User Rep Poll: Should it Stay or Should it Go?

[Talking Poker]

True. But you giving feedback via the rep system will help NEW people know who to listen to and who not to... Giving rep has absolutely no benefit to the individual giving it. It's for the good of the community...

[rookette22]

What good is it if it's not aimed at what the TalkingPoker.com is about?

Robbie Robb made a good point;

Yes Robbie, this would work so much better, if the REP SYSTEM would be solely based on POKER which by the looks of it now ....it is not!

My suggestion?
Keep the rep system for the General Poker related threads only....this way people will know where to go if they need to ask a poker related question or need help with poker or anything else from this section.

As for how 'liked or disliked / cool or uncool' a person is ....make it something else ...something like a (Good and Bad) Karma System.

[FatRufus]

I find most of the reps votes are due to a disliking between people, not because of the quality of there actual posts

[Hawt]

Well when you create two accounts and you start flaming your other account with your new account, people are going to dislike you and negative rep should be expected.

[FatRufus]

i understand that much but i dont think that it if you dislike someone you should give them negative rep. If its for the quality of a post or lack there of so be it.

[Talking Poker]

I disagree with this. I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I know the Rep I give out has nothing to do with liking or disliking someone.

But even if that was the case, back up a bit. What made that person be liked or disliked anyway? I doubt anyone here is disliked for the superior poker knowledge they have and all the great poker strategy posts they contribute to the site. I also doubt that anyone is liked for their bullshit posts, scams, and that sort of thing. Think about it....

If you got negative rep for creating a new account and fake arguing with yourself, for example, I'm guessing it WAS because of the quality of those posts. That sort of thing is a waste of everyone time, and adds nothing to the board. Not only that, but people will undoubtedly feel like you are trying to "trick" them, which is also a good reason to give negative Rep, IMO...

[Talking Poker]

Unfortunately, there is no way to taylor the rep system to apply to poker related posts only. But I don't think we need to anyway. You say it's not working, but 90% of the time that I'm giving out positive rep, it's for poker posts anyway. 95% of the negative rep I give out is for ridiculous spam, people welching on bets, people going off on other people unnecessarily, and that sort of thing.

Take a look at the people with the highest rep levels right now: Zybomb, pshabi, me.... I have to think we probably are at the top of the list when it comes to contributing to poker related threads around here, right?

Now look at the people who have red bars.... how many of them are big time poker discusson contributors? I'll guess 0.

It's working.

Not only that, but how about this example: If someone comes on here and cons people out of money (regardless of how they do it), we need to be able to give them negative Rep, right? Well, if their scam happens to be in the Sports Section (not poker), for example, we still need to be able to give them feedback. See what I mean?

Sure, it may not be a perfect system, and some people may "abuse" their Rep giving ability (these people tend to have have very little Rep altering power anyway, if any), but over time, it will all work out. It's kinda like luck in poker: In the short term, you may take some bad beats, but in the end, the best players will end up with the most money. I believe the Rep system will work out the same way. It's still too new to say for sure right now, but looking at a currently 23-2 vote, it's not going away. And that's that.

Oh, and about that "cool/uncool" thing... I see no reason to have a popularity contest around here. That's not what the Rep System is for, and I wouldn't add a Popularity Poll even if the functionality was available (it's not). I can think of no good that would come out of that.