Posts from Suggestion for a database.

Well, how should I react to a reputation that's twice as high as mine, earned by a user who isn't exactly respected, in just three months? :) And not as a lone wolf (which makes me think of clones – see the suggestion above), but someone with almost 1000 posts. And a member of a clan, gaining reputation for posts like "Everything's great! Well done! Everything's awesome!" or "No, you're wrong! We're right! DOWN WITH DICTATORSHIP!" (an example of a COMPLETE post. I made it up, didn't want to offend anyone). And in general, this is more of an ethical issue.

Yes, I understand who you're talking about, and I'm also surprised by the level of his database. But besides that, I said that this phenomenon exists, but it's difficult to counter. They can simply say that they increased his rating not as clan members, but as forum users who agree with his opinion.

Heh... I'll create 19 duplicates, and then I'll put the person I don't like on ignore for myself and all the duplicates... That would be great... :D

If he knew who put him on ignore, he would dig up all the dirt and go to the Moderator with real evidence. And the one who allowed himself such a luxury (19 clones) could get a slap on the wrist :D

Or I'll ask my clanmates to put the person on ignore... then I won't need to create as many duplicates... ;)

If he knew who put him on ignore, he would think about his actions, explain himself in a private message - this would resolve his situation. I think the clan won't side with the clanmate if there are no serious reasons for it (I hope):D

IMHO - if someone lowers your Battle Rating (BR), that's their business... let them... don't stoop to their level... be better! :cool:
although I don't deny, it's very annoying when someone gives you a negative rating...

So let's leave the jerk alone :D, who lowers everyone's BR, like he's had a few beers and decided to go around rating everyone. :D
P.S. and nothing terrible will happen if someone can't lower BR for a while, because they can still do everything else: write posts, express their opinion (but as a normal forum participant), and raise BR.

However, in my opinion, a restriction should be implemented. Until a user has made a certain number of posts (50, 100, 150) and/or earned a reputation of 1 or 2 "birds," they should not be allowed to modify the morale of other forum users. This would save us from one-day users who register and immediately start indiscriminately lowering morale. It would also prevent clones, as I doubt anyone would bother developing their clone. To illustrate my point, let's recall a very unpleasant incident that occurred in August of this year; many probably remember it. A certain...unworthy person (because his behavior cannot be called worthy) registered and immediately started posting in threads, and besides flaming (in a rather harsh form), his posts contained nothing. He also appeared in the chat with obscene language. But that wasn't enough for him, and he started lowering the morale of everyone he pleased! Of course, he was quickly banned permanently. If Alan hadn't reacted in time, who knows how many more forum users would have suffered the fate of those N-number of users whom this guy managed to "bless" with lowered morale. Of course, everything was resolved fairly quickly then. But if there were a restriction on posts and/or reputation, such incidents could have been avoided. Because removing a post containing flame is within the power of a moderator or coordinator, but removing such morale reductions is, unfortunately, not. And what guarantee is there that this won't happen again in the future?! Here, at least, is why a restriction is needed. As for quickly accumulating posts, good moderation is needed, where moderators will separate the wheat from the chaff.

Probably, this is a good solution, and a limit of 25 messages is reasonable. But still, it's a direct path to creating unnecessary, empty posts – flooding the forum and adding extra work for the Moderators.

1) Gentlemen:) The moderators' rating is directly related to... the number of posts they remove. Let them work:)
2) Luchik, could you send me the name of this banned user in a private message?:)
3) LeSHiJ-MaX, a similar system (although with a high limit on posts, 200 if I'm not mistaken) is already working successfully. If you come to the forum just for fun, or as a clone, or to troll (how cool you become!!!) — then you will HAVE TO write something, somehow interact...

The proposed system is correct and useful, and it works on many forums. Indeed, it is unfair when a person with the lowest "morale" level on the forum lowers the morale of someone in the top ten "high-morale" forum members... (an example from personal experience, again - yes, we're all just talking about what bothers us here:smile04:). There should be a limit on the morale level, but, in my opinion, it should not be tied to the total number of boosts, but to the overall level of an individual's morale. For example: a user with a morale level of at least 10 should be able to influence the morale of other forum members. Do you understand the difference? If a person has had 50 boosts, but as a result of their actions, their morale has dropped into the negative, they lose the right to influence the morale of other forum members. Regarding the number of posts - I'm sorry, but 100 or 200 posts is too much. This is a direct path to spam like "and Na'gi is still cooler than everyone else!" Come on, the counter in the "Flood" section doesn't even work; how will a newbie reach that number of posts, and even make them meaningful? And yet, everyone wants to become a full member of the portal, so they'll start posting simple, meaningless posts... By the way, the restriction on the number of characters in a post, aimed at combating spammers, hasn't stopped anyone; people just started writing not "ew, that sucks," but "ew, that sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"... Who benefits from this? I understand that moderators are also people, and they have a lot to do outside of the internet, but no restrictions can replace "live" moderation. And all these restrictions seem as if we are waiting for the arrival of exclusively great thinkers who will quickly write 200 meaningful, smart, and useful posts for us... on topics that have long been discussed and exhausted by all of us, note. Do you really believe that?:confused:

I suggest making the strength of reputation increase/decrease (reputation meter) dependent on:

1. The number of reputation points (e.g., +1 for each "badge").
2. The number of posts (e.g., +1 for every 200 posts).
3. The time since registration (+1 for each year).

For example, if a new user has fewer than 200 posts, a negative or zero reputation, and hasn't been registered for a year, they CAN give a positive or negative rating, but the strength of their reputation meter will be 0. In other words, they can express agreement or disagreement with a forum member's post, but they won't be able to influence the reputation until they become more familiar with the forum. P.S.: With this system, it would be better if authors received their first "badge" not for +1 reputation, but for at least +10, because it's currently too easy to get one. P.P.S.: Of course, all of this needs to be refined. :)

I completely agree with Luchik! But about that one bird... you get one bird for more than 0 upgrades (http://forum.heroesworld.ru/faq.php?faq=hw_help_system#system_war_spirit_table)... So...;
And moderators should fight against spam! So, posting non-informative posts will directly depend on the work of the moderators. And they will do a great job, right?;) And such a phenomenon as posting just to increase post count will disappear on its own... In my opinion, forum users who only stay for a day won't bother posting 200 posts...
And by the way, I also have few posts, and I might also lose the right to use the database...) But I don't think I'm a one-day user....) So...:)

I suggest making the strength of reputation increase/decrease (reputation meter) dependent on certain factors.

For example, if a new user has less than 200 posts, a negative or zero reputation, and hasn't been registered for a year, they can still give + or -, but the strength of their reputation meter would be 0. This means they can express agreement or disagreement with a forum member's post, but they won't affect the reputation until they get more familiar with the forum.

P.S. Of course, all of this needs to be refined. :)

The idea is very good, but
the problem is that as the strength of the so-called "reputation meter" increases, the responsibility of people with more power (more eagles) doesn't increase accordingly. Unfortunately.

It turns out that the reputation meter will become an indicator of a forum member's authority.
And where do all the authorities sit? ;) That's right.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is more that the reputation meter is not used for its intended purpose
(in particular, not as agreement or disagreement with the author's post, but as revenge, simply because of a bad mood, personal dislike, etc.). We need to fight the root of the problem, not the symptoms. :)

Here's another difficult-to-implement suggestion:

I would limit the number of + and - votes for reputation for forum members and award them for achievements: writing a certain number of posts, winning a tournament, organizing a tournament, helping the forum, if they have earned an eagle, and so on.
Maybe people would start using the reputation meter not so wastefully and carelessly; either give a "+" to someone they agree with or a "-" to an enemy. We need to think about it. :)

Simply introducing restrictions on one-day accounts – 25 posts and 10 reputation points – would be enough to get rid of them. As for the rest, even if a single negative reputation point appears after 20 reputation increases, nothing terrible will happen; there's no need to change the reputation system. Otherwise, you'll end up leaving only one "+" button.;)

SandroXXL, hooray! You figured out what has been bothering my brain for a long time. Regarding "leaving only one '+' button." It's hard to believe, BUT THERE WERE SUCH SUGGESTIONS.

I don't understand what they're trying to achieve. Let them increase each other's Reputation points; all forum users already have a certain idea of how useful their posts are. How can you distinguish between a Reputation point increase for a helpful message and a deliberate attempt to inflate the Reputation? Only a person can do that.

I don't understand what they're trying to achieve. Let them increase each other's Reputation; all forum members already have a certain idea of the usefulness of their posts. How can you track Reputation increases on a helpful post versus intentional Reputation boosting? Only a person can do that.

Guys, do you really need this? Sandro, I completely agree with you again; let them increase or decrease each other's Reputation; is it really that important? The most important thing is to treat others the way you would like to be treated:cool:.

Guys, do you really need this? Sandro, I completely agree with you again; let them increase or decrease their morale; is it really that important? The most important thing is to treat others the way you would like to be treated:cool:

Honestly, no one needs it :) But there are people who perceive a "-" directed at them as a personal insult :D It's funny, but it's true ;)

Sandro, I think a minimal restriction would be enough for a start.

The most important thing is to treat others the way you would like to be treated:cool:

In such a large and diverse community, it is impossible to treat everyone in a way that they would treat you in return. :)