Anonymous rep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sf411

Rep rank is option that you choose to turn off or on. If you decide to leave it on it is by your doing that you allow someone to mess with said rank. If you do not like it disable it.

---

Regardless if it's disabled or not, you're still able to rep/de-rep the person.

Having it disabled just means you don't want to use it for e-peen or something like that since it's not shown on your profile/posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coh3n

I don't know what you're trying to argue. Do you want to see who gave rep? I thought you could already?

---

No we can't see who gives rep thats the point of this thread

If reputation is not anonymous, then it will greatly reduce the amount of negative reputations received. As the majority of negative reputations are a result of "flame-wars" with the sole reason of anonymity.

My vote: should be open.

We should make forum currency, and each time you rep someone you get 10m villavu coins, which is worth one ha'penny. And each time you de rep someone you owe villavu $0.02 (get it?).

I find it silly that you, Harry, are against privacy in this situation, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wanted

What Harry is saying is that there is no point of having anonymous reps because there are no pretty much no pros, only cons.

The reason for changing it is a preventive measure.

Someone has to the power to fix it, so why doesn't it get fixed?

Maybe someone is implying it isn't the role of the administrators to deal with these types of problems, and just not worry about them.

What an interesting philosophy.

---

If you like preventive measures, you must also be in favour of removing all guns from civilians, no? Perhaps we should also disallow tor altogether, start enforcing every ISP to do DPI and all connect our facebook account to everything else on the internet. What a wonderful philosophy.

Harry, I find it odd you're typically in favour of anonymity (like with SRL-Stats), but now you suddenly want rep to be public? If rep was public, people would not de-rep anyone, because they'd be ``afraid'' of getting flamed, getting into a childish fight, etc. The people who whine about receiving negative rep are just silly as they always state they don't care about reputation anyways. And it's not like reputation is _the_ way to flame someone and you can just as easily make another account, email someone, find them on IRC, etc. If you do everything to prevent flame-wars, the tension will only build up. There's nothing wrong with the occasional flame war; it helps clear things up that usual social manners cannot.

Probably the biggest advantage and disadvantage of the internet is the ability to be anonymous. You can say what's on your mind without your name attached to the post (good), but it's easy to start thinking it's ok to say anything. (bad)

What goes for the topic I think an open enviorement if always better. True, the amount of de-reps would decline, which just shows people are not willing to stand behind their own opinions.

I don't really care about the rep system so I wouldn't mind if it got removed completely, but if the choice is between 2 options I go with anti-anonymity.

It is very annoying when people use rep to flame instead of using it for what it is there for.

For example: After making this post http://villavu.com/forum/showpost.ph...7&postcount=18 I got derepped for "I disapprove the negativity."

Yeah good one, you could have just written that in the thread to me. Didn't have to involve lowering my rep

Well, this thread is now pointless, since Wizzup? is against the idea it won't happen. Anyways...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

If rep was public, people would not de-rep anyone, because they'd be ``afraid'' of getting flamed, getting into a childish fight, etc.

---

If it were public, only those with a genuine reason will de-rep those. It wouldn't end in flame wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

The people who whine about receiving negative rep are just silly as they always state they don't care about reputation anyways.

---

That's because when people receive positive reputation, they feel good about themselves. When they receive negative reputation without a genuine reason and as such are a constant target of abuse, they will hold such a view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

And it's not like reputation is _the_ way to flame someone and you can just as easily make another account, email someone, find them on IRC, etc.

---

Negative reputation would be the easiest to do and as such, is the most common. Of course, as you know, people have done what you had suggested in that statement (flame on IRC, make other accounts, etc).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

There's nothing wrong with the occasional flame war; it helps clear things up that usual social manners cannot.

---

What?? Flame wars are name just that, because they are hot. "Flaming, also known as bashing, is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war ) is completely unnecessary. Especially if you want a community that is respected.

If it isn't anonymous, then people can stand by their decision to give the negative reputation to an individual and not hide behind their 'anonymous' status. People mainly just neg rep others because they simply don't like the post nor the poster, not because it's invalid, inflammatory or against the forum rules.

EDIT: On the other hand, simply just disable negative rep altogether?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Okay,

That's it. This thread is now pointless, since Wizzup? is against the idea it won't happen.

Night fellas'.

---

lol, is this true wizzup ? I'm sure wizzup would want what his community wants ?
I think this hole thread has gone a bit over board tbh. I would prefer to see who Repped me but its no big deal, just nice to know. I agree with wanted on this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wanted

Not that it really matters to me but if you don't have the balls to say what you think to someone with them knowing it's you then you shouldn't be saying it.

That being said if you still want to be a pansy you can talk trash anoymously over email or some other way.

---

Other way to do it is The Bashing Club / BBQ Pit.

If someone wants to flame then to me they have a problem not me so I either put them straight or leave it if I think there's no helping someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

If you like preventive measures, you must also be in favour of removing all guns from civilians, no? Perhaps we should also disallow tor altogether, start enforcing every ISP to do DPI and all connect our facebook account to everything else on the internet. What a wonderful philosophy.

Harry, I find it odd you're typically in favour of anonymity (like with SRL-Stats), but now you suddenly want rep to be public? If rep was public, people would not de-rep anyone, because they'd be ``afraid'' of getting flamed, getting into a childish fight, etc. The people who whine about receiving negative rep are just silly as they always state they don't care about reputation anyways. And it's not like reputation is _the_ way to flame someone and you can just as easily make another account, email someone, find them on IRC, etc. If you do everything to prevent flame-wars, the tension will only build up. There's nothing wrong with the occasional flame war; it helps clear things up that usual social manners cannot.

---

Those ideas of forcing connecting to facebook and ISP matchups is a bit of a ridiculous comparison when it has so many adverse affects compared to say removing anonymous reputation which has no adverse implications.

If 6/7 people don't want anonymous reps, why not just get rid of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

Harry, I find it odd you're typically in favour of anonymity (like with SRL-Stats), but now you suddenly want rep to be public?

---

Those are 2 entirely different things. I don't believe in anonymity if its only being used to harass users and make the community a not-as-nice place to visit. Nothing else on this forum except for rep is anonymous, so why's that? If someone has a negative opinion about a post, they should have no problem with their name showing up. Dan explained it well.

Wizzup?: What's the downside of making rep public? I don't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Well, this thread is now pointless, since Wizzup? is against the idea it won't happen. Anyways...

---

I'm inclined to post my facepalm picture again. I don't know what made you think I'm that much against opening reputation? I just posted my opinion and was curious as to Harry's reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

If it were public, only those with a genuine reason will de-rep those. It wouldn't end in flame wars.

---

Do you truly believe this? You need a lecture on psychology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

That's because when people receive positive reputation, they feel good about themselves. When they receive negative reputation without a genuine reason and as such are a constant target of abuse, they will hold such a view.

Negative reputation would be the easiest to do and as such, is the most common. Of course, as you know, people have done what you had suggested in that statement (flame on IRC, make other accounts, etc).

---

And this is a problem, how?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

What?? Flame wars are name just that, because they are hot. "Flaming, also known as bashing, is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war ) is completely unnecessary. Especially if you want a community that is respected.

If it isn't anonymous, then people can stand by their decision to give the negative reputation to an individual and not hide behind their 'anonymous' status. People mainly just neg rep others because they simply don't like the post nor the poster, not because it's invalid, inflammatory or against the forum rules.

EDIT: On the other hand, simply just disable negative rep altogether?

---

I must say I find it amusing that one day we're a communist regime not allowing people to speak up, or scaring people to speak up - and the next day we have to disable anonymity. Really now?

As for flame wars being bad - I can't say I agree. I myself like the occasional flame war for reasons stated in my previous posts. Honestly, if you get offended/hurt that easily then I can't believe how you manage in real life. People will sometimes hurt your feelings; and sometimes they're simply right even though the person in question won't see that at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wanted

Those ideas of forcing connecting to facebook and ISP matchups is a bit of a ridiculous comparison when it has so many adverse affects compared to say removing anonymous reputation which has no adverse implications.

If 6/7 people don't want anonymous reps, why not just get rid of it?

---

I don't feel it's too ridiculous. Sure, the scale is different but the ideology is somewhat similar.

As far 6/7, I somehow feel that it is not a very representative statistic... But it is indeed something to consider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry

Those are 2 entirely different things. I don't believe in anonymity if its only being used to harass users and make the community a not-as-nice place to visit. Nothing else on this forum except for rep is anonymous, so why's that? If someone has a negative opinion about a post, they should have no problem with their name showing up. Dan explained it well.

---

Except that they won't.




All in all, I really don't see how it matters that much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

Except that they won't.

---

I have no idea what you're referring to by this. What in my paragraph? If someone has a negative opinion about someones post - enough so to not silently ignore it and click a button - they should have enough courage to have their name posted there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry

I have no idea what you're referring to by this. What in my paragraph? If someone has a negative opinion about someones post - enough so to not silently ignore it and click a button - they should have enough courage to have their name posted there.

---

So how does this distinguish you from posting loli, trolling people and posting other stuff that is illegal in some countries as ``Anonymous'' on sites like 4chan and krautchan? I just don't get it.

To be honest, the only good argument so far that I have seen is: "Everything else is not anonymous anyway".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

So how does this distinguish you from posting loli, trolling people and posting other stuff that is illegal in some countries as ``Anonymous'' on sites like 4chan and krautchan? I just don't get it.

To be honest, the only good argument so far that I have seen is: "Everything else is not anonymous anyway".

---

Comparing anonymous forums to a formal username forum? lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry

Comparing anonymous forums to a formal username forum? lol.

---

Well, why won't you post with your original name? Why do you use Anonymous? It's not like you can't use your own name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

So how does this distinguish you from posting loli, trolling people and posting other stuff that is illegal in some countries as ``Anonymous'' on sites like 4chan and krautchan? I just don't get it.

To be honest, the only good argument so far that I have seen is: "Everything else is not anonymous anyway".

---

How does that in any way relate to the discussion at hand? Sounds like you're just taking hits at Harry the way you worded that.

I don't really care though, because a pretty decent amount of the community thinks the reason they get derepped is bullshit. Getting derepped because your opinion differs from someone else is dumb, and obviously not how a reputation system should work.

And the fact that you promote 'flame wars' in the reputation system is laughable at best. Engaging in flame wars anywhere else than the subforum dedicated for that is against the rules, correct me if I'm wrong? Why is it any different from the reputation system?

As far as flaming having uses, then perhaps flaming should be allowed everywhere? I fail to see how berating someone has any use, if you feel the need to get dramatically angry at someone from tension; perhaps it's time to check into anger management.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

Well, why won't you post with your original name? Why do you use Anonymous? It's not like you can't use your own name.

---

Because thats against the forum's etiquette, and it's also technically impossible for KC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capricorn

How does that in any way relate to the discussion at hand? Sounds like you're just taking hits at Harry the way you worded that.

I don't really care though, because a pretty decent amount of the community thinks the reason they get derepped is bullshit. Getting derepped because your opinion differs from someone else is dumb, and obviously not how a reputation system should work.

And the fact that you promote 'flame wars' in the reputation system is laughable at best. Engaging in flame wars anywhere else than the subforum dedicated for that is against the rules, correct me if I'm wrong? Why is it any different from the reputation system?

As far as flaming having uses, then perhaps flaming should be allowed everywhere? I fail to see how berating someone has any use, if you feel the need to get dramatically angry at someone from tension; perhaps it's time to check into anger management.

---

I don't think I stated that I think the reputation system serves a flaming purpose. Someone hinted that it leads to flame wars, I simply don't have a problem with it leading to flame wars. As for the rest of your post, do you really expect me to reply to something like ``Perhaps just allow flamewars everywhere''?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capricorn

Getting derepped because your opinion differs from someone else is dumb, and obviously not how a reputation system should work.

---

I agree with this.

What is the purpose of de-repping ?
Why do we need it ?
If you have a problem with someone sort it out or report them ? Depending on what they have done.
I just don't see any point in it at all tbh.
Rep+ on the other hand is nice to see and makes me happy when I get it.
Why would you create something that only has the intention of being bad/negative ?

What comes to mind now is completely disabling reputation for everyone. It is being abused still. The system doesn't work anyway, some people have a reputation power of 20(!), which allows them to give anyone a reputation ball in about two positive reputations. In other words, the reputation power of a few people who abused the system in the past (by constantly repping each other) far exceeds the power of 10 other individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

What comes to mind now is completely disabling reputation for everyone. It is being abused still. The system doesn't work anyway, some people have a reputation power of 20(!), which allows them to give anyone a reputation ball in about two positive reputations. In other words, the reputation power of a few people who abused the system in the past (by constantly repping each other) far exceeds the power of 10 other individuals.

---

Why not remove the reputation system all together? It would end these kind of argumentative threads, and no more complaining on people being "flame rep'd" or abusing said system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

What comes to mind now is completely disabling reputation for everyone. It is being abused still. The system doesn't work anyway, some people have a reputation power of 20(!), which allows them to give anyone a reputation ball in about two positive reputations. In other words, the reputation power of a few people who abused the system in the past (by constantly repping each other) far exceeds the power of 10 other individuals.

---

I'm extremely against this.

As for my self if I give some rep to someone for good work I will add "~Home" in the end.

And it feels good to get some reputation of your work / help.

Like I said, I'm against this.

~Home

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Troll

Poeple should be able to see who is saying what about them :)

---

There are posts and PMs for that - If you want to rep someone and have them know, you can always just sign ur rep comment..

Needless to say that if you're getting derepped, there mightve just been something wrong in the past and rep doesn't really affect much... so yeh sure, use it as a flame weapon all you want as long as it stays polite flaming.

"I didnt like your post and this idea has been discussed over and over again"

But I'd disagree with fully disabling it.. I still hope it might fulfil some relative goal in the future.

~RM

Regulation does not always benefit society. I'm against removing the system all together, but there is no real benefit to showing people who contribted rep. If youre really that disappointed about de repping then don't check your rep and get it disabled. I agree with Home.

I disabled my reputation, and I still can see if someone gives me reputation. Its nice to know who has repped you, and I'm still in favor of showing the giver.

I don't really care tho I'd like to see the names of people who up repped me =)

Don't think I've been derepped yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dgby714

I don't really care tho I'd like to see the names of people who up repped me =)

Don't think I've been derepped yet.

---

Well we'll have to do something about that, now won't we? :stirthepot:

Anyways, why does this topic keep straying away from the original proposal? I don't think anyone was suggesting removing de-rep or reputation as a whole, the topic is not about that, it's actually a very simple request, show who changed your reputation. No, there's no read advantage nor disadvantage to implanting this, so there's absolutely no reason to argue here, we're just implying it would be a nice feature to have.

I use rep to try and give people that extra push to say "keep going, you're almost there." For those, I don't feel the need to use any tagging of names or the like. Sometimes you just want to give people the idea.

Other times, if its a personal one, I will rep with the ~n2 that many of you have seen.

I like having the option, and for those who are complaining about it, what would change if you did know? You would flame people more? Doesn't sound like a great plan for anyone.

Look at the reason you got a negative rep, if it is for a reason you feel is extremely unjustified, or someone is flaming.. report it! That's why we have the system. Let staff do their jobs. I'm sure there are justifications in place that we are not aware of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

I'm inclined to post my facepalm picture again. I don't know what made you think I'm that much against opening reputation? I just posted my opinion and was curious as to Harry's reasoning.

---

Sorry, judging by your previous post it appeared as if you were against the idea of making the forum reputation system public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

Do you truly believe this? You need a lecture on psychology.

---

While it is true that just a forum username does provide the person staring into the screen some anonymity, they'll also take into account their online reputation and would not want to diminish it for such a silly and stupid opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wizzup?

What comes to mind now is completely disabling reputation for everyone.

---

Or, just disable negative reputation? To be honest, there isn't a real point in it. If a post is against the forum rules, users should report it. It shouldn't really be used as an avenue to express their views on an individuals post and thoughts... anonymously. Things such as that should be done via the PM system (not in the post, to prevent spam).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nava2

I use rep to try and give people that extra push to say "keep going, you're almost there." For those, I don't feel the need to use any tagging of names or the like. Sometimes you just want to give people the idea.

---

I would say by adding ~n2 at the end would further encourage the individual. They're getting a thumbs up from someone with developer status! That means they've got to of done something good.

public or removed completely

Either keep it the way it is, or show names, but don't remove it. I find it slightly hilarious that harry suddenly cares about being flamed though, considering some of the IRC conversations I've seen.