Strange are the ways of Rep power!

[pgrmdave]

Oh save me, hypographers, and lead us away from the temptation to neg-rep people just for being assholes.

 

Actually, that's not a bad reason for neg-repping. A user's reputation on the site should be just that, a general idea of the kind of reputation that person has. If they are nice, helpful, respectful and all those good things, that person tends to have a higher reputation. If a person is rude, disrespectful, not following general rules of the site, not staying on topic, they tend to have a lower reputation. Nearly everybody has some good and some bad rep, but the more people who use the system, the more accurate it is. I try to give out a lot of rep, both positive and negative, to try and help keep the system accurate. Remember too that neg rep is NOT a general attack on a user, but a comment on a single post of that user. In that way it is VERY different from disrespect.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Actually, that's not a bad reason for neg-repping. A user's reputation on the site should be just that, a general idea of the kind of reputation that person has.

 

Yeah, I try not to neg-rep people for being an unintentional jackass, though.

 

I try to reserve it for forum trolls and people who make unprovoked personal attacks on others...

 

TFS

 

Addendum:

 

I just had the thought that REP is basically Hypography's way of enforcing orthodoxy. All communities have one of these, so it's not a bad thing, but I think it's an interesting system. Clown for instance got neg-repped for laughing at the WTC collapse. (As well he should.) I suspect I would have gotten neg-repped in the Global Warming thread if I'd called the "deniers" a "bunch of flat-earthers."

 

What's interesting about this is that the orthodoxy at Hypography is more open than most orthodoxies, and also, that's it's very, very, different. We don't tolerate bigots, crackpots, etc. I find that fascinating.

 

It's not necessarily because we neg-rep them either, but because they fail to be "repped." If I post 3,000 posts, all of which are about timecube or something, I'm unlikely to get much Rep for that, and I'll probably get frustrated an leave.

 

Fascinating, it's like an actual quantifiable scalar quantity for community standing.

[InfiniteNow]

I call it disrespect, and respect, respectively. Just my personal termonology, call it what you wish, but I am fairly sure we can understand each other's meaning as long as we keep the scope the same.

Though referring to the same thing, each term carries with it a particular connotation. By saying that someone "neg repped" you, it quickly implies that the user disagreed with some key aspect of your post and felt you were off base. To say that someone "disrespected" you implies that your post was not ever wrong, and the individual commenting is at fault. Huge difference. Despite what your "terminology" is, it's called rep.

 

 

Concidering that I generate allot more respect than I generate disrespect, I would generally think of that as an indicator of personal merit of methodology.

This is a skewed interpretation. As presented by other posters in this thread, it is more likely an indicator that folks prefer to compliment someone on this site than they do to negatively impact their status within the site's social construct.

 

The rest of your post is just tangential rationalization.

[TheBigDog]

Some people just seem to spawn more reaction than others. Some posts get repped and others don't. Sometimes I pour hours of work into a detailed post and while it generates conversation, it gets no rep. Then I will put in a one sentence joke some place and it will get repped repeatedly. Not that I mind :eek2:

 

I think it is a neat system. And provides a feeling validation about my contributions. I hope to leave the same feeling with those to whom I give rep.

 

Bill

[Boerseun]

We don't tolerate bigots...

Am I the only one seeing the irony here? :eek2:

[GAHD]

Yup, and for the record I like the red better, and 'infamous' just reads better ;)

[CraigD]

Rep doesn't pay the bills, put food on the table, or harm you physically or endanger your livelihood.

This astute observation brings to mind Cory Doctorow’s 2003 science fiction novel ”Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom” (free CCL download), in which something very similar to hypography’s rep system – “Whuffie” - is the only currency with which one can get anything beyond the bare essentials (which, in this vision of the 22 century, includes effective immortality).

 

IMHO, it’s apparent that the mundane world also has a rep system, It’s more difficult to measure, less well documented, not as easy to acquire, has a lot more axes, and, like rep/karma on multiple forums that one visits, one has several separate reputations with several different communities. There is also one credit score, which is a sort of reputation handed out by merchants and lenders, and which has a precisely calculable impact on some of you bills (eg: a mortgage).

 

Doctorow speculation that a single-axis rep, completely public rep scheme could completely supersede the current real world system is well presented, but I’ve no idea if such a thing will really come to pass, or when.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Tonight I learned that you can't neg-rep someone for something they say in a news post.

 

So someone got repped for being a jerk in the news.

 

Darn it.

 

TFS