No Thanks Adding Reputation limit for Premium

If you didn't already notice, in Kam Sage's thread about rep, I popped in with a suggestion of adding a minimum of rep to become premium.


I would have a rep minimum of 1,500 or 1,000.

The reason is rather simple. As it is now, people can easily become Premium just by postwhoring. If you were to add a reputation minimum as well, it would be harder, and I think it would lead to better posts.

I'll admit that I did some postwhoring at around 960 posts, and I got 40 posts rapidly, simply by posting short, yet non-spam posts.

However, if there was a rep limit in addition to the 1,000 post count, you would have to have something good to contribute to the site. It doesn't matter if it is a funny picture that gives rep, or whatever, at least it's more of a contribution than "I agree with 'insert nick here'" in the discussion section, or in the Graphic Art section with; "I really like this."

It's not as if it is difficult to add it, but of course it all depends on what the members/staff thinks.

Also, I'm not talking about de-premium anyone.

Forsaken had this suggestion.

(I removed the unfair part, but that's my idea.) Whether or not it will be implemented, I think I should at least suggest it.

Now, fellow KHVidians, speak.

 

If I recall correctly, it used to be that way, but they removed the requirement.

 

Yes, however, I believe the system was different before.

 

Either way, I think 1,000 posts by itself is fine. As long as the posts aren't spam and are constructive and on-topic, as far as I can tell, you've earned them fairly.

 

The rep requirement was removed. I remember when I became Premium, I had to work toward a 1,000 post requirement and reach I believe 200 rep. I must have been gone when they removed it though.

I kinda support the rep requirement, and if it were enacted, keep current Premiums as Premiums. But at the same time, I can see it being unfair to put up the requirement again, but whatevs.

 

I just think it would be harder for some people, because it's hard for some people to get rep. So if we made rep a requirement, then what about those people that don't get repped enough? They'd be left out wouldn't they

Not too mention, I'd lose my title as the Most Post Whore on this site for the awards (...that's not even a good thing)

 

As I recall it was 1,000 posts and 100 rep. Which was hard for me at the time as I only went in one section. However since rep is quite common I think it should be boosted to like 750-1,500. That is pretty reasonable. It would also cut down a lot of the random post whoring. Which is a real problem in different sections. Trust me on that one.

 

I'm sorry to spoil your idea, but being premium isn't a sign of superiority. It's a sign of contribution, which is basically what keeps the website alive and running. Contribution is only measured in posts, and even if you post-whore, it still keeps the site active. The reward is to say, thanks for keeping the place active, here's more room in your signature, a user title, and you can change your name every two weeks. It's not a big addition to your experience here, and I think that the reputation system shouldn't be a deciding factor on whether or not you get these things. The problem with your theory is that people wouldn't "make better posts", they would just post a lot to meet the post requirement, then try to say funny stuff to get rep after that. I don't think this should be instated. Raising the requirement to 200 or 300 would be fair, but not to something like 1,500 or 1,000. That's not fair. I have 4000, and I'm close to the top of the rep list. YES I CHECKED DON'T JUDGE ME.

 

So they can spam post that is border line against the rules and still get premium. Eh to me I don't like that.

 

I believe in that too.
1000 posts and some low reputation is fine; my opinion is because:

>1000 is a lot of posts, you need to really contribute with our community to reach 1000 posts;
>Sometimes people want to rep you and they can't, for the reason they don't have enough rep for example;
>Repping someone is an action which other members need to do, so repping I'd say it's something a little personal.

/opinion.

 

To a degree it makes people make better posts to try and get the rep as well, but really what it comes down to is people rep-whoring as well as post-whoring. That is why it was removed in the first place IIRC. Granted the site is a different place than it was then.

 

I don't consider Premiums to be superior, and I know that posts alone is a sign that they have contributed. However, I think that quality contribution is more important. Of course, that depends on whether you prefer quantity or quality in the contribution. Of course, postwhoring gives the illusion that there is a lot of activity, so as I mentioned, it all comes down to what you consider more important; quantity or quality.

 

There have been days where people have gotten close to if not more than 100 posts in a day.

I also don't see how rep is personal as people that you might not even talk to can rep you. To me it seems that if you have enough rep you are obviously doing things right that is unless people just don't de rep at all. Posts are so simple. Not that its a bad thing but I am just saying.

 

Previous posters already mentioned this but we did have the requirement in the past; it started out as maybe 100, then later 200, and so on, until it was finally 1000. As time passed since the karma system was implemented, obviously people's reputations grew, and reputations in the thousands were not hard to come by. In the early days, 50 reputation was a lot. But when just two or three reps from high-ranking members would get you to the 100 mark, we chose to raise it, and kept doing that.

However, we quickly discovered that was unfair to members who didn't have years/months to build their reputation. Additionally, when we removed the requirement we also dropped the ability to seriously dispute a derep, unless it was truly unfair.

I wouldn't mind implementing it again, if enough people want it, but I would want to keep it low--something like two or three hundred. On the other hand, though, we also had mass repwhoring in the past, and that would perhaps force us to begin regulating dereps once again.

 

If 1,000 is too much, I think 500 is reasonable.
.5 rep per post isn't too much to ask for, is it?

 

Posting a ridiculous amount of pointless and inane posts in a brief time period doesn't help the site as much as a lot, if not as many, good, solid posts.

Whether getting there's achieved by a rep requirement or something else, postwhoring will always be worse than repwhoring in my humble opinion.

 

200 or 300 sounds fair. But about the derepping, maybe instead of making it that you derep at the size of your rep, why don't you make it that you only derept 1 point? That way people don't lose what they've gained, and they see that they might want to change something. Because like you said, only 2 or 3 people could get you to 100 rep, but that only counts if it's with someone with a huge rep. If it's someone with less it could easily take ten times more than that

 

If derepping was only 1 point, then derepping would be pointless. ( no pun intended )

 

I'm just saying, if you're derepping like 20 points all at once, you could lose a lot of points considering how much you have and how long it took to earn that. What I'm trying to say is that maybe derepping should be less than what it is, because some people could be happy about the rep they get. I know I feel happy seeing that I get repped for stuff. It makes me feel glad I did something right and made people happy. What if something I was given rep for was taken away, and than some? It's just a huge chip from your points sometimes

 

If you get a mild reward for doing something right, you should get a mild punishment for doing something wrong.