Proposal: Implementing a reputation system

It’s something like this:
I'd like to propose adding a reputation meter directly beneath every user's name, allowing members to vote on one another... it’s a system that works quite effectively over at sites like Reddit.
The idea is to give people asking questions a clear sense of how reliable their interlocutor actually is. If someone consistently remains polite, avoids unnecessary conflict, and offers genuinely helpful advice, they’ll earn a high reputation score, which naturally builds trust within the community. Implementing this would also help curb the massive amount of pointless bickering that tends to derail almost every thread after just a few posts, making the reading experience much more pleasant for everyone else.
Additionally, I think issuing bans should also factor into a user's overall reputation score.

So... you're still holding out on posting here until they roll out a reputation system, right?

😁

Well...

Reputation isn't necessarily a bad thing—it just works better on those smaller, niche forums. This place is way too big for that; I guess most of us—the random users who make up maybe 80% of the crowd—would just end up swapping points and boosting each other's scores without any real reason behind it.

So, it's probably better if we don't 😁

Timothy Palmer4 said:It’s something like this:
I'd like to propose adding a reputation meter directly beneath every user's name, allowing members to vote on one another... it’s a system that works quite effectively over at sites like Reddit.
The idea is to give people asking questions a clear sense of how reliable their interlocutor actually is. If someone consistently remains polite, avoids unnecessary conflict, and offers genuinely helpful advice, they’ll earn a high reputation score, which naturally builds trust within the community. Implementing this would also help curb the massive amount of pointless bickering that tends to derail almost every thread after just a few posts, making the reading experience much more pleasant for everyone else.
Additionally, I think issuing bans should also factor into a user's overall reputation score.

...regardless of whether it's explicitly written under their username or not. 🙂

There are plenty of reasons to be against this, and almost none in favor.

First off, if we started labeling people as "guru, Gandhi, secretary of the Young Communist League," it would basically imply that everyone else on the forum is just "bottom-tier noise"—people who haven't been noticed simply because they haven't posted enough yet or for whatever other random reason. I don't think that's particularly fair.

The potential for fraud is also massive—I mean, I could easily set up ten different clone accounts, pretend to be a guru, a Gandhi, and a secretary of the Young Communist League all at once, and then use those fake personas to absolutely crush anyone who dared to disagree with me yesterday.

Finally, aside from purely technical troubleshooting, credibility is a highly subjective thing. Just look at any major political debate or even something like a heated discussion on a news network; you'll see people who are equally credible and equally intelligent giving completely contradictory advice.

So, if you actually want to figure out who is (in your opinion) trustworthy, you should probably just get to work and do your own reading.

In such a way, the huge amount of pointless arguing that starts on almost every single thread after the first few posts could be reduced.

How, oh, how exactly? 😕

How exactly would introducing a "credibility label" reduce unnecessary arguments?

Nicholas King said:...regardless of whether it's explicitly written under their username or not. 🙂

There are plenty of reasons to be against this, and almost none in favor.

First off, if we started labeling people as "guru, Gandhi, secretary of the Young Communist League," it would basically imply that everyone else on the forum is just "bottom-tier noise"—people who haven't been noticed simply because they haven't posted enough yet or for whatever other random reason. I don't think that's particularly fair.

The potential for fraud is also massive—I mean, I could easily set up ten different clone accounts, pretend to be a guru, a Gandhi, and a secretary of the Young Communist League all at once, and then use those fake personas to absolutely crush anyone who dared to disagree with me yesterday.

Finally, aside from purely technical troubleshooting, credibility is a highly subjective thing. Just look at any major political debate or even something like a heated discussion on a news network; you'll see people who are equally credible and equally intelligent giving completely contradictory advice.

So, if you actually want to figure out who is (in your opinion) trustworthy, you should probably just get to work and do your own reading.

In such a way, the huge amount of pointless arguing that starts on almost every single thread after the first few posts could be reduced.

How, oh, how exactly? 😕

How exactly would introducing a "credibility label" reduce unnecessary arguments?

Well, I'd imagine you wouldn't feel much inclined to pick a fight with someone who clearly has more street cred than you do. 😁

Oh boy. Here we go again. 🙂

Is it even possible to whip up some kind of script that just automatically bans anyone who decides to drop this exact same question on the forum in the future? 🤔

Timothy Palmer4 said:It’s something like this:
I'd like to propose adding a reputation meter directly beneath every user's name, allowing members to vote on one another... it’s a system that works quite effectively over at sites like Reddit.
The idea is to give people asking questions a clear sense of how reliable their interlocutor actually is. If someone consistently remains polite, avoids unnecessary conflict, and offers genuinely helpful advice, they’ll earn a high reputation score, which naturally builds trust within the community. Implementing this would also help curb the massive amount of pointless bickering that tends to derail almost every thread after just a few posts, making the reading experience much more pleasant for everyone else.
Additionally, I think issuing bans should also factor into a user's overall reputation score.

Interesting.

So if you have a good reputation, you get more leeway than those who don't?

Some are more equal than others, I guess. 🤷

Timothy Palmer4 said:It’s something like this:
I'd like to propose adding a reputation meter directly beneath every user's name, allowing members to vote on one another... it’s a system that works quite effectively over at sites like Reddit.
The idea is to give people asking questions a clear sense of how reliable their interlocutor actually is. If someone consistently remains polite, avoids unnecessary conflict, and offers genuinely helpful advice, they’ll earn a high reputation score, which naturally builds trust within the community. Implementing this would also help curb the massive amount of pointless bickering that tends to derail almost every thread after just a few posts, making the reading experience much more pleasant for everyone else.
Additionally, I think issuing bans should also factor into a user's overall reputation score.

Carol Johnson4 said:Interesting.

So if you have a good reputation, you get more leeway than those who don't?

Some are more equal than others, I guess. 🤷

Ovo tvoje je komentar na rečenicu "Furthermore—and I really think this bears repeating—one’s reputation can play a massive role when it comes to how bans are handed out. It isn't always a purely objective process, I guess; there's often an underlying bias based on how a user is perceived by the mods.".

Which, I suppose, hasn't actually been written yet.

Well, whatever—it’ll turn up eventually, I suppose. 🙂

Nicholas King said:Ovo tvoje je komentar na rečenicu "Furthermore—and I really think this bears repeating—one’s reputation can play a massive role when it comes to how bans are handed out. It isn't always a purely objective process, I guess; there's often an underlying bias based on how a user is perceived by the mods.".

Which, I suppose, hasn't actually been written yet.

Well, whatever—it’ll turn up eventually, I suppose. 🙂

🤣

Yeah, fair point. I need some coffee if I'm going to pay attention.

See, now this would probably tank my reputation. 😁

Carol Johnson4 said:🤣

Yeah, fair point. I need some coffee if I'm going to pay attention.

See, now this would probably tank my reputation. 😁

Maybe you ought to have a drink or two before you start typing—not that I’m judging, per se—but honestly, it might actually be the key to making you a legend. 😁

We’re also hoping for some upgrades like larger avatars, the ability to include image code in signatures, support for uploading images up to 1024x768, and maybe even the option to embed YouTube videos directly into posts 🙂

Yeah, if you don't mind, I'll take a beer too.

Well, if we're really going to debate this, I’ll take the one that’s at least a little bit bigger.🙂

P.S.: Not massive, mind you—just enough to get the job done.😉

It’s redundant, especially given the constant server instability we’ve been dealing with since my early days here. 😍

Forum users tend to toss out upvotes or downvotes like they’re nothing, without any real weight behind them. You could have someone present a reasoned, calm argument without picking a fight, yet still get buried in negative ratings just because people disagree. I don't see the utility in it. If you see someone with low reputation, what happens—do you just skip their posts entirely? 😕

Brian Edwards6 said:Well, if we're really going to debate this, I’ll take the one that’s at least a little bit bigger.🙂

P.S.: Not massive, mind you—just enough to get the job done.😉

😂🤣🙏