GutZ Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 I want to rep YT for his quote. Quick! Hurry! Implement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 You do not see anything. There is nothing there to see. Move along. (Seriously, though, you can see it, but you can't yet use it. Only staff can so far.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 What is the point of starting with 10 if you can't take points away? Why not start with 0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 What is the point of starting with 10 if you can't take points away? Why not start with 0?Very likely the forum default that was just overlooked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 In the original design proposed by YT, the amount of new points is decided by the number of points of the persons who gave you points on a linear scale (their points / 10, iirc), hence it can´t start at zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 [math]\frac{0}{10} = 0[/math] last time I checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I´m not sure what you wanted to say with that. 0/10 = 0, hence for N people with a reputation of 0 giving you points, your new score will be 0 + N*0/10 = 0, making the system a bit redundant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 No, I think he means that when you give someone reputation points, how much you can give is determined by how much you have. If I have ten I give you one, if I have twenty I give you two, etc. I think that's a rather silly design, myself, since overall it's just going to increase exponentially by a factor of 1.1, leading to some ridiculously high numbers, which will in turn spawn more ridiculous numbers. Before long YT will have 10,000 points, and the newbie he thinks made a good post will go from 10 to 1010, a 10000% increase. But I guess I'm not supposed to take it seriously....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I´m not sure what you wanted to say with that. 0/10 = 0, hence for N people with a reputation of 0 giving you points, your new score will be 0 + N*0/10 = 0, making the system a bit redundant. I was pointing out that 0/10 is a number, so it is a valid number of points. It wouldn't be redundant. All the admins have to do is give 10 points to the people they already trust (ie. themselves) and then they can award points. The people they give points to are more likely to be trustworthy, and if they get enough, they can give points too. Seems like a good system if you ask me. As it is now (or soon) any Tom, Dick or Yourdad can give points out like candy, which can't be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I was pointing out that 0/10 is a number, so it is a valid number of points. It wouldn't be redundant. All the admins have to do is give 10 points to the people they already trust (ie. themselves) Why do I imagine them squabbling and deciding they're all so cynical they don't trust each other and set themselves to 0 too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 The system is based on "reputation power," how many points you can give other people, and those are based on your number of points and your postcount and time spent on SFN. I have already adjusted the system so people should be fairly equal in reputation power, by making the system want 1000 posts before awarding another reputation power point, etc. You also cannot give points to the same person twice in a row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I see I'm an unknown quantity, snazzy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I was pointing out that 0/10 is a number, so it is a valid number of points. It wouldn't be redundant. All the admins have to do is give 10 points to the people they already trust (ie. themselves) and then they can award points. The people they give points to are more likely to be trustworthy, and if they get enough, they can give points too. Seems like a good system if you ask me. As it is now (or soon) any Tom, Dick or Yourdad can give points out like candy, which can't be good. Indeed. But the last time we tried the system, people could get one negative reputation from YT and seven positives and still end up with negative points. Of course, if we have turned off negative points, that's different. A system running that way would certainly provide a greater reward to people for their good posts. I'm just not sure if we should allow negative points. It proved to be a problem the last time we tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Indeed. But the last time we tried the system, people could get one negative reputation from YT and seven positives and still end up with negative points. Sounds fair to me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Why do I imagine them squabbling and deciding they're all so cynical they don't trust each other and set themselves to 0 too?Because you know us all too well? Indeed. But the last time we tried the system, people could get one negative reputation from YT and seven positives and still end up with negative points.More importantly blike was receiving two or three PMs daily complaining about receiving negative reputation unfairly and asking for some sort of intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 More importantly blike was receiving two or three PMs daily complaining about receiving negative reputation unfairly and asking for some sort of intervention. Ouch, that must have been deeply annoying.... /me wanders off to send a pm complaining he's not getting enough positive ones and for some intervention..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 I demand intervention against Klaynos' attempt at intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now