Reputation voting?

[Dostn8r]

What's your take, should I enable the ability for everyone to vote on each other?

If the concensus is yes, then there are bunch of other details that vBulletin allows, like:
How much reputation power do you gain after time, or the number of posts, starting reputation value, minimum value to have the right to vote, comments required (or not) for a positive or negative vote, etcetera.

The time factor can affect how quickly you grow in peer stature, or restore your brilliance after being tarnished. My sense is it can warn the naive about the folks that need be put up with, without resorting to constant flames and attacks. It also makes it very clear when someone needs a time out or the boot. It might even work to restrain lack of civility, or cause automatic suspension by popular vote. These details are not yet clear, just that these options exist.

Anyway, your input is requested.

[jibmaster]

I say no.

It tends to turn the forum into a contest.
There is no need for that here.
You created this forum for discourse on backcountry issues.
To take this type of communication to that level would diminish it's value.

[Dostn8r]

It tends to turn the forum into a contest.
There is no need for that here.
You created this forum for discourse on backcountry issues.
To take this type of communication to that level would diminish it's value.

That was/is definitely my concern and why I put 'er up for a vote. I think it helps with tech support sites. OTOH, even there, I don't care about the reputation, only the value of the response.

[Tele 'til You're Smelly]

I like the concept, but I have never used a forum that uses this (that I know of). If it turned into a "contest" of who can be the least jerky, that would be ok! Would be interested in those who have used forums with this feature (I'm not ready to vote yet).

[Baaahb]

I agree with the comments posted, tending towards no. Take a forum like TGR...the members who post the most are very aggressive and likely would support their own kind. I think it would tend more towards mob rule. "Kill the pig! Cut it's throat!"

[jfb]

I'm leaning toward the "nos" on this one. If anyone ever needs to get tossed, you won't need that to tell you and you get to be the decider. OTOH, it might be a good thing if it provides an incentive for good behavior and a disincentive for flame or attention-ho behavior. I'm just not sure how one might structure it to accomplish that.

[cesare]

I voted no.

[Quadzilla]

Iam leaning toward "no". Sounds complicated and might lead to ganging up. I would just like to see everyone come in with a clean slate, clear cut rules of behavior and fair consistent moderation.

[Dostn8r]

I'm leaning along with y'all on this. However, for clarification it might be useful to know some of the options that are available. This doesn't show them all, but the ones chopped from the top of this screen grab are basic things like turning the feature on and off, whether the Admin gets ultimate power or if he/she has the same vote power as everyone else (though still has the ability to nuke whoever) and such. The details of reputation voting are illustrated in these menu options:

[dschane]

hmmm, I'm no-to-neutral on it, but I definitely don't think the post count factor (where you earn points by vomiting out posts by the dozen) is a good barometer for "reputation-altering power."

[jfb]

I agree that post count is a poor metric and offer the thought that the most important metrics are difficult to automate - quality of posts, thoughtful-ness, consideration of/respect toward others, innovation, etc. Perhaps reputation is best assessed the old-fashioned way, e.g., when chez got dissed in TTips, somebody would chime in with "you apparently don't know who you are talking to".

[Danno]

Although I am not in favor of reputation voting, it would be pretty funny to see what type of rep certain folks end up with.

[peteMimmack]

Craig - Part of why I voted No was to minimize the administrative load on you. Don't want you burning out on this additional feature of your site! It sounds like you're already fairly clear on how much nonsense you're going to allow here, so it probably won't be hard to decide when to administer time-outs if you need to. As for determining someone's reputation, even a newbie can scan a few post from a poster and get a sense of what kind of reputation he or she has developed here.

[Tele 'til You're Smelly]

hmmm, I'm no-to-neutral on it, but I definitely don't think the post count factor (where you earn points by vomiting out posts by the dozen) is a good barometer for "reputation-altering power."

That was my first thought too- and the more I look at it, the less I like it- I don't think it's good. Reminds me of required "pieces of flair" or somesuch.

[Dostie]

Part of why I voted No was to minimize the administrative load on you. Don't want you burning out on this additional feature of your site!

Ideally this will NOT be a one man show - administratively speaking. I trust that over time a few will step up and volunteer to help with back end work or moderating. The user reputation thing is an option available. Glad I didn't just enable it, but ran it up the flagpole.