humanity", later religion, where I explicitly stated I preferred it to remain open.
I am no fan of discussions that lead nowhere, at all, but I had no right (not being part of the discussion) nor reason (HT was involved) to intervene.
Not that I would have actually acted based on my disinterest of meaningless discussions.

Missing context or not, I will state this now, to solve any misunderstandings/misconceptions:
I do not, nor ever did, close threads/deleted/edited comments based on my emotions/personal motivation.
If you think I did so, please cite the situations here, and I will do my best to elaborate/clarify.

Now, since you were a longtime-serving admin aswell, weren't you part in this discussion back then aswell? I hardly believe that you haven't participated in it when it was (seemingly) discussed in AN before.

Enlighten us with your wisdom (knowing you, I hereby specify it as: regarding your honest understanding of the meaning of reputation (I hardly think that the above statements are all you have to say about that) and the reason for its disable instruction for OT), please, just to add some more worthwhile juice to this.

Clarification to prevent misunderstanding/misconceptions:
None of the above means/is meant to imply that I am impeccable. Like everyone else, I am bound to make mistakes and learn from them.
As usual, no offense intended, should there be anything that is interpreted as such.

 

[Hakeem]

extensive quote digestion.

I'LL SHOW YOU EXTENSIVE QUOTE DIGESTION. (Later, in MT, when my membership to it is restored.)

"(iron) fisting"

fladder++

Now, since you were a longtime-serving admin aswell, weren't you part in this discussion back then aswell?

Not really, no. I think it might have happened before I became admin and my stance was always, "Yeah if someone wants to deal with rep they can do that."

Nobody ever did.

Your honest understanding of the meaning of reputation (I hardly think that the above statements are all you have to say about that).

All I have to say I've already said in long dead threads. It's fun, like candy, it causes problems when you deal with too much of it, like candy, and people like to blame it for things, like candy.

Also it's shiny.

Being able to write endlessly about a subject isn't an invitation to do so. :V

(Note that, I am speaking on my own behalf and no other.)

 

[Celaquil]

Then what is the point here? :V

The point, from where I wrote it, is to device an entertaining discussion about a small matter that doesn't make sense, because obviously the bigger matters-- (censured)

... and, I reckon it's got something to do with "reppin' in other sections because..." Also has something to do with what's not the point.

I fail to see the logic in yer mum.

No, you don't.

You call that a rant?! Why, back in my day...

Yes, I'm discreet like that.
- Self-preservation, and all that.

Pro-claimer

Oh and yes, rep motivates and rep is fun, why remove it?
- Simply let it serve it's nonsensical purpose.

 

[Hakeem]

No, you don't.

Bluff successfully called. I tip my hat.

 

[Pharaoh_]

I sometimes get the feeling that the community requires stuff just to combat the old fashion of how things have been working so far, especially for this matter, when there is absolutely no reason to enable the Reputation feature in Off-Topic. I only see the argument of "why it was disabled in the first place?", but that only generates a contradiction; it doesn't give reasons to enable it.

Similarly to what has been said by Ralle or Archian, Reputation should reflect (in an average level) the helpfulness of a user. Whether it is consistent as it is, it doesn't matter, at least in this discussion, which constantly derails to the importance of Reputation overall.

 

[Boris_Spider]

... when there is absolutely no reason to enable the Reputation feature in Off-Topic. I only see the argument of "why it was disabled in the first place?", but that only generates a contradiction; it doesn't give reasons to enable it.

Similarly to what has been said by Ralle or Archian, Reputation should reflect (in an average level) the helpfulness of a user. Whether it is consistent as it is, it doesn't matter, at least in this discussion, which constantly derails to the importance of Reputation overall.

~YOU disagree and thus disregard the reasons posted (which I suppose is fine, I'm just trying to eradicate your vagueness)

~I don't see how a question is an argument

~IN theory it sounds good, but you have no way of ensuring that it's used in this matter. You can go around and look at arbitrary profiles (of our more active users) and see "spread" listed as the reason for the rep. Any posts/resources outside of OT can still be tracked down and given rep b/c of some 'lol' statement.

I understand what you're getting at, but reputation is NOT the way to go about doing it (in accordance to the theory of how it should work). By your logic, winning a contest should never deserve rep as part of the reward, since the user was NOT being helpful; if said competition generated a model, users could award rep for use of the model in a map as IT is a potentially helpful resource.

~Reputation has no importance... don't forget that. It's just something people try to collect which can/will be set by an admin/mod if it isn't already disabled.

//\\oo//\\

 

[Pharaoh_]

~YOU disagree and thus disregard the reasons posted (which I suppose is fine, I'm just trying to eradicate your vagueness)

~I don't see how a question is an argument

~IN theory it sounds good, but you have no way of ensuring that it's used in this matter. You can go around and look at arbitrary profiles (of our more active users) and see "spread" listed as the reason for the rep. Any posts/resources outside of OT can still be tracked down and given rep b/c of some 'lol' statement.

I understand what you're getting at, but reputation is NOT the way to go about doing it (in accordance to the theory of how it should work). By your logic, winning a contest should never deserve rep as part of the reward, since the user was NOT being helpful; if said competition generated a model, users could award rep for use of the model in a map as IT is a potentially helpful resource.

~Reputation has no importance... don't forget that. It's just something people try to collect which can/will be set by an admin/mod if it isn't already disabled.

//\\oo//\\

Allow me to refresh you and your memory and remind you that Reputation has always been part of the Arena. Everything that is created due to a contest regards the WarCraft III/StarCraft II modding aspect of this community and this is exactly what the latter stands for; with that being said, every income in terms of modding is useful (it is useful on its own, as a resource, and it is useful to other people that seek inspiration, who will, by extension, create their own, useful to the community, resources). If you imply otherwise, then you could just as well visit additional forums that focus more efficiently towards your object of interest.

The fact that you find reputation not important is by no means an objective statement. It holds many psychological factors that you cannot imagine or do not want to imagine or actively ignore. There is actually a whole theory behind it and it is called Behaviorism (saving you from a reply of asking what's that theory, in case you wanted to know) and I find this function to be composing a lot of the theory's features. It is ironic, and at some point funny, to make generic statements about a function that has been working in many forums for ages and required a lot of discussions and research by the company to eventually implement it.

As for the part that you "assume" that I disagree with this discussion, I only see no reasons to enable it, I did not state anywhere that I disagree. If it is a popular demand, that I value the most, despite any doubts that I might have.

 

[Hakeem]

Whether it is consistent as it is, it doesn't matter, at least in this discussion, which constantly derails to the importance of Reputation overall.

This is how rep threads have always and will always work. :V

Absolutely no reason to enable the Reputation feature in Off-Topic.

There's a post there I want to rep.

Now there absolutely is a reason. To deny that would be to deny psychology, which I'm sure you're not going to want to do. I'm sure of this because it makes sense, psychologically, for someone so invested in the science to defend the veracity of it.

Allow me to refresh you and your memory and remind you that Reputation has always been part of the Arena.

This counters not the argument raised; whether the Arena has always functioned in one way or another has no bearing on if reputation should be awarded in Arena prizes.

As such there is no need for a refresh of memory on the matter.

The fact that you find reputation not important is by no means an objective statement.

I disagree entirely. I find it to be objective fact that Boris_Spider considers reputation to not be important. The fact of the matter of said user holding said opinion is unquestionable in my eyes. While this may appear to be a flimsy—and intentional—misinterpretation of your intended message, it is nevertheless a valid reply to your literal statement.

It holds many psychological factors that you cannot imagine or do not want to imagine or actively ignore.

Contrasting with this statement, which I do not consider to be objective fact. I will require more documentation on the matter in order to assess the objectivity of your assertion.

There is actually a whole theory behind it and it is called Behaviorism.

I see your psychology and raise you one internet. I cite your words:

You could just as well visit additional forums that focus more efficiently towards your object of interest.

This, inevitably, and qualitatively in its inevitability, alters the dynamics and psychology in play to the degree that modern psychology will need to reassess itself to handle the influx of raw interpersonal data resulting from the very haphazard realignment and reconfiguration of entire sections of society based on tumultuous events occurring in digital contexts.

That is, you cannot in any reasonable human society instruct or advise another human to relocate geographically in order to avoid disagreeing with your assessment of the ideal intent of the immediate geographical segment of homo sapiens' population.

I find this function to be composing a lot of the theory's features.

I find rep to be nice, in several ways. Is this a sufficiently similar statement to you own statement of findings?

It is ironic, and at some point funny, to make generic statements about a function that has been working in many forums for ages and required a lot of discussions and research by the company to eventually implement it.

It is ironic to assume any given person or group of people to be competent, especially when said cabal makes assertions that contradict those of the statements of preference of the crowd at large itself.

I'm not going to call it funny though, because honestly, people thinking they know better than anyone else and touting an ideal of correctness or idealism or any other form of "truth" when certitude is anything less than ubiquitous has led to violent warfare in humanity's past. Note that I'm referring to religion, whether that religion is spiritual or empirical in basis. A secular term for the phenomenon is dogma.

I would nevertheless like to acquire evidence that reputation systems were implemented in vBulletin post-research, for my own morbid curiosity. :V

I only see no reasons to enable it,

This is the original matter of contention, when we ignore the overarching discussion of the importance of reputation gems.

I did not state anywhere that I disagree.

Not explicitly, no. Naturally, I wouldn't expect you to.

If it is a popular demand, that I value the most, despite any doubts that I might have.

A generous concession.

How do we measure popular demand, idyllically?

 

[Boris_Spider]

Allow me to refresh you and your memory and remind you that Reputation has always been part of the Arena. Everything that is created due to a contest regards the WarCraft III/StarCraft II modding aspect of this community and this is exactly what the latter stands for; with that being said, every income in terms of modding is useful (it is useful on its own, as a resource, and it is useful to other people that seek inspiration, who will, by extension, create their own, useful to the community, resources). If you imply otherwise, then you could just as well visit additional forums that focus more efficiently towards your object of interest.

The fact that you find reputation not important is by no means an objective statement. It holds many psychological factors that you cannot imagine or do not want to imagine or actively ignore. There is actually a whole theory behind it and it is called Behaviorism (saving you from a reply of asking what's that theory, in case you wanted to know) and I find this function to be composing a lot of the theory's features. It is ironic, and at some point funny, to make generic statements about a function that has been working in many forums for ages and required a lot of discussions and research by the company to eventually implement it.

As for the part that you "assume" that I disagree with this discussion, I only see no reasons to enable it, I did not state anywhere that I disagree. If it is a popular demand, that I value the most, despite any doubts that I might have.

~Your long winded reply doesn't really respond to my point (if it does, please try a summary). Also, driving people out of THW because they posted a point consistent with an argument seems counter-productive (to be fair, the message was implicit).

~I'm not alone in holding that rep is useless while encouraging its existence. The condescension is not appreciated. I'm not alone in these 'generic statements' either:

... there is absolutely no reason to enable the Reputation feature in Off-Topic...

This is a comment of yours that can be as easily construed as both non-objective and generic as the statement:

~Reputation has no importance... don't forget that. It's just something people try to collect which can/will be set by an admin/mod if it isn't already disabled.

~Your disagreement is implicit. You said you "see no reasons" whereas the following have been given as reasons:

Far as I see things, Reputation is a tool of social happiness, you like gaining rep and you like giving rep. It's basically a complete self-indulgent affair. This is why I see no reason whatsofuckingever in limiting people's reasons for giving rep and furthermore no good reasons to limit the sections you can give rep in.

If you want people not to use something in a way other than that which you idealized, you should not allow them to use it, ever, not block it in a forum.

...

As it stands, reputation is definitely just for social uses. Disabling it in off-topic is nonsensical, people will just circumvent it and rep another post. I do that, for instance. So unless you are going to apply sanctions for doing that and force people to pretend to have a reason to rep someone in a random post, I'd lift it.

.. I found it worth repping anyone who improved my mood (thus, allowing me to resume modding quicker)...

Oh and yes, rep motivates and rep is fun, why remove it?
- Simply let it serve it's nonsensical purpose.

...There's a post there I want to rep.
...

These are reasons FOR rep in OT. Now, I assume you're likely to go through this thread, like I did, and quote a variety a reasons AGAINST rep in OT. Hence the argument /notion that you are at least NOT FOR rep in OT. Whether or not the reasons are viable is a separate matter entirely from whether they exist.

On a side note, calm down Pharaoh. I may be misreading the 'tone' present, but you seem pretty tense. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' here (no absolute/objective versions anyway)...

//\\oo//\\

 

[takakenji]

people thinkthis is a joke but its serious a whole industry is built over rep and a lot of it not so legal. i was once caught in an international rep frauding mob and almost lost my life before moving

 

[Rui]

It is ironic, and at some point funny, to make generic statements about a function that has been working in many forums for ages and required a lot of discussions and research by the company to eventually implement it.

It is ironic to assume any given person or group of people to be competent, especially when said cabal makes assertions that contradict those of the statements of preference of the crowd at large itself.

Because we're just a bunch of idiots, therefore, anything we say isn't discussion and what we want doesn't matter.

P.S. — Continuing on from Hakeem's point:

“There's a post there I want to rep. Now there absolutely is a reason.”

I keep asking myself how many times do we have to discuss the same things before it's clear. People are only giving rep importance (or how/where to give it) because the staff gave it importance in the first place by attempting to give it a purpose. Which is fine—the wanting a purpose for it part, at least—, but the solution found could hardly have been less pragmatic. Having reputation disabled in Off-topic does not fulfill this rather unclear purpose of «rep is for being helpful to the modding community» and only extremely annoys every other member. How is this not enough reason to revert it?

Whether it is consistent as it is, it doesn't matter, at least in this discussion, which constantly derails to the importance of Reputation overall.

I thought Ralle had the thread reach for that as well?

I am not sure what value rep has. Why don't we just toss it out the window? What is the value of it? Discuss.

And for that I thank him. It is a rare sight on this site to see a member of the staff attempting to promote debate instead of wanting the thread locked for the sake of «no drama» (whereas I interpret that as «I wanna slack an' be cozy», but whatever). If memory serves, Archian pretty much implied I was breaking his code of conduct by not closing said threads, in an allusion to the Zero Tolerance to come.

 

[I3lackDeath]

Some people must be really bored or miserable, to turn something so unimportant into a "serious" issue...

I have yet to hear about anyone actually caring what s/he received reputation for.
It's just... there.

You can argue about limited "rights" to use a feature of this site, but really, the only place within OT where Reputation should be re-enabled, is MT. At least that's a place where you can find potentially rep-worthy comments.

There has yet to be stated one good and justified reason for either its re-launch or its deactivation.

 

[Linaze]

You can argue about limited "rights" to use a feature of this site, but really, the only place within OT where Reputation should be re-enabled, is MT. At least that's a place where you can find potentially rep-worthy comments.

Wrong. All OT forums can potentially hold rep-worthy replies. This is incredibly obvious given thought, but due to your seemingly lack of interest in this topic, allow me to do the thinking for you. A forum named Off Topic and its potentail sub-forums don't only (if at all) contain garbage threads with pictures of genitals and colorful ponies. As a matter of fact, OT is essentially a forum in which topics not relevant to any other forum go. To give an example: If we didn't have a modeling forum (hypothetically), the threads that would normally go in the modeling forum would now go in OT. Would you, in this case, not agree that these modeling-related posts should be repable?

Today we do have a modeling forum, but we don't have one for people who need help with a math question, have social problems, wants to discuss movies etc. and thus these subjects are deemed "not rep-worthy" by an elite that includes yourself. However, if a forum focused on movie discussions were introduced, this subject would suddently be rep-worthy.

Summa summarum; not allowing rep in OT (and all sub-forums) is not only inconsistent, but also terribly unfair to people who post serious threads and or/posts there.

 

[I3lackDeath]

Summa summarum; not allowing rep in OT (and all sub-forums) is not only inconsistent, but also terribly unfair to people who post serious threads and or/posts there.

Allow me to not read anything but the summary.

Inconsistency. Just another word for what I described above.
Hardly a convincing argument.

Yes, OT has the potential to hold worthwhile threads aswell, yet experience and statistics turn this into anything but a fact, and for those very few good examples, you can easily find some random stuff to rep instead.
So, what's the greater good here?

 

[Hakeem]

Just got another idea from reading above post:

Closing a thread nullifies any reputation given inside it.

This neatly solves the issue of nobody in their right (or wrong, for that matter) mind being willing to moderate rep at any level for any reason, while silently allowing it to be moderated.

I have yet to hear about anyone actually caring what s/he received reputation for.
It's just... there.

I agree, I like getting rep.

There has yet to be stated one good and justified reason for either its re-launch or its deactivation.

I don't think this is really the kind of important issue that requires terribly overwhelmingly quantified good and justified reasons. Petty reasons will do for petty subjects.

 

[Edhel-dur]

While writing this post, I realized by personal view will just mix with everyone else personal views, and I don't think the solution to the problem (if any) is anyones personal view. That said I still kept my personal view in a hidden tag just because it took a while to write.

However, objectively speaking, it's all about goals and impact.

If you want THW to be more moding oriented, than disabling rep in OT is good.

If you want THW to continue to be the community it was in the past, a community which didn't just mod, but also talked about serious stuff or modern stuff (like it has always been!?), than disabling rep in OT is bad.

Trick is, having rep in OT will also help (not saying in a decisive way, but it will contribute) in creating more trolls, who just go to OT, post random shit, flame a bit, all that for the sweet sweet rep.

So that was related to the site's goals. In relation to the impact the presence or lack of rep in the OT, I can't really pre-determine. If anything, I think it does more good than harm, because it won't give incentive for trolls to do their thing, but on the other hand, someone who actually needs help will still ask for help, someone who likes to debate will still debate for the pleasure of it all. Same goes about someone who likes to talk about movies or other modern stuff.

My personal view

For me rep is the blue gem I have. I like it in a visual sense. Never liked having the orange or green gems, the blue one is the coolest.

Now, I am also on this site since 2007, just like Hakeem, yet there are about 800 points of rep between the two of us.

Why? - Because I simply aren't that active on this forum. I have 777 posts, while Hakeem has 2433. Point is, between 2007 and 2013 Hakeem was more active and more helpful than I, and it shows in the number of posts and amount of reputation he has.

Also, I am not a moder. Helped a bit here and there, but that's about it. Never really hunted rep. It just came along. Than I found out OT doesn't offer rep anymore, did I care? - No.

Why? - Because screw rep. It doesn't show if I'm right or wrong, it doesn't do anything practically, and it doesn't influence my opinion of someone. Sure, if someone with high amount of rep would say something stupid, the fact that he has high amount of rep would make me not jump to conclusions. For me, rep is just a guideline, I come on this forum I see X member with Y rep, I kind off learn the general opinion of the community about him.

But that's it. It doesn't make him likeable, or smart, or good, or anything to me.

So I personally, have a hard time understanding, why this situation is such a big deal, and why do people care if they received rep or not, especially in a thread about movies, or ponies, or skyrim, or whatever.

Do we really have nothing better to do with our time than to bicker about having small gems at our profiles?

Is there a hidden website achievement for having a high amount of rep? People want it for what, the admiration they get for having high rep? Admiration doesn't come with rep, it comes naturally if you are worthy of it. Rep might be an indicate, but someone who is naturally to be admired, will gain rep from different other sources/topics than just the OT.

 

[Gilles]

While writing this post, I realized by personal view will just mix with everyone else personal views, and I don't think the solution to the problem (if any) is anyones personal view. That said I still kept my personal view in a hidden tag just because it took a while to write.

I totally disagree. While the Hive is not a democracy, and never should be, it is made up of users. Those users have opinions, and if those that run the site want to keep users using their website, they need to meet at least some of the needs and wants of the users. You are entirely entitled to share your opinion, and it should be taken up with other opinions when the administration makes decisions. That doesn't mean that people should vote because....

What needs to be done? Well that depends largely on what the Hive is. What does Ralle want this site to be about? Why should users come to this site? The answers to these questions don't seem to be clear. Strike me like the Hive doesn't really know what it is anymore. There's a mix of modding and general social interaction, and the Hive seems to be pretty split between the two. I think some sort of ultimatum (on what the site is for) would be helpful. Perhaps. Perhaps it would drive people away.

So in my opinion, admin should take into consideration what the users want, compare it to what they want this site to be, and make a decision.

 

[Boris_Spider]

To be fair, the admin did make a decision. Some of us just don't approve of it and are lobbying for a more favorable decision.

As for future goals, why haven't we made a Warcraft4 (literally, not a mod of WC3:TFT) for ourselves yet (not for profit)? At this rate it'll be at least a decade until we maybe get a shot at another WC unspoiled by WOW.

Yes, I'm aware of Starcraft II. No, I'll not get into it b/c Sins of a Solar Empire already covers my need for a space RTS.

//\\oo//\\

 

[Hakeem]

I think some sort of ultimatum (on what the site is for) would be helpful.

Your equivocation on the matter only begs the question further:

Why do you think it would be helpful?

Why haven't we made a Warcraft4 (literally, not a mod of WC3:TFT) for ourselves yet (not for profit)?

It'd be Off-Topic and nobody would be able to be repped for it. (Huhuhu)

 

[Edhel-dur]

@Gilles

I know there is freedom of speech, but it is my right to express myself how I wanted. Fact is, after re-reading my personal opinion, it was more of a passive attack to other people who don't or can't think like me. So instead of addressing everyones way of thinking, I thought it would be better to address the practical issue.

 

[Gilles]

Your equivocation on the matter only begs the question further:

Why do you think it would be helpful?

I guess ultimatum was a poor choice of word, but I can't think of another right now. I am curious how I was equivocating though.

I thought it was clear how I thought it would be helpful. It seems like there is a divide between the social and modding aspects of the community. I thought it would be helpful if an authority clearly stated what the goals and purposes are for this forum.