There were a few posts here from very helpful former Ubuntu Forums members angry about the mods there and deciding to quit Ubuntu Forums.

that mite be fair (kinda' in line with my +1 idea. what i usually do is decide if the post deserves a lot of rep or a little rep. now that i know that helpful gives less rep i use that at times; but for a long step-by-step comprehensive answer i will use the rep link to give more rep with a comment.

by and by, is there a way to know someones rep score ? (seems like that was disabled recently)
edit -- oh wait. you have to hover over the green squares (duh).

A week of data is nowhere near enough. It really is that simple.

Interesting. I remember a time when the was the Ubuntu mods who had this reputation of being so very nice, not dictatorial at all. Something changed over there.

Now what is there to prevent that same change, or a similar change from taking place here?

Yeah -- If any Mods end up being evil here, Jeremy will sure demote or ban them.

Here, we have a much different setup: Over at UF, there not only is more than one Mod but there also is more than one admin, in fact hundreds, which means there's more people in full control. More people with admin privileges means that more people have unchecked power -- power that can lead to corruption.

Here, Jeremy Garcia runs the forum single-handed, and as a result there is only one administrator. And Jeremy is a nice guy, which means that he tells the Mods to be nice. Makes sense now?

As well, the mods watch each other and have regular discussions about the board and actions taken. Regardless, I think mod/admin makeup should be a discussion for a different thread.

1 members found this post helpful.

Another possible concern I have is that these negative reps will just increase hostility among members. I mean, I remember in other forums that when someone would get angry at someone else, they would just negative rep them, but then the one who just got negative rep-ed decides to return the favor and negative reps the one who gave the first negative rep, etc.

Personally, I will not negative rep anyone, I would much rather ignore the user instead. If someone negative reps me, I am very much tempted to return the favor, and then things will get out of hand. Instead I will simply ignore users that I don't get along with, and then if I get lots of negative reps, I can just disable the system.

I don't see much reason for negative reps, I mean: spammers are reported, bad advice is corrected, angry users are ignored, so what use can negative reps have ... I don't see any use for them, but then that's just my opinion.

That may be a valid concern elshwere, but I'm confident the caps that have been put in place will prevent/limit that sort of thing. You can't just Nega-Rep someone a few dozen times; there's a "spread". Once you give Posi-/Nega-Rep to someone, you have to go mod a few other users before you can Posi-/Nega-Rep that person again.

True, I'm likely to take that tactic myself. As I've said before, if I get Nega-Rep for something I intend to deserve it.

I see it as a balance thing; can't have the yin without the yang, good without evil, praise without scorn. There are some instances where you really need a facility to reach out across the ether-tubes and smack someone upside the head for being an ass/idiot/spammer/meanie.

Statistically speaking; Jeremy mentioned how the system was being used before in Post # 714 (percentage of Nega- to Posi- Reps and such), and that would actually be a *great* thing to have in some sort of LQ Status page. Just so we could all keep tabs on it.

EDIT: Also, IIRC, only users in the "Senior Members" group (not just those with "Senior Member" as a user title) can Nega-Rep. The logic there being you won't last long enough here if you don't abide by the rules.

Negative reps are something we're going to keep a very close eye on. If situations like the above (or other situations that run counter to the ethos we have at LQ) arise we'll evaluate how we can avoid them or how the system needs to change to prevent them. As the rep system gets more usage, if any members sees any way that you think it's negatively impacting LQ, please do let me know (either in this thread, or privately if you feel that's appropriate).

--jeremy

1 members found this post helpful.

Hi,
I can understand where you are coming from.

I believe the 'rep' system between peers can be a good thing to help improve things here on LQ. For a small weighted person who reps +/- then that too should symbolize. But the way things are presently that cannot truly be done. A new member may have a PHD, but that doesn't mean that same person should have the same weight as someone who has been using GNU/Linux from the beginning. At some point in time if that same person gains knowledge, experience(s) with GNU/Linux then of course their rep should reflect such. Remember that colleagues & peers are not the same all the time. Sometimes I have colleagues who are peers while other times they are just colleagues and vice-verse with peers who are not colleagues.

I think we should continue to report or respond when things aren't up to par by good helpful posting(s). As for a rep war, I think jeremy has a handle on that one. You need to remember the mod's are involved overall as it is a moderated forum(s).

As for hostilities, sure there will be some but that too depends on the participants and how far there willing to stand for what they believe to be true or valid. I've had my share of differences but do participate with people that do differ from me. That's good & healthy informational exchange. Sometimes just ignore the arrogant types unless they provide misleading posts or information. My choice as it's yours.

Textual tones are difficult to read. Some people come of naturally while others seem to harsh. I tend to come off as the latter because of my directness. Been working on correcting my tone and presentation(s) so as to be more kindly or helpful. Loads of proofing & corrections but worth it.

My outlook on the rep system is in that it will help to improve things around here for everyone. Sure some misuse or abuse will occur but not for long till it's corrected to reflect the proper sense of use for everyone.

'H', jeremy is active within this thread so I'm sure everything is
looked at thoroughly then adjusted when necessary.

Edit: damn, slow typist and proof reader causes a lot of propagation.

Alright, good, then we'll just have to wait and see.

Which nicely illustrates that the best form of government is benign dictatorship (unfortunately no system has yet been devised to reliably select a benign dictator).

1 members found this post helpful.

+1 that. The opt out feature is greatly appreciated.

I am just now getting up to speed on this rep system. In all honesty (and with respect), I don't care for it. IMO, each post stands on its own. High-rep folks can make questionable points, and "unknown" folks can make great points. I prefer the thanks system, or a helpful post system (minus the rep gloating).

But whatever. I also appreciate the fairly democratic approach that was used to develop and adopt the feature.

1 members found this post helpful.

So I guess that means Jeremy is our BDFL?

Unless of course, as catkin said above, we come up with a way to select additional admins...

Jeremy has always been the BDFL