Regarding post counts...(READ BEFORE VOTING)

[Epsilon]

Ok, this may be a somewhat bold statement. It's against what all the Uplink Forum members are used to, so I don't think it'll go over well with some, but I'd like to get my two cents out there.

I don't like how a post count determines a users rank/level-of-respect on any forum. There's something to be said for those who lurk silently for a while, just reading, and post when they actually have something to contribute. It makes for better threads, better debates, etc. After all, if someone has a very high post count it doesn't mean that any of their posts were actually any good. I think having displayed post-counts and ranks might (and most likely does) encourage spam, just to get to that next level of "respect".

I hearby declare this my official motion to remove post counts displayed within topics.

The rank I have less of a problem with, as it's kind of a loose indication of post count, thus creating less e-Penis measuring (less than a specific post count anyways). I think join date says enough, and removing post count would make this and any forum a place more conducive to intelligent posting in the long run.

Actually, I think I'm going to make this a poll. Please vote and state your reason for agreeing with me or not.

[Hektik sniper]

sounds good to me, It may look like ive been spamming to get a higher rank today and if it does, sorry. But its only cause its a brand new forum and there are a lot of things to comment on . I wont allways be posting at this level.

[AgentX 24]

I agree. Your reasoning says it perfectly, no need to go any further.

[RoystonD12]

I disagree with the actual question posed, but agree that post count should not determine rank, it doesn't mean anything if you have a hojillion posts,you can still be an idiot.

Perhaps some kind of karma system would be good, where other users can give positibe or negative karma to other users. Does slashdot use something like this? I don't know, since I don't read it.

Well, there's my two pence.

[Punisher Bass]

I agree that too many people think of their rank as how big their internet dick is. And they will do anything to make it as big/high as possible. I'm not sure about a karma system, but maybe base it on how long someone has been around?

[Epsilon]

...maybe base it on how long someone has been around?

Join date is already sitting right there

[Hektik sniper]

everyones is jne 19th cause they were copied over though . Like some big mass birth

[Disco Stuie]

Join date shouldn't be taken too seriously either. There are plenty of respected forum members who didn't join till relatively recently: it's not just those who joined before middle 02 that I would consider to be vets. Having said that, those with newer join dates are more likely to be just n00bs or spammers - but NOT exclusively so.

And, yes, I agree heartily with Epsilon. The post count does not add anything to the forums, while the general rank does.

Chris was saying on IRC today that the boundaries are much higher and mroe spread out than on the Uplink forums. You need 10 posts just for level one, and then through to 1000 for level 5. L3 was 250, I can't remember the rest, but you see the point. On Uplink froums, this puts me at L2, much more like where I reckon I should be. Only *real* spammers and vets are gonna get L5 anytime soon here, and thats the way I like it.

[film11]

Although I like post count and seeing it rise a "reputation" system would be useful. Maybe, when Darwinia is released, we could have a point system in the help forums. Heres how it goes:
You all start off with a set number of points (ie: 0)
Points do NOT increase if you post or start topics/polls.
Points can be given by question askers to "answer people".
If the answer was good and/or worked, the user then gives them points.
If the answer was good and/or worked, but the user did NOT give points, the "answer person" can deduct points from the question asker. Therefore, people will get a vague view of whether you can trust the questioner to give points. If he untrustworthy, you dont answer their questions.
Yes, this system certainly is open to abuse, but if strict rules were put in place (ie: abusement = instant ban ) then maybe it could work out fine!

EDIT: oh oh, also, when you get a high enough reputation, you are able to edit your title (level1 level2 etc.). If you reputation goes down again, the title is reset to your rank depending on your post count. Sounds good?

[Darksun]

I just like being able to easily gague my spammyness...

[elDiablo]

Well, Im gonna disagree. If someone looks at post count and goes "OMG MUST GET HIGH COUNT!!!!!!!" then they are gonna spam, even if that post count isnt there. If people then judge each other on post count, and not what each other posts, etc, then they may as well just judge on the level or even the join date again. Hence, removing one thing would be pointless.

Say someone comes on, and we dont have post counts, but they see the levels, "OMG HOW I GET LVL 20?!?!???!?!?!?!!??£!123£!$/1234!$?!" etc.

Hence, we remove levels. Someone comes on, see the join dates "OMG U R ALL FROM AGES AGO! U MUST BEB GRANDADS! LOL!OMG! F*CK OFF!" etc.


My reason for disagreeing:

Everything can be made to seem to do more harm then good. Its the idiots that are doing more harm then good, not a bunch of ascii characters on the left of the screen. If they are so fulfilled by spamming and getting to 1000posts, and lvl 5, I say ban them at 999posts (like Chris said earlier )

[NeoThermic]

You all start off with a set number of points (ie: 0)
Points do NOT increase if you post or start topics/polls.
Points can be given by question askers to "answer people".
If the answer was good and/or worked, the user then gives them points.
If the answer was good and/or worked, but the user did NOT give points, the "answer person" can deduct points from the question asker. Therefore, people will get a vague view of whether you can trust the questioner to give points. If he untrustworthy, you dont answer their questions.

Ok, so everyone has no points. Where the hell do they get the points to give to those who answer the question? Its a system that will need some initial points, else it just collapses unto itself.


NeoThermic

[Ascendant]

I agree. I have seen it to often on forums, a new user/low post count, posts an answer to someones question and is then slagged off by post junkies claiming that only they know what is right. Also the ranking system shouldn't be based on post count as it still encourages spam. It would be better not to have any ranking as then there is no competion, so less flame wars, hopefully.

[sysrq]

If the answer was good and/or worked, but the user did NOT give points, the "answer person" can deduct points from the question asker.

Then that would force every person that asks something to give points to everyone who repsonds to that post because theres no way the forum can determine if an answer was in anyway helpfull.

[film11]

@ NeoThermic: you take them from a "pool". Points can be negative.
@SysRq: fair point. Tries get 1 point, actual fixes get 5 etc. When it is solved, the questioner adds SOLVED to the topic title. About determining whether it is helpful or not..well... it could be helpful (ie: You could try this: or this:) or it could be unhelpful (ie: duh!!1 perhaps you should try not doing that then!!!!11 lolo!!).