What are these points things supposed to mean/ supposed to do?
I’m guessing that it is a type of rewards system. Good posts will probably be quoted more often, which allows them to accumulate points (15 per reference; that is, when someone clicks the “reply” button). Also, it serves as a reputation meter, although this doesn’t always hold true.
However, has the most points is the coolest anarchist. [:P]
It seems like a useless and confusing feature. If it could be disabled I’d be all for it.
A better function that other forums use is to show when you first registered.
I actually think a rewards system is a good idea. I’m not sure how the current system is “confusing”, but it’s not worth debating it. I think that a point system should be developed in which the forum members can rate each other’s posts, and add points, so that it’s a more accurate measure of a post’s quality. This would certainly provide a greater incentive to provide good posts (maybe a “like” button ,which would give the relevant post X amount of points).
You get points when you respond to a post and you get points when someone directly replies to your post. What this means is that people like alimentarius (spelling?) and Democracy for Breakfast get a lot of points because they start many threads, most of which get a lot replies.
^Okay so that explains why I have more points then Nielsio with less posts.
Or the biggest troll?
Yeah, I’ve seen that on a few message boards. They have good and bad points about them, however. Sometimes they can cause hard feelings or arguments. People might also alter their posts to get more points, which could be a good or a bad thing depending upon the person or situation. Some might even like the “bad boy” reputation and see how many people they can tick off.
At a sports board for my university (from years ago) they have a system where the members can “vote to suspend” someone that ticks them off. If they get enough such votes the person gets a “timeout” until the next day. That can be kind of funny at times, but is more geared to a board with a lot more rivalries with other schools etc.
You think that’s a good conversation environment? Where everybody rates each other all the time?
And yes, the current system is confusing. Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of points; is that supposed to make me any wiser? A join date and the number of posts is far more informing because it gives you an idea of how often someone posts, and how long they’ve been involved here; those give you an idea of how familiar that person is with the thoughts, ideas and attitudes that exist on LVMI and on this board.
100% agree. An ignore feature would be nice too.
Well, that’s not exactly what I proposed. You have the option to rate, just like you currently have the option to rate a thread through the star system.
What if that person is one who has been spouting nonsense for the past three years? It seems to me that both are equally as poorly indicative of a person’s reliability as each other.
Do we get prizes for the points we acumulate? I also figured that maybe you could actually have a rank or score by dividing the post count by the point count and then multiply it by a thousand.
Your prize is your score. [:P] It’s like when a professor tells you that the reward for taking the class is the knowledge you gain.
I thought it was so cute to see us getting beans for playing on the forum on an economists website. [8-|]
And then I wondered how the bean distribution would affect people’s behavior. Hahaha! [:D]