[ANNOUNCEMENT] User Reputation

[Nightmare]

In our continual efforts to improve this site, the Mod and Admin team does quite a bit of digging into the capabilities of the vBulletin software. In doing so, we've noticed many functions that we are not using to their fullest extent. One of these is the "User Reputation" function - and we're planning a test run of the software over a six-week period.

To give you some idea of the purpose of this, we'll need to examine the structure of the membership of this site. As is obvious to even the newest site member, there are varying colors which represent different "levels" of membership - Member (blue), Adept (teal), Moderator (maroon), and Admin (red). There are others as well, but those are the exception, rather than the rule. The main group we'll focus on is the Adept group.

This has been a source of great dilemma for the site staff. On one hand, we love having a group of dedicated members with whom to discuss the workings of the site and gain input from a much smaller sample size than the entire site. On the other hand, maintaining such a group becomes difficult as people move in and out of interest in the format/game. It is, in no uncertain terms, a drama fest for us to effectively maintain a "club" where we recognize and reward those members who are supposed to have some skill at the format. Realistically, we're no better judges of this than you are - which is why the system is imperfect.

The User Reputation software is an attempt to democratize the Adept system. Here's how it works.

Everyone begins with a reputation level of 0. Your "goal" if that's what you want to call it, is to gain reputation level by writing posts which are of notable content. If you do so, one of the members who are able to vote (we'll get there in a second) can give you a reputation point for your efforts. If two members deem it a valued post, you could get two points, etc. Once you reach a certain number of reputation, your rep level improves, and you'll go from "Here to learn" to "Has a grasp on the format." Should you continue to make quality posts, you would move to "Is worth listening to." You would then be where our current Adepts are - you stand apart from the masses as someone of value in terms of post content.

In addition, once you reach that level, you would then be capable of voting for others' posts, as well.

The intent is for the cream to rise to the top - but at the same time, the sediment can fall to the bottom, as well. It is possible to be down-voted, as well, should you decide to contribute worthless or harmful posts. This can cause your reputation level to go from "here to learn" downward to "Needs improvement" or even further to "has nothing to contribute." Should you continue to post poorly, your reputation could reach the depths of "Radley." At that time, there would be strong consideration by the staff if your membership on the site should continue.

Please keep in mind that your post quality can change, and you can earn points, or lose them, based on any post you make - just because you've earned 100 points, doesn't mean you can't lose them again.

With that long-winded description out of the way, here's the plan. For the purposes of this trial run, we're going to manually assign reputation level to the current Adepts. This will allow them to vote for people over the next few weeks, and we'll see how this system performs. We'll use this time to work out any bugs we see, and nail down the options the way we want them. If, at the end of the six weeks, we like the system, we'll implement it permanently. If not, we chalk up the experiment and go back to how things are now.

As a pre-answer to some questions that might pop up, I'll say this; there are constraints in place to disallow anyone from spamming votes. You will have to earn your rep points, and you will find it difficult and tedious to up-vote your friends once you earn voting privileges.

Thanks for reading, and let us know if you have any thoughts. (Don't forget though, your posts are being watched... :tongue: )

[eq.firemind]

I guess changing reputation should be disabled for Mish-Mash and PC noob 'cause both tell nothing about your MtG and/or Legacy competence.

And it's always nice to see things change

[Nightmare]

I guess changing reputation should be disabled for Mish-Mash and PC noob 'cause both tell nothing about your MtG and/or Legacy competence.

And it's always nice to see things change

It will be when we fully implement it. It takes some coding to do that, at which I am garbage.

[Maveric78f]

Just the day when I rule wrong in the Card Interactions and Rulings...

I think it's a good addition to the forum even if everyone knows that democracy does not work. It will encourage people to make strong contributions and solid primers to their decks.

How can we check the reputation points of a member?

[Nightmare]

How can we check the reputation points of a member?
You can't. But the level they're at on the scale (which I've basically outlined) is located beneath their post count.

For example, my reputation level is "Staff." It has that string of green boxes. Yours is "Is here to learn - and help others learn." It's represented by the box beneath your post count. That string of boxes will vary depending on rep level.

[eq.firemind]

How can we check the reputation points of a member?
If I were mod/admin, I'd NEVER allow people to know the following 2 things:
1) The current rep points. (neither their own nor other people's number).
Grade A/B/-- is enough.
2) Who raised/lowed your reputation. Just because we all act like dicks from time to time and this will be another reason to do so. And because I've seen 'reputation wars' at some forums and that's absolutely fucking terrible shit.

<edit> Nightmare answered it all. </edit>

[Nightmare]

If I were mod/admin, I'd NEVER allow people to know the following 2 things:
1) The current rep points. (neither their own nor other people's number).
Grade A/B/-- is enough.
2) Who raised/lowed your reputation. Just because we all act like dicks from time to time and this will be another reason to do so. And because I've seen 'reputation wars' at some forums and that's absolutely fucking terrible shit.

Both of these are disabled. For good reason.

[Skeggi]

You can read your own. If you click the scales in one of your post you get something like the following message:

This post has not received any reputation. You currently have 10 reputation point(s).

[Maveric78f]

What is the exact scale of the points? Skeggi talks about having already 10 points. I myself have already 5 points. Is it possible that 5 different adepts gave me points in less than 1 hour? Or was it 5 points granted at once?

[Nightmare]

What is the exact scale of the points? Skeggi talks about having already 10 points. I myself have already 5 points. Is it possible that 5 different adepts gave me points in less than 1 hour? Or was it 5 points granted at once?

Admins' votes are 5 points.
Adepts' votes are 1 point.

For some strange reason, about half of the site's members start with 10 points, and half with 0. I've been attempting to solve this issue, to no avail. I'm going to continue to look into it, but ultimately it won't make a whole ton of difference.

The scales are as follows:

-100 = Radley
-50 = "Has Nothing to Contribute"
-10 = "Should Focus on Improving Post Quality"
0 = "Is Here to Learn - And Help Others Learn"
100 = "Has a Grasp On the Format"
250 = "Is Worth Listening To"

You can vote for others only at the highest level.

No, it is not easy to achieve that level. Nor should it be. It's not easy to become an Adept, either.

[AngryTroll]

I hate to disagree, but this feels kind of gimicky. Can't the quality of a post be determined by (in roughly this order)
1) The quality of the writing in the post,
2) The idea in the post,
3) The number of posts under the member's name,
4) The color of the poster, and
5) Common sense?

On the plus side, I suppose that this offers a way for new users to gain credibility faster than post count, and helps new users hone in on the members whose posts are worth reading.

[Nightmare]

On the plus side, I suppose that this offers a way for new users to gain credibility faster than post count, and helps new users hone in on the members whose posts are worth reading.

This is the real goal of this system. And the "different colors" isn't a particularly inclusive system. This is meant to be inherently inclusive, especially as time goes on and more people are able to vote. It also allows for negative reputation, which allows people who are not the greatest posters to be chastised without specific danger of being banned. It is, in effect, a way to spread the task of quality control around a bit more.

[Nihil Credo]

There are a few people with ginormous post counts I wouldn't trust to play preboard Belcher correctly. 1 and 2 will always remain dominant, but there is a distinct possibility for this new system to be more effective than 3, 4, and 5.

[Misplayer]

@Nightmare:
In the first post, you mentioned "maintaining such a group becomes difficult as people move in and out of interest in the format/game". Will members maintain their status even after a significant hiatus from the game?

[Nightmare]

@Nightmare:
In the first post, you mentioned "maintaining such a group becomes difficult as people move in and out of interest in the format/game". Will members maintain their status even after a significant hiatus from the game?

We'd like to say no - ie: there'd be a degenerative effect over time inactive - but we haven't found a good way to implement that yet. We're working on it.

[KillemallCFH]

I like it. It gives people a reason to improve their posting quality and doesn't really have any immediately noticeable downsides (aside from more effort from the staff, I suppose). If someone is really putting a lot of effort into being recognized, its nice to have something to look at instead of just guessing whether or not their efforts are being noticed.

[umbowta]

Cool. I'm always up for a new experiment. I will be interesting to see which of us the voting majority deems “Radley”. I do hope that the voting constraints are such that THE SOURCE doesn't devolve into a clique-based micro society reminiscent of high school. Also, I would hope that those with the ability, cast votes based on the strength of a post, not just because they agree with the post. Otherwise we risk mimicking the behavior of lemmings as we align ourselves with the status quo in order to get points.

[Aggro_zombies]

So, just out of curiosity, how do we keep this from turning into a popularity contest? You know, where the mediocre but really funny and likable members are "worth listening to," while the serious and thoughtful but perhaps less charismatic posters are only "here to learn"?

EDIT: It's perhaps better for new users to figure out for themselves who's worth listening to, as the sorts of people who automatically trust posters based on their reputation are probably not the ones with the critical thinking skills required to help develop the format.

[Bardo]

The User Reputation software is an attempt to democratize the Adept system.

I'm quoting this since it bears repeating.

The mods/admins have struggled with the system of Adepts (and overall user hierarchy) on this site for the past couple of years. We've considered a number of different alternatives which we need not get into here, but this is one approach we're trying. It's an experiment. If it sucks, we'll reassess; if it works, great.

[Nightmare]

So, just out of curiosity, how do we keep this from turning into a popularity contest? You know, where the mediocre but really funny and likable members are "worth listening to," while the serious and thoughtful but perhaps less charismatic posters are only "here to learn"?


By starting the process with people who are more than capable of distinguishing between the two. If we get in the habit of rewarding excellence, it breeds excellence. If we get in the habit of rewarding humor, we could all go to the fark.com boards instead of discussing Legacy.

[majikal]

I've seen systems like these degenerate pretty badly, but hopefully with the limitations you're putting in place this won't be such a futile attempt. It really comes down to the maturity level of the people with the power to vote, and I'd like to think that most of us wouldn't decrease someone's rep just out of spite, but you never know with Magic players. :eyebrow:

[Bardo]

It really comes down to the maturity level of the people with the power to vote, and I'd like to think that most of us wouldn't decrease someone's rep just out of spite...

Right! We're being optimistic on this point. :)

[Pastorofmuppets]

does this mean that we'll no longer have custom user titles?

[KillemallCFH]

does this mean that we'll no longer have custom user titles?The "Is here to learn," "is worth listening to," etc. titles can be seen by hovering your mouse over the user's reputation meter (in most of our cases, the little green square under our post count); I can only assume our custom user titles aren't going anywhere.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

It seems mastubatory and incestuous to suggest that only those who are worth listening to can decide what's worth listening to.

I'm for the experiment, but voting should be open to all members. Or all members that have a certain post count (say 50+) to counter gimmick accounts.

[The Wes]

I’d have to agree, it seems like the voting should be up to everyone over a certain post count (50 seems to work). If you want to go democratic, why limit who can vote? Only allowing the adepts to post seems a little elitist.

[Illissius]

elitist

Oh great, now you've done it.

[Aggro_zombies]

If you open voting to everybody, you'll end up with the scenario I described, where people will get reputation for "EPIC LULZ LOL XD!!!!1!!!ONE" in addition to serious Legacy discussion. Eventually what you'll end up with is a dual rating system that shows either how popular or how thoughtful you are.

Of course, something like that exists now. Even looking at the current Adepts, we've got Pinder on one end and people like 4eak on the other.

[Anusien]

Have you read Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_and_out_in_the_magic_kingdom)? See for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whuffie. It details this concept pretty well.

My suggestions:
A) Allow anyone to give reputation, but weight the reputation they give by their own reputation. Also, scale the reputation they give by how often they vote. Maybe this is too complicated, but it's sort of the way PGP key signing works. In other words, a person's reputation is the sum of the up/down votes they've gotten, scaled:
Reputation_Change_From_User = Modification (+/-) * User_Reputation/Max_Reputation / Number_Of_Reputation_Changes_They've_Made_Locally.
That's a complicated formula to do and maybe it's too much overhead. Something to consider though.

B) Allow anyone to see the number. There's a better sense of how you're doing that way. Everyone just cares about the number anyway, and it helps separate people who are on the cusp. I get the boxes idea, but people will probably just compare box numbers. So just show the #. EDIT: You can find your own reputation by clicking the http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/images/buttons/reputation.gif button at the bottom of your post near the Alert to Mods button.

Also, I strongly recommend reading Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. And it's Creative Commons Licensed, aka free.

For that matter, why is voting people up for "teh epic lulz!!!111" bad? I feel like it will happen anyway. More importantly, I think you should open voting to everyone because honestly, we all already sort of know each other. It's the members who haven't made a name for themselves who matter more. Take someone who spent a lot of effort in a thread to help teach newbies how a deck works, why not reward them for that effort by letting the people who they helped uprate them. Not every Adept sees every thread.

Also, if you want to try and end the elitism, you could strip the names off posts and copy them off somewhere to be voted on anonymously. I'm not sure if there's a way to automate this.

[Volt]

This whole thing is pretty trivial. However, if you're going to do it, then I agree that the ability to vote should be limited to a relatively select few, i.e. the Adepts and Moderators, even though the current group of Adepts was imperfectly selected. It will probably still be somewhat of a popularity contest, but not as bad as if you opened it up to everybody.

[Anusien]

This whole thing is pretty trivial. However, if you're going to do it, then I agree that the ability to vote should be limited to a relatively select few, i.e. the Adepts and Moderators, even though the current group of Adepts was imperfectly selected. It will probably still be somewhat of a popularity contest, but not as bad as if you opened it up to everybody.
I'm not picking on any current Adepts. But in theory, why do we expect people who were picked in a flawed fashion to be able to product useful results? Does Garbage In, Garbage Out not apply?

[Volt]

I'm not picking on any current Adepts. But in theory, why do we expect people who were picked in a flawed fashion to be able to product useful results? Does Garbage In, Garbage Out not apply?

Yes, GIGO applies. I guess what it comes down to is I trust that a larger percentage of the Adepts will be judicious about repping people, compared to the general public. Then again, maybe I'm being naive.

[Tacosnape]

Yes, GIGO applies. I guess what it comes down to is I trust that a larger percentage of the Adepts will be judicious about repping people, compared to the general public.

This. Some of the Adepts may be less than perfect, but letting absolutely anyone vote is a terrible idea. Trust me, I live in the United States.

[spirit of the wretch]

You can vote for others only at the highest level.


So maybe I got this all wrong but apparently I'm not in that group (which is a shame, but that's not the point), yet I seem to be able to vote for people. At least I have that funny little balance at every post. Might be because I have moderation rights in our team forum.
Chances are, you don't want a random guy to also have these powers, so I figured you should know.
Otherwise: Great idea.

[Raptor]

I have seen the green bar this morning and I thought I was just blind and that I have just never noticed that they existed.

I like the idea of this system, which could probally higher up the quality of some posts. I'm pretty fine with it as long as no one abuse it by powering their friends and such things.


P.s. I thought for a minute that "nightmare staff" was for the banhammer and how many users you've banned.

[Phoenix Ignition]

Hah Chinese Farmers are going to make a killing on this forum.

I'm not sure I like this. I can see someone getting voted down or just not voted "up" as much (not contributing as frequently as others, but making awesome posts like 4eak always does) being disregarded unnecessarily. Like, "He's just a 'Here to learn and help others learn' so he doesn't know as much as me!" happening.

Overal apathetic though.

[Ciberon]

Quote time.


To give you some idea of the purpose of this, we'll need to examine the structure of the membership of this site. As is obvious to even the newest site member, there are varying colors which represent different "levels" of membership - Member (blue), Adept (teal), Moderator (maroon), and Admin (red). There are others as well, but those are the exception, rather than the rule. The main group we'll focus on is the Adept group.

At first I need to ask. How good has it been for you to have an Adept group? Do you feel like having some people "labelled" Adept overall helps the forum?
The thing is that I don't know if all people were just members (aside from staff) the adepts wouldn't still have the impact they do.


This has been a source of great dilemma for the site staff. On one hand, we love having a group of dedicated members with whom to discuss the workings of the site and gain input from a much smaller sample size than the entire site. On the other hand, maintaining such a group becomes difficult as people move in and out of interest in the format/game. It is, in no uncertain terms, a drama fest for us to effectively maintain a "club" where we recognize and reward those members who are supposed to have some skill at the format. Realistically, we're no better judges of this than you are - which is why the system is imperfect.

From what I figured out by just reading the thread here, the new system doesn't fix the "people come and go" problem because reputation wouldn't change unless you post. An Adept by the new system would still be an adept now matter how much time he or she refrains from posting.

Sorry for the imperfect english. I hope it was understandable.

[dahcmai]

Interesting idea, sounds like it's worth a shot. At the worst, you only have to disable it and go back to the adept system or come up with something else.

Maybe people will think before they post grammatical horrors now. Less flaming and drama might be a nice bonus.

[Illissius]

stuff

I think the limitation here is things vbulletin lets you do without mucking around in the code.

[Digital Devil]

Pretty good idea. The only problem I see with this method is that if those who have the decision power to vote (or down-vote) simply aren't interested into reading a given thread, they're not rising the thoughtful poster's points, even if he/she made an insightful post about a specific situation/case. For example, if a player creates a powerful and innovative deck in the N&D forum, but no one except for "is here to learn/help others learn" people is interested in the thread, the poster isn't receiving the feedback it should have. Of course granting the right to vote to all members is insane, but at least there should be some way to decide ab ovo who is worthy of our attention, and of course of higher rank people's (adept's/admin's/moderator's) attention.

[Aggro_zombies]

Pretty good idea. The only problem I see with this method is that if those who have the decision power to vote (or down-vote) simply aren't interested into reading a given thread, they're not rising the thoughtful poster's points, even if he/she made an insightful post about a specific situation/case. For example, if a player creates a powerful and innovative deck in the N&D forum, but no one except for "is here to learn/help others learn" people is interested in the thread, the poster isn't receiving the feedback it should have. Of course granting the right to vote to all members is insane, but at least there should be some way to decide ab ovo who is worthy of our attention, and of course of higher rank people's (adept's/admin's/moderator's) attention.
This happens already, except without popularity polls added. Most users I know of stay out of that forum because it's usually pretty bad: "Hey, here's this deck I haven't tested and which can't beat lots of stuff, what do you guys think lol?"

Actually, I take that back. I visit that forum on my way to the EDH subforum.

EDIT: Do the boxes change color as you get points or something? Some have green boxes and some have blue-gray ones, so I'm assuming that's the case.

[Otter]

On one hand, we love having a group of dedicated members with whom to discuss the workings of the site and gain input from a much smaller sample size than the entire site.

Is that really so valuable? This new system seems like a lot of effort for it. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just keep in touch with a couple of helpful folks via PM/MSN/AIM/whatever? I know that I don't speak for everyone, but from my own perspective as a member, the adepts have never mattered for me. I haven't had trouble figuring out who is and isn't an intelligent poster just by reading their posts. I don't have a problem with the reputation system, but I'm not seeing much reason to care either.

[Volt]

Is that really so valuable? This new system seems like a lot of effort for it. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just keep in touch with a couple of helpful folks via PM/MSN/AIM/whatever? I know that I don't speak for everyone, but from my own perspective as a member, the adepts have never mattered for me. I haven't had trouble figuring out who is and isn't an intelligent poster just by reading their posts. I don't have a problem with the reputation system, but I'm not seeing much reason to care either.

No, it isn't particularly valuable. Basically, they're trying to figure out a better way of determining who gets access to the secret "Adepts Lounge" where they talk crap about the people who didn't make the cut. Oh, and some other stuff, but mostly that. Like I said before, the whole thing is pretty trivial.

[Bardo]

Mostly it's a place to post funny pics and whine about moderation.

[cdr]

And talk crap about the people who didn't make the cut.

[Illissius]

Not to mention the endless elitist threads about how amazing we all are and how much everyone else just sucks. It's awesome.

Also:


The only problem I see with this method is that if those who have the decision power to vote (or down-vote) simply aren't interested into reading a given thread, they're not rising the thoughtful poster's points, even if he/she made an insightful post about a specific situation/case. For example, if a player creates a powerful and innovative deck in the N&D forum, but no one except for "is here to learn/help others learn" people is interested in the thread, the poster isn't receiving the feedback it should have.

Is your problem here that Adepts can't recognize a good deck when they see one, or that good posts in bad threads will tend to go unnoticed?

[Volt]

See. I knew it.

[LegacyDan]

So what exactly does this system mean to those of us who post once every couple of weeks? ie: Lurkers and whatnot

[FoulQ]

I think the better example for Digital Devil's isn't N&D, but just random threads in DTB and established. For example, not many adepts post in the goblins thread because the deck doesn't have the complexity of say, countertop. The same could be said for a deck like zoo: there are lots of good things and good posts being made in the thread, but because it experiences less adept traffic, the numbers will be skewed.

But there is no perfect system if the goal is to create a club of elitists. This is probably the best way to go about it. I do think this will help improve post quality for some people, which is a great thing. There has been a general decline in posting quality ever since around the time of my joining because of a large influx of new members which means a lot more posts from a lot more people unfamiliar with the format. I'm also looking forward to improved grammar, because everyone should use english as their first language, as America is the most important country in the world.

[n00bas4urus_r3x]

Not to mention the endless elitist threads about how amazing we all are and how much everyone else just sucks. It's awesome.


We need someone to leak this list. Names need to be named. Where's GreenMycon when you need him...

[Aggro_zombies]

I'm also looking forward to improved grammar, because everyone should use english as their first language, as America is the most important country in the world.
It's funny that you say this, because the people with some of the best English on this site actually only speak it as a second language.


We need someone to leak this list. Names need to be named. Where's GreenMycon when you need him...
Wasn't he that one former admin/mod who got banned and then had his account deleted by P_R? I remember him being an enormous douchebag (Mycon, not Rotten).

[Goaswerfraiejen]

So what exactly does this system mean to those of us who post once every couple of weeks? ie: Lurkers and whatnot

We continue on much as before, posting when it seems important and keeping silent otherwise. I think that modus operandi speaks volumes more about your contributions anyway, so no doubt you'll accrue some rep power over time.

[Meekrab]

This. Some of the Adepts may be less than perfect, but letting absolutely anyone vote is a terrible idea. Trust me, I live in the United States.
If I had rep points to give, you would have just won all of them forever.

[xsockmonkeyx]

How will you determine if the system is working properly?

[Bardo]

How will you determine if the system is working properly?

Good question. I think we're using the "is it porn?" test (aka Justice Potter Stewart).

[wmagzoo7]

Just a suggestion, but I have seen the rep system work on other sites and thought I'd share what I know works. What the site (Gamebattles) did was start each person with 10 Rep points, and give them an extra green rep square at specific milestones in the number of positive reps they had accumulated. In this system each person was allowed to give someone a positive or negative reputation thus adjusting their total and possibly the number of rep bars they had. The twist was that based on how much rep you currently had the person who you gave either positive or negative reputation would be effected. I'm not sure the specifics of the system but I can if anyone is interested, because it worked but did create repwhoring which was a pain since people would send spam messages to people with high rep counts so that they could "rep boost" which probably would never happen here since this site is much more mature than that one could ever hope to be.

[sunshine]

I like the idea (although I can't say I've ever given any weight to the color of a user's name), I'm a little suspect of the "only current adepts start with voting privilages" bit as it seems like a potentially degenerate/self-serving policy - but I guess you have to start somewhere. The alternative of just letting anyone vote seems even worse...

[Forbiddian]

Is your problem here that Adepts can't recognize a good deck when they see one, or that good posts in bad threads will tend to go unnoticed?

BAM! Also, will obviously devolve into a popularity contest and not about the actual posting quality. Who will police the police, etc. etc.

AHAHAH, I was already downthumbed for something. I checked all my posts from the last few days and none of them got downthumbed, so looks like someone thumbed a random post. Anyway, someone thumb this post down, cause I want to see if the records are accurate.

Ask and ye shall receiveth. - Tre Bardery

Edit - Heh. :)

[xsockmonkeyx]

HAHAH, I was already downthumbed for something. I checked all my posts from the last few days and none of them got downthumbed, so looks like someone thumbed a random post. Anyway, someone thumb this post down, cause I want to see if the records are accurate.

@Bardo: this is already looking a lot like "porn".

[TooCloseToTheSun]

It is the Hawthorn Effect, except on the source.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

Has anyone formulated a solid argument for why voting should only be open to those who voters determine are worthy of voting, and why this isn't incestuous masturbation yet?

[clavio]

Why is mine grey?

Merry Christmas. - Bardo

[Jak]

I would definitely not open this up to everyone. It just seems like too many people would try to abuse it or something. I would much rather have a select few who have been adepts do it.

It would be nice if the voters couldn't vote for themselves, though. I don't know if that was an option.

[TooCloseToTheSun]

Why is mine grey?

Because you have no points

[Meister_Kai]

Just my 2 cents, but I think this is sort of silly.

Sure it will invariably turn into an Adept jerk off, or at worse a one-liner popularity contest, but that doesn't really matter. Thats all things like the Adept program ever has been anyway. Now I don't know exactly what constitutes the Adept forum, but I like to think of it a lot like Starcitygames premium: its all stuff you can find for free on this site, just said by another person who may or may not have more or less "rep". Just because 10 Adepts who thumb up someone who is wrong doesn't make that person right. Theorycraft. Enough said.

That said, if you look at the majority of tournament reports written to this very site, not very many at all are by "Adepts". It seems to me (I could be very wrong) the the thing most Adepts have in common is a high post count along with knowing each other IRL. Magic player cliques are mostly very immature, and are very hard to break into. If someone wants to "prove" themselves to become an Adept, I think it could be a gigantic hurdle unless that person knows other Adepts IRL or is a witty troll who knows how to use deceptive "formal debate" tactics to "win" any argument they get into.

As far as "Adepts" knowing what is/isn't a good post/card/deck that is all almost absurdly subjective IMO. For instance, in the Wayfarer Tempo thread (haha) the deckbuilders argued with various individuals about card choices that these individuals thought where bad, only to be mostly put in their place by the deck getting 2 top 8's in a row. I understand why the two creators of the deck can be dicks about stuff some of the time, they borderline deserve to be. It must feel great having everyone question everything without trying and then making them look like fools once you succeed.

Is there really any "secret tech" going on at all in the Adept forums? I personally don't think so. It doesn't seem to be anything but a place for the "well respected" among us to sit and chat about god knows what. If it was up to me, post count wouldn't even be visible. Nor would how long you've been here. It shouldn't matter.

[heroicraptor]

I would definitely not open this up to everyone. It just seems like too many people would try to abuse it or something. I would much rather have a select few who have been adepts do it.

It would be nice if the voters couldn't vote for themselves, though. I don't know if that was an option.

It seems unlikely that you can vote for yourself, and if the default software is like that, it seems equally unlikely that that bit won't be changed.

[THEchubbymuffin]

Though nobody cares about my opinion, I will state it.

Personally I like this idea as it will give extra points to those that post really in depth responses instead of.... Decklist, Go. But at the same time I feel as if this will just become another post count like thing.

I don't really give a shit though as long as people use proper capitalization and type in full words and sentences. That's all I care about.

Edit: This may make tournament reports more popular because that seems to be a good way to get rep points. So I now think this is a plus. I mean even if you come in 70th out of 100, as long as you throw in some pictures and talk about how you got BBQ wings at Wendy's prior to the tourney, it's worth the read.

[Parcher]

12:37 am, January 14th 2010. Jack Elgin gets banned yet again.


What was it this time?

[Bardo]

He insulted your mom. Wasn't pretty.

(Also, it nothing to do with this thread; let's leave it that.)

[Sanguine Voyeur]

From what I've seen, when there are reputation systems, a few things are likely to happen.

People will whore themselves out for the meager validation +rep brings them, the community will become more closed to newer members, or something involving ad hominem and the tyranny of the majority.

[heroicraptor]

You guys could also only enable rep to be given out to posts posted in the on-topic Legacy forums + the Card Rulings forum.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

From what I've seen, when there are reputation systems, a few things are likely to happen.

People will whore themselves out for the meager validation +rep brings them, the community will become more closed to newer members, or something involving ad hominem and the tyranny of the majority.

The only forum where I saw it implemented was the Malazanempire forum, and it seemed to work well enough there: whoever posted something others found particularly insightful got rep, and their comments tended to be taken more seriously when it came to reading recommendations or plot conjecture for other novels. IIRC, however, they also had the option of giving out negative rep. Mostly, the rep was just for fun. There was no degeneration that I could see, but part of that might well just be the nature of the forum: it dealt primarily with literature, and supported some relatively serious discussions on current events. Magic might not mesh quite as well with a rep system. We'll just see.

[Forbiddian]

Hahah, some guy thumbed me up. Hope it was a misclick.

Anyway, I want to try to be in the "Regarded as Retarded" club (whatever the title is called). So if you see any of my posts, thumb it down. I want to see as many red bars as possible! I doubt many other people will go for three+ red bars, so it'd be cool.

Actually, it'd save me some trolling -- Bardo, can you just set my rating to like -1000 or something? If not, I'll just do it the hard way: just thumb everything down, someday I'll get there.



Incidentally, the first experimental results: you can see the thumb down/up history for each post. I thought it wasn't working because I had a hidden thumb down to -1.

The system would probably be much better if you could review which of your posts got upped or downed, so that people who care could try to cater their posts to please the majority, but I think if these changes actually DO anything, that'd be all that they do.


EDIT: Bardo, I don't think your minus hit me. I'm still at -6. Maybe because you disabled your rep? It just said "Contrarian" and you gave me a grey card. I want my red bars!

[Digital Devil]

Is your problem here that Adepts can't recognize a good deck when they see one, or that good posts in bad threads will tend to go unnoticed?
For example, not many adepts post in the goblins thread because the deck doesn't have the complexity of say, countertop. The same could be said for a deck like zoo: there are lots of good things and good posts being made in the thread, but because it experiences less adept traffic, the numbers will be skewed.
FoulQ got the point. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[eq.firemind]

Anyway, I want to try to be in the "Regarded as Retarded" club (whatever the title is called). So if you see any of my posts, thumb it down. I want to see as many red bars as possible! I doubt many other people will go for three+ red bars, so it'd be cool.
So the popularity contest begins...

And I think you should manually give some non-adepts the 4 green bars.
For Example, HungryLIKEaLion (from what I've read in Zoo thread)
Or Finn (for Merfolk and DnT)
There are some other people who are clearly worth listening to and they are no adepts. IMHO if you'll do this right way, the problem with non-popular threads will be at least partially solved...

[MMogg]

I think the bottom line question is will this initiative increase the post quality on this site? One problem is "quality" is subjective. Sometimes I read one short paragraph replies to deck questions that are concise and full of gold, whereas other times there are page-length posts that are essentially vacuous and could be summed up in a brief sentence or two.

I guess the questions each and every person could ask themselves are: Will you make any effort to improve the quality of your posts because of this reputation system? Would you make the same or less effort if everyone could vote as opposed to only adepts?

[jazzykat]

If you are on this site for any length of time you get to know certain names and you already have an impression of wether they are going to post something useful to you or not before reading it.

I do not understand why so many people seem to be up in arms over this. It is a method to help new members identify individuals who have historically contributed useful information.

[Versus]

I hope this doesn't start me off in the negative, but I thought I would voice my opinion. I may not be the most active member here, but I am a member and proud to be so.

One of the reasons I so much liked being a member here was the non-bullshit factor you always employed. In my opinion, "rep" and ratings systems are a major part of this factor and one of the reasons so many forums turn into pissing matches and power trips amongst its members. Next thing you know you'll need 500 posts to have a 50x50 avatar, 1000 for 80x80, ect. I always felt that The Source were above this. Perhaps the members here are as well and my concerns are unfounded.

On the other hand, I can't say that I post here very often as I really don't have a lot of time to dedicate to the game these days. Truth be told, even when I did, I didn't have much to contribute. In all honesty, I'm not really that skilled a player and most likely never will be. However, while I may be lacking in the Legacy department, I consider myself capable of recognizing who to listen to and not to listen to simply by their posts alone. Nihil, Nightmare, Finn, Eldariel, Infamousbearassassin, ect, don't need multiple green bars under their names to retain credibility, they just have it. They've earned it.

That being said, I still enjoy coming here on a daily basis simply to stay in the loop. When I have something to say, I say it. I certainly don't want to log in a few days/weeks/months down the road only to find my account has been deleted because I wasn't around to gain "cream" points.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this system. If so, I apologize. I completely understand if you want to make this the kind of site where only people totally dedicated to the format can discuss it and help it to grow. Maybe jerks like me that have more questions than answers should just move on to the lowly WoTC boards or equivalent? I hope that's not the case here.

[Nightmare]

I don't understand that reaction to this at all...

[Versus]

I don't understand that reaction to this at all...

Probably an overeation, I'm sure. I'm good for that. It simply reminds me of something you'd see on lesser board with a bunch of kids thinking they did something e-mazing then asking for rep because of it. Again, I like to think the folks here are above such nonsense, but still, why leave the keys in the car and doors unlocked?

No big deal. I should have just kept my mouth shut. Like I said, it doesn't really affect me either way. I just wanted to speak up about how I felt.

[Nightmare]

I'll say this much - Asking for rep is about the fastest possible way to ensure you won't get it. Just like griping for Adepthood is a pretty surefire way to ensure you won't get it.

[Forbiddian]

I'll say this much - Asking for rep is about the fastest possible way to ensure you won't get it. Just like griping for Adepthood is a pretty surefire way to ensure you won't get it.

I asked for negative rep and I got it.


Also, thumb this down, someone thumbed up some of my shit yesterday.

[Jak]

People, nothing changes. The only thing this is supposed to accomplish is helping newer people understand who to listen to. This doesn't affect 95% of the people who come on the boards. The other 5% can use this to know not to listen to a Cavius or Radley or at least not take them as serious as someone like 4eak or Nihil.

And asking to get thumbed down is the most attention whoring I have seen in a while. It's annoying now.

[Aggro_zombies]

And asking to get thumbed down is the most attention whoring I have seen in a while. It's annoying now.
You should give him -rep for being an attention whore.

[clavio]

Why did Bear Assassin get banned?

[Nightmare]

Why did Bear Assassin get banned?

Has nothing to do with this at all. He got three warnings. Those are the rules.

[dahcmai]

Well, in all reality, this will probably work out just fine. I plan to ignore it for the most part. Though I would ask a favor. If one of you marks a post up or down, give a reason why if you would. A PM or even editing the post if need be would be acceptable.

Reason being is it would be nice to know why something was stupid enough to garner that reaction or on the other hand, good enough to warrant the "you gets a star" for something.

I just would be annoyed if I got a mark for either direction if I had no clue what it was for. I'm sure I'm not alone in that assessment.

[Forbiddian]

You should give him -rep for being an attention whore.

:D

[frogboy]

Put very simply, the mods would like a way for good posters to be recognized. The mods also have very little tolerance for bullshit and drama; rest assured that anyone spamming "rep me!" or similar nonsense will get themselves a vacation from the site for a while.

[Nihil Credo]

Also, trick: if you don't want to see any reputation bar for whatever reason, install AdBlock or equivalent software and block http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/images/reputation/*

[beastman]

You should give him -rep for being an attention whore.

+1

[Maveric78f]

What are the rating options for an adept?

When I clicked on a post I made, I've seen green boxes, one with N/A, probably meaning that the adept enjoyed the post (thumb up) but did not comment it and another with a full comment.

But the most surprising reward I got is on the primer I've just done online, I had a grey box with a N/A comment. I suppose it's neither positive (green) nor negative (red), so what is it supposed to mean?

[Zilla]

I certainly don't want to log in a few days/weeks/months down the road only to find my account has been deleted because I wasn't around to gain "cream" points.
We don't delete accounts ever, except at the explicit request of that account's owner. Long periods of inactivity will never cause you to lose access to this site.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding this system. If so, I apologize. I completely understand if you want to make this the kind of site where only people totally dedicated to the format can discuss it and help it to grow. Maybe jerks like me that have more questions than answers should just move on to the lowly WoTC boards or equivalent? I hope that's not the case here.
You're misunderstanding, yes. It is, unfortunately, a popularity contest to some degree. Any system like it is going to be inherently. We can only hope that popularity in this case is determined by site contribution.

That said, reputation will never cause you to lose access to this site, even if it's in the high negatives. It will never make it okay to insult you. It will never give you special privileges like larger avatars. The one exception is membership in the Adept group. If your dedication to the site and the format is deemed by enough other members to be of high enough quality, then you will be promoted to an Adept. All this really means is that your name is in Teal, and you have access to a forum where the Adepts basically shoot the shit. There is very little discussion of "sekrit tech" there. The mod staff will often run proposed site changes past the Adepts before implementing them on the site to get their feedback. That's about it.

The reputation system is a way to (ostensibly) bring greater democracy to the system we use for promotion of Adepts. Right now, we use a system of nomination by an existing Adept, followed by a majority rules vote on the candidate.

Remember that the reputation system is an experiment. If we deem that it's causing too much drama or problems, it will be given the axe. I hope this addresses some of your concerns.

[LegacyDan]

We continue on much as before, posting when it seems important and keeping silent otherwise. I think that modus operandi speaks volumes more about your contributions anyway, so no doubt you'll accrue some rep power over time.

Excellent, I really don't want to have my "rep" harmed just because I don't post something every seventeen minutes. Thanks.

[rocketrae21]

I really like this idea. It lets people know who actually understands whats going on. I will talk to my teammates and I can trust them, but on this site, its hard to decide who knows what they are talking about. I have talked to Nightmare in person, and know that he really understands legacy and vintage, but if I had no clue, that he was in fact Nightmare, why would I think he knows anything on the source? I hope it works out and everything as well.

[Forbiddian]

Can't people tell if something is true or false based on the statement itself and not who said it?

"Oh, this is so great, it will help users be able to determine which statements are correct and which are incorrect without having to bother to think, instead going on the past popularity of the poster!"

The system is really fun so far (I hope that the system continues and that people continue to use it), but how dumb are you if you read something and can't tell if what you read makes sense?

[Phoenix Ignition]

Can't people tell if something is true or false based on the statement itself and not who said it?
Some people disregard things people say to the point of ignoring them, not based off of their suggestions but based on who they are.

Not that this system does anything at all to make that better.

Also, can we have those circle things under our post count be hearts from Legend of Zelda or something fun like that? That'd be cool.

[paK0]

Also, can we have those circle things under our post count be hearts from Legend of Zelda or something fun like that? That'd be cool.


That would be f*ckin awesome.

Anyways, I've seen this system in another Forum and at least it didn't seem like it caused problems.

I'm however really sceptical wheater it will change anything. But I guess we will see.

[jazzykat]

One last idea. Can it be made public perhaps monthly (by running a report on the bb/db software) to state who has been promoted to a higher member status. This way everyone can see who has been recently recognized.

[Aleksandr]

Can Forbiddian get his green square please?
It's a bit annoying that he is the only member with negative reputation.* I also don't remember that he wrote anything stupid.

* At least I don't know any other. Not that I visit Radley.com or something like that.

[MMogg]

Can Forbiddian get his green square please?
It's a bit annoying that he is the only member with negative reputation.* I also don't remember that he wrote anything stupid.

* At least I don't know any other. Not that I visit Radley.com or something like that.


I asked for negative rep and I got it.

[Forbiddian]

Can Forbiddian get his green square please?
It's a bit annoying that he is the only member with negative reputation.* I also don't remember that he wrote anything stupid.

* At least I don't know any other. Not that I visit Radley.com or something like that.

Omg, this was your doing?


Give me my red square back. I started with it and dammit I'm going to keep it.

[Forbiddian]

Can Forbiddian get his green square please?
It's a bit annoying that he is the only member with negative reputation.* I also don't remember that he wrote anything stupid.

* At least I don't know any other. Not that I visit Radley.com or something like that.

Omg, this was your doing? Here I was thinking someone liked one of my random contentless posts and was wondering what the hell that person was smoking.

But my rating didn't move -- at all -- since the first two days of this rating system until today. I'm not sure if people just couldn't rate me because of multiple rating blocks or w/e, but it seems like nobody is using the rating system, and that it's more or less useless due to inactivity.


I think it'd be kinda fun if rating were opened up to everyone (and then it wouldn't be used to select Adepts, it would just be a pissing contest). At least people would be rating each other.

I'm not sure what's administratively possible, but some restrictions like: You have to have 20+ posts to rate anyone or be rated (stops smurfs), you can only rate one post per day (or like 3 posts a week or something), and you can only rate the same person's posts once a month.

[Kuma]

I think it'd be kinda fun if rating were opened up to everyone. At least people would be rating each other.

I'm not sure what's administratively possible, but some restrictions like: You have to have 20+ posts to rate anyone or be rated (stops smurfs), you can only rate one post per day (or like 3 posts a week or something), and you can only rate the same person's posts once a month.

I agree with this. As far as I can tell, the reputation system is barely being used. What is the highest non-adept reputation score anyway? Things will shake out a lot quicker if reputation is opened to the masses. And hey, it would be a blast.

[Aleksandr]

Omg, this was your doing? Here I was thinking someone liked one of my random contentless posts and was wondering what the hell that person was smoking.



I like your posts, that's why I asked about your negrep. Sorry for that.. :smile:

[SpikeyMikey]

FoulQ got the point. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

You know, it's not every day you get to work that line into a conversation. I was going to try and find a way to do it myself, since I've alwaysed loved that phrase, but since you beat me to the punch, I'll just let it go.

I'll keep this brief, since I'm writing from my BB. Most of you have the wrong idea when you're evaluating this system. The question isn't "is this system perfect?", it's "is this system measurably better than the current system?" The answer to that is a resounding yes. As it is now, adepts are chosen by admin, mods and adepts. Under the new system, adepts are chosen by admin, mods and adepts but instead of vague, "I feel this guy has a good grip on the format" recommendations, you now can follow the trail of evidence. "Here, here and here, this guy said something poignant and insightful." It is a direct improvement over the old system, and as such, if the mods want to spend the extra time implementing and tweaking the system, then it will only be to our benefit.

I used to think that things like this didn't matter. I used to think that modding was generally a pointless position for geeks that wanted useless power. But look at the difference between the Legacy forums here and anywhere else. This is the Lexus of Legacy sites. And it's not because we just generally have a higher class of posters, because the idiots realize that this is the cream of the crop and they post here too, because they want to be seen as good. It's because of the little behind the scenes stuff that you don't see or think about. These little things add up. I'll probably come back and flesh this out later when I'm at my computer, but hopefully I've made my point.

TLDR version: good idea, keep up the good work guys!

[Bardo]

I used to think that things like this didn't matter. I used to think that modding was generally a pointless position for geeks that wanted useless power.

For the most part, it's a thankless job and quite a bit of work. I can't speak for other sites, but I believe all of the mods here do it as a community service for the betterment of the format.

Also, +1 rep to you for a cogent and thoughtful post.

[AngryTroll]

Now that this system has been in place for a while, does anyone actually think the User Reputation function is a valuable addition to the site?

I haven't noticed anyone advance beyond where they started, which makes the system redundant with the name colors (I've probably missed a person or two, but certainly not many people). I'm pretty unimpressed with the whole Reputation function, although I understand why it was tried. Do other people find it helpful or useful? Am I alone in disliking it?

[Nihil Credo]

The function IS being used, but apparently the numeric values were set a little too safe and it's harder than expected to see one's status change. We've been discussing giving it some tweaks it in the mod forum.

[DrJones]

I usually try to help people and give advice about deckbuilding and rules questions, but after some months I think I got once a +1 reputation point for giving (a very) accurate info of what the GP Madrid field was going to be, and then lost 5 shortly thereafter for a single thoughtful post about Force of Will that someone dismissed as trolling.

I don't think the system works because it seems to greatly punish people for sustaining unpopular opinions, no matter how well behaved and reasoned they can be, and I feel that people will stop listening to the advice I can give about deckbuilding just because a person disagreed with me in a discussion about game balance, when one has nothing to do with the other. And while I can apologize for occasional, unintended bad behavior, it seems the kharma system leaves you marked forever, discouraging further participation.

I also think that opening the system to the general population will only make this effect worse. As a general rule, people don't give feedback to well-thought posts, but to the ones they agree/disagree with (no matter how wrong they might be). Also, people give more feedback to the first posts in a thread and to the ones that already got feedback, which is stupidly easy to abuse (I did it as a test in a japanese studying page once and got over sixty votes in one day, before deleting the post).

[pi4meterftw]

The function IS being used, but apparently the numeric values were set a little too safe and it's harder than expected to see one's status change. We've been discussing giving it some tweaks it in the mod forum.

It's not that hard. I wanted to get to 'Has nothing to contribute' from +10, which corresponds to needing -21. I was able to get it without any trouble in like 2 months. Presumably, people who kiss up enough can run in reverse in about the same time.

[Peter_Rotten]

It's not that hard. I wanted to get to 'Has nothing to contribute' from +10, which corresponds to needing -21. I was able to get it without any trouble in like 2 months. Presumably, people who kiss up enough can run in reverse in about the same time.

...or people with good ideas and posting habits who are able to avoid obvious trolls, can listen to decent advice, and can break out of parochial viewpoints...

[Vacrix]

The function IS being used, but apparently the numeric values were set a little too safe and it's harder than expected to see one's status change. We've been discussing giving it some tweaks it in the mod forum.
Why not add more colors? If you think about it, people might become disinterested in this whole idea just because they don't see any immediate gains to posting well (not everyone thinks in the long term). Instead you could have people who just know what they are talking about who's name changes to Green or something after a certain amount of rep. Rewarding people with the equivalent of celebrity status on this forum (considering that the vast number of people who post here are 'member') doesn't seem practical. I think its better to have a variety of status's, like a caste system. :P

Also, why isn't Emidln an adept? Seriously, that guy is a fucking genius deck builder.



Also, how do you uprate a post? Is it that +quote button on the bottom right of each post?

[umbowta]

Also, why isn't Emidln an adept? Seriously, that guy is a fucking genius deck builder.
Honestly, I have to agree with you that emidln is a great deck builder. He is definitley one of the more likeable players in the area and seems to have a genuine love for the game. Strangely though, I don't remember him making top 8 very often around here in Legacy. I think he may play mostly Vintage with the RIW guys and just do Legacy combo decks as a side project...which kinda makes it more impressive.

[DragoFireheart]

I'm not sure what to think of this rep system now that it has been out for awhile. Shouldn't we simply focus on quality posting and not worry about our reputation? This isn't world of warcraft.

Another good point someone brought up was that posting an unpopular opinion could result in said person getting a lot of negative marks to their rep. If someone fears that their rep will drop and they may be kicked from the site for posting unpopular (but constructive) opinions, is it really a good system to have in place?

I could be over thinking this but this is just my opinion on the whole rep system.

[pi4meterftw]

I'm not sure what to think of this rep system now that it has been out for awhile. Shouldn't we simply focus on quality posting and not worry about our reputation? This isn't world of warcraft.

Another good point someone brought up was that posting an unpopular opinion could result in said person getting a lot of negative marks to their rep. If someone fears that their rep will drop and they may be kicked from the site for posting unpopular (but constructive) opinions, is it really a good system to have in place?

I could be over thinking this but this is just my opinion on the whole rep system.

But if you state unpopular truths, then you're probably not the kind of person who cares about rep, so it's all good. Rep should be a measure of how much people like you, not how good at magic you are. That's what the word "reputation" means.

[DalkonCledwin]

I used to think that the MTGSalvation's Yearly Awards for things such as the best rookie member on the site, or the best contributor to the site for that year etc... were all without merit due to the fact that they were just glorified popularity contests. But in all honesty, MTGSalvation really has nothing on this site when it comes to its popularity contests. I mean seriously, none of MTGSalvations Popularity contests result in bannings for the losers of the contests. So I am curious why this site's popularity contest (and yes that is all this glorified rating system happens to be, a popularity contest) would result in bannings for people.

People should never be banned based on their popularity on a site, but instead based on actually breaking the site rules. How does posting a hugely unpopular view of the format relate to breaking any of the rules if said view happens to be posted in a constructive manner?

[Aggro_zombies]

I used to think that the MTGSalvation's Yearly Awards for things such as the best rookie member on the site, or the best contributor to the site for that year etc... were all without merit due to the fact that they were just glorified popularity contests. But in all honesty, MTGSalvation really has nothing on this site when it comes to its popularity contests. I mean seriously, none of MTGSalvations Popularity contests result in bannings for the losers of the contests. So I am curious why this site's popularity contest (and yes that is all this glorified rating system happens to be, a popularity contest) would result in bannings for people.

People should never be banned based on their popularity on a site, but instead based on actually breaking the site rules. How does posting a hugely unpopular view of the format relate to breaking any of the rules if said view happens to be posted in a constructive manner?
Look at the people who have negative reputations. Most of them are dicks who either (a) don't contribute or (b) are trolls. Those kind of people would get the banhammer eventually anyway.

I don't know about other people, but I generally don't give out -rep for anything other than really douchey posts.

[Bardo]

People should never be banned based on their popularity on a site, but instead based on actually breaking the site rules. How does posting a hugely unpopular view of the format relate to breaking any of the rules if said view happens to be posted in a constructive manner?

In order, I agree; it doesn't.


I don't know about other people, but I generally don't give out -rep for anything other than really douchey posts.

Same here.

I changed the +/- levels and groups a few weeks ago -- hasn't seem to make much of a difference. We'll keep on working on the settings so that it either works for the site or we decide to scrap it. In any case, after several months, it hasn't seemed to do any damage.

[frogboy]

I used to think that the MTGSalvation's Yearly Awards for things such as the best rookie member on the site, or the best contributor to the site for that year etc... were all without merit due to the fact that they were just glorified popularity contests. But in all honesty, MTGSalvation really has nothing on this site when it comes to its popularity contests. I mean seriously, none of MTGSalvations Popularity contests result in bannings for the losers of the contests. So I am curious why this site's popularity contest (and yes that is all this glorified rating system happens to be, a popularity contest) would result in bannings for people.

People should never be banned based on their popularity on a site, but instead based on actually breaking the site rules. How does posting a hugely unpopular view of the format relate to breaking any of the rules if said view happens to be posted in a constructive manner?

We don't ban anyone based on rep, nor do we ban people because we don't like them.

[Aethan]

Suggestion: Lock posting to the DTB forum to adept level and higher.

Yes, a few innovative viewpoints might be lost but a whole lot more trolling and idiocy will be kept out of the forum. When I look at the DTB forum I want to see concise, informative posts that track the development and performance of the deck. I do NOT want to wade through 100+ pages of "Dude, Acorn Harvest would so totally OWN in this deck, I've already replaced Goyf with it." "Dude, you are a moron..." "No you are."

If someone who isn't an adept has an unbelievably good idea he can post it to another forum, or PM an adept and get rep for it.

[Bardo]

Sad fact is that most of the existing Adepts are no longer active on the board. Many (most?) have been teal ever since 2005 or so and their interest has moved to other things. Restricting posting to Adepts only, in the most important forum on the site, would mainly turn it into a ghost town. If anything, it needs to be more aggressively moderated. Even better would be for the Adepts+ to be more active in the DTB forum to re-establish the appropriate posting standard. Don't hold your breath for that. After it's honeymoon, even the Adept Q&A was almost completely unused.

[pi4meterftw]

Sad fact is that most of the existing Adepts are no longer active on the board. Many (most?) have been teal ever since 2005 or so and their interest has moved to other things. Restricting posting to Adepts only, in the most important forum on the site, would mainly turn it into a ghost town. If anything, it needs to be more aggressively moderated. Even better would be for the Adepts+ to be more active in the DTB forum to re-establish the appropriate posting standard. Don't hold your breath for that. After it's honeymoon, even the Adept Q&A was almost completely unused.

It seems like a ghost town anyway. DTB hasn't been updated for like 4 months.

[Mark Sun]

I think it'd help a lot if some of the DtB threads (and some Established?) would be rewritten, summarized, and new discussion started. Aethan is correct in saying that there's a lot of clutter, as some of the more popular decks like Goblins, Merfolk, ANT, and Zoo are 100+ pages right now. I believe it would go a long ways to reorganize and summarize (note the pages) arguments made. Plus, some of the first-page decklists aren't even viable anymore.

You could have active links to refer someone to an argument. For example (and this is just a random page I jumped to in the Goblins thread),

"Why don't we splash U for countermagic?"

Answered on: http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?5557-[DTW]-Vial-Goblins/page102


And so forth. Nothing directly related to User Reputation, but certainly the correct fix versus clutter than to restrict posting for Adept+ in the DtB forum.

[Aethan]

I'm thinking along the lines of, "Build it and they will come." Perhaps the DTB forum is a ghost town because there are 100 pages of junk and a need for more aggressive moderation. If the threads were rebuilt and the morons were kept out, then perhaps people would come back. Nothing brings people to a website like good information... well that and porn. :laugh:

[lordofthepit]

I don't think there's any problem with having one forum accessible to only adepts (or whatever threshold you want to set), but restricting discussion of entire deck types to a certain group really makes no sense. I can't think of a logical reason why you would need adept status to ask questions or to make suggestions about Vial Goblins, but not about Dragon Stompy (just to pick two random decks as an example).

[Aggro_zombies]

I'm thinking along the lines of, "Build it and they will come." Perhaps the DTB forum is a ghost town because there are 100 pages of junk and a need for more aggressive moderation. If the threads were rebuilt and the morons were kept out, then perhaps people would come back. Nothing brings people to a website like good information... well that and porn. :laugh:
No, the largest reason for a lack of content in the Deck to Beat forum is that the only things there are Decks to Beat.

What I mean is that decks that become good enough to win multiple tournaments and receive universal recognition as being the best in the format don't get that way by being totally unoptimized and having five free slots. In reality, the vast majority of variations you could make from the accepted lists will fail, and in all the DtBs there's a core set of cards that are simply not debatable. As a result, there's not much constructive stuff going on there because there's not much to do right now, other than maybe metagame your build or something.

Which is not to say that the decks are perfect - they aren't - but there's a lot less room for innovation in a Tier I deck than a Tier II deck.

If anything, it would be better to just nominate a new group of Adepts from people currently active on the site. I realize that the rep system is supposed to do that, but no one seems to be getting anywhere with it.

But then again - did the Adepts ever do anything worthwhile anyway?

EDIT: Besides, locking DtB for Adepts only would kill the Aggro Loam thread. No Adepts have touched that deck in, like, over a year (probably).

[Phoenix Ignition]

I'm thinking along the lines of, "Build it and they will come." Perhaps the DTB forum is a ghost town because there are 100 pages of junk and a need for more aggressive moderation. If the threads were rebuilt and the morons were kept out, then perhaps people would come back. Nothing brings people to a website like good information... well that and porn. :laugh:

The rebuilding of threads happens so often and never works. There are plenty of 2nd and 3rd threads for decks trying to restructure the crappy suggestions out of them, but they all end up the exact same as they were before. We should try this:

http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?17136-Restructuring-the-DTB-Forum

This is still the best solution in my opinion. It got locked right away for no real reason other than mod laziness or being afraid of change? (correct me if I'm wrong) You can say it's a bad idea all you want but I really don't see it as a bad idea if the mods are as inactive as they are now. It would be easy to find the best decklists (ones that actually top 8), the newest innovations in card ideas, the newest innovations in deck design (U in goblins sounds awful, but you can keep that crap in a separate thread if someone really wants to ask).

Asking why Psionic Blast isn't in merfolk for the 100th time could be in a separate thread from the "how do i play this deck effectively" thread. I wouldn't have to wade through pages and pages of crap to find a respectable zoo decklist to test against when I'm doing research on a new deck.

More mods isn't even a good answer to the problem of threads being spammed with stupidity. Mods can't (and shouldn't) be the arbiters of deleting a dumb suggestion, as even dumb suggestions sometimes spark good ideas. Only a completely different forum would change this.

[Aggro_zombies]

Basically all you're doing with that is replacing a cluttered thread full of retardation with a cluttered subforum full of retardation. It may be more searchable, but it's still cluttered and full of retardation.

[MMogg]

Basically all you're doing with that is replacing a cluttered thread full of retardation with a cluttered subforum full of retardation. It may be more searchable, but it's still cluttered and full of retardation.

Not exactly. If you compare this:


[DTB] Vial Goblins


with:


[DTB] Vial Boblins

Top 8 decklists
Required Reading (articles about Goblins)
FAQ
B/R Goblins
W/R Goblins
Sideboard Help


etc.

I think it's too easy to term things as stupid and retarded. Very often players (particularly new Legacy players) have questions and what they're presented with is a sprawling novella-length discussion thread that's half out of date. Am I the only one who uses Wikipedia? Imagine if Wiki pages were just sprawling 100-page discussions, who'd want to sift through that to find the relevant information? I think there is some merit in organization.

By the way, aren't we way off topic? :laugh:

[Phoenix Ignition]

Basically all you're doing with that is replacing a cluttered thread full of retardation with a cluttered subforum full of retardation. It may be more searchable, but it's still cluttered and full of retardation.

Maybe I phrased it poorly. Stupidity never will end. Obviously more threads does not equal less stupidity, it just contains the stupidity. Top 8 lists thread should not have a myriad of retards spamming in it, because it is specifically there for top 8s. The basics thread will have the new comers asking how to pilot the deck. The new ideas thread has the idiots saying you should play psionic blast in merfolk. Retards have their threads for bad suggestions, while people asking for information have a thread for information.

MMogg's wiki analogy is right on the money, if you had to read through 100s of pages of what people thought Quiescence was, you'd be fucked on your C grade paper.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I agree with MMogg. It's futile to expect people to navigate a hundred page thread for answers to their specific questions. Better organization would solve most of the clutter in the first place.

[Forbiddian]

We don't ban anyone based on rep, nor do we ban people because we don't like them.

But you do unban people because you do like them.


Also, the DTB thing might be cool, but I don't know how that would survive the DTB changes.

Like if a thread loses DTB status, what happens?

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

But you do unban people because you do like them.

I've never heard of this. What do you mean?


Also, the DTB thing might be cool, but I don't know how that would survive the DTB changes.

Like if a thread loses DTB status, what happens?

Keep all the sub-threads for a deck in a different hidden forum. Put all the links in the first post. Now it doesn't matter whatever forum its in. In fact this can be pursued with other decks as well.

[Vacrix]

Sad fact is that most of the existing Adepts are no longer active on the board. Many (most?) have been teal ever since 2005 or so and their interest has moved to other things. Restricting posting to Adepts only, in the most important forum on the site, would mainly turn it into a ghost town. If anything, it needs to be more aggressively moderated. Even better would be for the Adepts+ to be more active in the DTB forum to re-establish the appropriate posting standard. Don't hold your breath for that. After it's honeymoon, even the Adept Q&A was almost completely unused.
This is why I said a few pages back that we ought to consider a few more steps... Why limit it to Adept and Member? We could easily fit some other user titles in there. I have no idea what we'd call them but it would give people tangible rewards for their good posting rather than mere 'points' to attain a virtually unachievable title. Adepts are more like the old wise men of the forum that give their advice every once and a while. There are others, however, that frequently pop in and out of forums providing a voice of reason. THESE people ought to be the Adepts. Otherwise, whats the point? Adepts that don't do anything is a pretty pointless concept no?

EDIT:
Another possibility would be to give users a different user title after they have created an Established Deck. That would stimulate innovation and basically tell other users that he or she is an authority of the deck in question.

[Forbiddian]

I've never heard of this. What do you mean?

XD




Keep all the sub-threads for a deck in a different hidden forum. Put all the links in the first post. Now it doesn't matter whatever forum its in. In fact this can be pursued with other decks as well.

Would the OP have to continually update the thread, then?

What they do on Salv is each deck gets its own forum. That seems cool, but might be a coding nightmare, I have no idea.

[Skeggi]

What they do on Salv is each deck gets its own forum. That seems cool, but might be a coding nightmare, I have no idea.
Sounds more like a modding nightmare and clarity-fail to me.

[SpikeyMikey]

Not exactly. If you compare this:


[DTB] Vial Goblins


with:


[DTB] Vial Boblins

Top 8 decklists
Required Reading (articles about Goblins)
FAQ
B/R Goblins
W/R Goblins
Sideboard Help


etc.

I think it's too easy to term things as stupid and retarded. Very often players (particularly new Legacy players) have questions and what they're presented with is a sprawling novella-length discussion thread that's half out of date. Am I the only one who uses Wikipedia? Imagine if Wiki pages were just sprawling 100-page discussions, who'd want to sift through that to find the relevant information? I think there is some merit in organization.

By the way, aren't we way off topic? :laugh:

That is brilliant. When I'm looking for decklists for gauntlets, I generally have to check the first page for the basic decklist and then the last 4-5 pages to get a tournament winning up-to-date list because most of the DTB threads contain off-the-wall ideas that people are tossing around, hoping they'll stick. Having something that would let us have the quality of decklists for DTB's that searching SCG tournaments would give (while being easier to search by deck name) would be a huge plus. My god man, you are a genius!

[emidln]

Restricting DTB posting to adept level would only drive more people away from this site into specialty sites like Storm Boards or competing sites like mtgsal, SCG, and wizards' forums. As one of the storm boards founders, I can't say that I would disapprove of this too much, but as someone who regularly posts on mtgthesource, it would probably make me go elsewhere.

[Some Guy]

Why did Bear Assassin get banned?

Has nothing to do with this at all. He got three warnings. Those are the rules.

Well how many others have gotten 3 warnings , then a ban. but , then has their account reinstated ? seems like favoritism to me. I see alot of people get banned here lately , but none has ever come back. do you not reinstate them after a week too ? or do his warnings for some reason not count as much as other peoples warnings ? seems like you put on a big show about his banning , but it made no difference , how can one be taken serious if they do not follow the own rules they set ?

[Some Guy]

Not exactly. If you compare this:


[DTB] Vial Goblins


with:


[DTB] Vial Boblins

Top 8 decklists
Required Reading (articles about Goblins)
FAQ
B/R Goblins
W/R Goblins
Sideboard Help


etc.




Someone suggest this good idea not too long ago. but then nihl credo said some stupid response and just lock the thread. it seemed like a good idea , but then was not taken serious. maybe this is why all the adept has left.

[CleverPetriDish]

Hey, about that user reputation thing. It really does not work any better than the "crowning your pals adepts" system we have had for years. I have spoken to a few people on this site about it, and I have more use reputation points than people who are far more knowledgeable/relevant than myself, and make more intelligent posts. This suggests that the mods have simply been issuing points based on who they like and subtracting points from people they don't. And since apparently only mods are intelligent enough to have an opinion - voilla - same shit, different packaging.

[Aggro_zombies]

Hey, about that user reputation thing. It really does not work any better than the "crowning your pals adepts" system we have had for years. I have spoken to a few people on this site about it, and I have more use reputation points than people who are far more knowledgeable/relevant than myself, and make more intelligent posts. This suggests that the mods have simply been issuing points based on who they like and subtracting points from people they don't. And since apparently only mods are intelligent enough to have an opinion - voilla - same shit, different packaging.
Well, in theory, mods and Adepts aren't the only ones who can give out points; they just give out more. However, in practice it seems like most of the regular users on the site either don't know or don't care about the rep system, so you tend to only get points for amusing but largely worthless posts and don't get points for posts you put more time into thinking about than typing.

The system isn't great, but it's not like being an Adept is anything special either. People who take the time to read around the site should be able to figure out who is worth listening to for particular topics/decks fairly quickly (many of whom aren't actually Adepts).

[Skeggi]

Well, in theory, mods and Adepts aren't the only ones who can give out points; they just give out more.
Who else can give points? As far as I know, Nightmare only gave these rights to Staff and Adepts to begin with.

[Jak]

Who gives a fuck? So many people are butt hurt about not being "Adepts", but it doesn't fucking matter. No one just goes through a thread looking for the teal blue users and only read those. If you actually care about being an Adept you should worry about your real life more.

And about IBA getting banned and unbanned. Again, who gives a fuck? He has contributed a lot to the format and just because he gets special privileges on this forum doesn't mean its favortism. It's because he actually makes intelligent posts and that's what is trying to be promoted on this site.

Basically, this is a Magic forum and people are caring too much about popularity.

[Skeggi]

Think what you want, but as far as I know, only two people made ´promotion´ in the last half year (or how long was it): hi-val and 4eak. Adept/mod status may not say alot, but the fact that these guys were the only ones promoted says alot about them. Not that we didn't already know that, but that's besides the point :wink:

Who gives a fuck?
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/5919/carez.jpg
Apparently, you do :tongue:

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

I'm not the only person to ever be unbanned. However, I think you're much mistaken if you think the Source operates like a Court of Appeals. The Source is a privately owned and operated establishment. Like all such, it has the right to kick out or retain visitors as it sees fit, and interpret its own rules any way it sees fit. And a privately owned pub is more likely to ban an idiot that has started up fights with the employees multiple times in his first few visits than a guy who's been coming regularly for years, contributed to the scene, and occasionally flips out and turns people to stone with his magical bear breath because they were fucking asking for it, right?

[DalkonCledwin]

What they do on Salv is each deck gets its own forum. That seems cool, but might be a coding nightmare, I have no idea.

that is ONLY true of the Standard Proven Competitive Forums. There are just too many decks in the Tier 1 category of Legacy to reliably do that on this forum even if they use a similar software on this forum and could theoretically pull it off. Additionally it is indeed a moderating nightmare, and they have like 5 dedicated Moderators to the Standard Forum alone.

As far as the idea of making seperate threads for the Decks to beat and placing them in a "Hidden Forum" that is linked to by the Main Thread. That doesn't work from what I understand based on vBulletin as anyone who does not have access to that hidden forum will be unable to view those hidden threads even with them being linked in the main thread.

@ Skeggi, actually I have seen several people with varrying user status's above the basic starting status (and even more with lower status's) So yes, other people have been promoted. Maybe not directly up to Adept level, but promotions have been happening.

[Skeggi]

@ Skeggi, actually I have seen several people with varrying user status's above the basic starting status (and even more with lower status's) So yes, other people have been promoted. Maybe not directly up to Adept level, but promotions have been happening.
That's just reputation, that's not real promotion. Reputation is a tool to keep in check who's talking only nonsense. Inspired by Magic Fanatic's fantastic fantasy stories if I recall correctly. So if you see someone with a red rectangle, it just means he has been making rather rediculous posts. The way I see it, reputation is implemented as a device to upgrade post quality. Not as a way to promote or demote people.

[DalkonCledwin]

That's just reputation, that's not real promotion. Reputation is a tool to keep in check who's talking only nonsense. Inspired by Magic Fanatic's fantastic fantasy stories if I recall correctly. So if you see someone with a red rectangle, it just means he has been making rather rediculous posts. The way I see it, reputation is implemented as a device to upgrade post quality. Not as a way to promote or demote people.

yet that is exactly what it is being used to do (Promote people).

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

that is ONLY true of the Standard Proven Competitive Forums. There are just too many decks in the Tier 1 category of Legacy to reliably do that on this forum even if they use a similar software on this forum and could theoretically pull it off. Additionally it is indeed a moderating nightmare, and they have like 5 dedicated Moderators to the Standard Forum alone.

As far as the idea of making seperate threads for the Decks to beat and placing them in a "Hidden Forum" that is linked to by the Main Thread. That doesn't work from what I understand based on vBulletin as anyone who does not have access to that hidden forum will be unable to view those hidden threads even with them being linked in the main thread.

@ Skeggi, actually I have seen several people with varrying user status's above the basic starting status (and even more with lower status's) So yes, other people have been promoted. Maybe not directly up to Adept level, but promotions have been happening.

Nah, you can do it. Like you can read this thread (http://www.mtgthesource.com/forums/showthread.php?10816-This-thing), even though it's in the hidden TIBABSISAATW forum.

Also, true story; the last meaningful thing the Adepts did was have a very long argument about whether or not the Adepts served any useful purpose. And the result was ambivalent at best. As far as I can recall the concept of User Reputation arose out of that discussion as a way to sort of replace the same function more democratically.

[Phoenix Ignition]

You're telling me that little green bar I worked so hard for over the last year has been completely stripped from me? But... how do people know how awesome I am now? My forum life is being stripped away!

People need to know how I am "Here to learn, and help others learn."!

[Aggro_zombies]

You're telling me that little green bar I worked so hard for over the last year has been completely stripped from me? But... how do people know how awesome I am now? My forum life is being stripped away!

People need to know how I am "Here to learn, and help others learn."!
lol newb u cared about rep

Clearly, cool kids like Pastorofmuppets and Jak. didn't, so now the mods have decided to get rid of the system. Cry sum moar.

[Jak]

...cool kid... Jak.

I like

[Vacrix]

So no more adepts it seems? Everyone has lost their colors unless they were admins.

[Pinder]

Seems to be the case. I personally think it's just fine, now people can just start judging posts for their content.