This is a tough issue. I like that you guys are tossing ideas around and discussing this, but to those of you who are, eh, a little upset about any of this, I'd like you to consider the fact that I've fiddled with the rep system endlessly, but it's proved impossible to please everyone.
Personally I don't think the rep system works well at all. A lot of people just don't give rep, even when they've clearly enjoyed/agreed with a post. They're either unaware of it, or are just too mean. There's also a 'I'll rep you, if you rep me' culture happening. People who buddy up on the site are just giving reputation to each other regardless of quality. Someone could've been posting garbage on this site for five years, but still have a full rep bar, it's nonsense. I received a message from someone saying, 'remember, the more rep you give, the more you get'. What a crock, so in other words, 'you rep me first, then I'll rep you back'. I'm sorry but that's b******t.
Whoever said that to you does not share my idea of what the reputation system is for, but I think you may be extrapolating that one person's comment out onto the community as a whole. I don't give engage in any sort of rep-for-rep culture, and I think lots of other regulars don't, either. I'm sure some do, but I do not believe it's the norm.
Also, I have to take issue with the idea that "Someone could've been posting garbage on this site for five years, but still have a full rep bar." I honestly can't think of a single instance of this happening. There are a few users who have a lot of rep because they are friendly, polite, and make a point to welcome new users, but that's about it. It's true that if you're a solid member of the community and stick around, you'll get a lot of rep after awhile. But you won't get it by posting "garbage."
I think reputation points are clearly part of this site's addiction factor, hence their use. As Tacitus said they're ego forming, people are desperate for a 'lightsabre', but when you consider the above it really doesn't mean much.
Now I'm starting to feel guilty because I posted in the 'Quote of the day' thread. I really enjoy that thread, I love reading the quotes, and like to contribute my own favourites. I certainly don't do it as a sly way of rep hunting. When I read some of the cynical comments about posting there, it just smacks of mean spirited smugness. After all, most of the people complaining about it already have 'lightsabres'.
I'm not sure what comments are supposed to have been "cynical." Pyro was actually very light-hearted when he pointed out how the rep flies around in there. And that, to me, is the key: noticing rep, but not taking it too seriously.
To sum up my thoughts, rep points just inject a needless class system into what is supposed to be fun.
Most people use the system without too much turmoil, so I think it IS fun, for the most part. And I think calling it a class system is a vast overstatement. To each their own, though.
Anyway, before the rep system we had people saying similar things about post counts. Big posts counts were the main form of status, and people would post with an eye towards quantity rather than quality. We tried lots of different things to combat this; not incrementing post counts in certain forums, introducing The Shoutbox to handle little random asides, etc. But nothing worked quite so well on this front as the introduction of the reputation system. Though we can't objectively quantify these sorts of things, I sit at a pretty good vantage point, and feel confident in saying that the rep system is probably responsible for an uptick in post quality (and more user reviews) over the last couple years.
Or, to paraphrase Winston Churchill: the rep system is the worst form of rating users, except for all the others. Removing the system will not stop the problems of "class" or status, it will simply shift them onto other things, like post counts. The only way to avoid these problems altogether is to remove any trace of individuality or tenure.
They can be used for good, but the possibility for abuse is massive. I think Groovy Moovie perfectly illustrated this point when he gave Holden Pike over a hundred negative reps, just because he didn't like him.
That was reported, and the rep was removed. The possibility for abuse is no more massive than it is in the fact that people can post at all; we keep an eye out, people report things, and we deal with them.
Yes it's good to know who the most respected MoFos are. But I think people are perfectly capable of making up their own minds on who is posting quality stuff simply by reading through the threads.
I agree. But two things come to mind in response: first, that anyone who can make up their own minds to determine these things themselves can also make up their own mind to simply disregard or ignore the system, so it shouldn't be a problem for them.
The second is that the rep system exists for the people who use it, too. I think users like having something to show for all their time here, and understandably so. Think of any major award: you don't just give it to show the world who won, but to reward the person who earned it. Rep's like that: it quantifies certain things for everyone to see and, in a small way, rewards users for their contributions, too.
Of course, I expect to get a lot of rep for this post, so I'm a bit biased.
Reply to Topic
the site informed me that I had been starring at it for too long, and was obviously gay. 
