Reputation System

"If a person doesn't want to do any of that (whether because they just want to play the game or are just plain lazy) that's fine too."

You're forgetting that "just playing the game" is contributing to the game, and playing and staying in character enhances the experience for everyone around you. A tiny boost to your Lindens (the money) for improving the game for the Lindens (the labs) is reasonable.

This "bonus" system is a perfect application of capitalism to the problem of encouraging general good behaviour. It provides a benefit for the Lindens using an economic tool that costs them almost nothing and requires little effort once it's set up.

I'm not sure I agree it's a "copycat" thing. I've never seen anyone but a griefer give neg ratings for no reason at all. From what I've seen, it's usually the case that the person who behaved badly enough to get neg ratings in the first place-- continues to behave so.

However, I will agree that just as in RL, once a person has a "reputation" by accumulating neg ratings-- they are going to be more likely to gain additional ratings because people will tend to not cut them any slack when they continue to behave badly.

This said, I still think the current system does more harm than good. I have one neg rating which came from a very immature poor sport at one of our archery competitions-- who neg rated me because we wouldn't play by his concept of rules. The current system does not allow a person to indicate causation-- nor does it allow defense in cases such as this. Further, there is no appeal to Lindens whatsoever. No matter WHY someone neg rates you-- for good reason or because the person who rated you is a total jerk-- the neg rating remains. And as in the case mentioned above, the guy hit with a neg rating then ran like a coward so I couldn't return the favor.

Neg ratings as they stand do not address the issue-- that of identifying problem users to the general public. I still hold that the Ebay system of ratings seems to work better than anything. It provides a positive/negative rating system-- along with reasons-- and gives the recipient a chance to defend against snit ratings.

Or on the other hand, the ratings system could just be totally abolished and as in real life-- let people's reputations follow them by word of mouth.

Another option might be interesting: when someone files an ABUSE REPORT against another user, the Lindens could keep a private rating system on users. When a user has enough abuse reports filed that it hits an alarm point-- they're removed from the board for being a nuisance, and not allowed to re-enter. We surely don't need people who bring their RL antisocial attitudes here with them. Such a rating system would be far more exacting-- and with far more exacting consequenses for continual misbehavior.

No. Few people who deserve a "strong positive reputation" earn it while thinking about money.

If I was driving along the road and I spotted you struggling to change a flat tire, I would stop and help. (Yer cute, after all.) After changing your tire for you and dusting myself off, if you offer me money, then I will be offended. I help you because I want to be helpful, not because I want something out of it, and that you would think otherwise would bother me.

People who deserve a strong positive reputation will gain one regardless. But if there is a financial incentive to scam the system, then it will actually have less meaning.

Buster

Problem with that is their are some goofs in sl that would fight tooth and nail against you just cause your group is different from theirs or some stupid stuff like that, resulting in a waste of judgement. People should get to know people, similar to the sims....More friends you make, and keep in touch with, more rep you earn....similar to an online world saving system, it checks where you are, and how many ppl you ave talked with. Also checks im's and everything...This will count an entire week's worth of chats, how many what days, how done and also reactions, maybe a + or - for how you get along....maybe we could be the next sims online

This type of rating system effectively rewards one personality type while penalizing another, regardless of an individual's real merits. Not every good person is a socializer. Some very good people, in fact, are rather reclusive and/or shy. The current rating system seems actually punitive toward many players, in that there are special perks/financial rewards for being an extrovert in SL, essentially turning the more reclusive player into a second-class citizen by default.

the ebay system is worthless. in ebay circles we call it the single shot phasar.

do you know WHY so many bad apples have so much GOOD feedback ? because they use feedback blackmail. they hold is hostage to prevent you from leaving them negative feedback. they will not leave you feedback until you leave them feedback.

if you NEG them and they are a bad apple what do you really think they are going to do ? leave you a positive rating and say sorry for screwing you over ?

See the problem. the result is except people who really got burned and dont care about the single shot phasar effect people will now choose NOT to leave feedback at all for FEAR that they will get negged in return. you see the seller with 10,000 feedback can afford to absorb a few negs the BUYER with 10 feedback could have his ebay experience RUINED by even a single negative. so they have no choice but to choose NOT to leave any feedback. even a NEUTRAL feedback could result in a retaliatory negative. (the seller wants to send the message of dont mess with me or I will neg you)

the only way to fix this is to mandate that the seller leave me feedback before I leave him feedback and to mandate that all sellers MUST leave feedback.

but even that has problems. if a seller knows he is screwing you he could wait till 90days passes and then premptively neg you anyway (he already knows he burned you as it was likely intentional)

thankfully I dont get burned often on ebay (twice once resolved) and I have been on ebay since nearly day one of ebays life but I am almost exclusively a buyer I dont sell much.

The problem with second life is there is no way to "make" money without spending real world money. "making" stuff does not count since that has the same problem as real life. the majority of the populace is simply not skilled enough to be good enough at it to actually make any money and even then it takes real world money !! you have to either pay monthly to get the stipend of put in cash to have money to RENT space in a mall or something of that nature.

I am GLAD that its free now. I am HOPING this means they are doing well enough that they no longer need to charge ! it could also mean that signups have slowed down and they are doing this to entice more signups.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

Hummmmm

I was around before when the rating system changed from free to pay. It totally changed how the system was used! I say leave it alone. Rates at least mean something now when people have to pay to make a rate. Before the 'pay' rate.....they were totally random rates, more of a go to the club and rate as much as you can for the money, or a negative rate for the fun of it. Was a pain in the arse if you ask me. Of course just my opinion

I agree with having NO rating system. I say this because there are people that like to ruin the game by going around and rating random people negatively. There are also people that have 2000+ positive ratings, that probably havent "earned" it.
I'm not sure what purpose this serves other than the weekly bonus. I certainly dont go around looking to see if a merchant has a good rating before purchasing an item of theirs.
I kind of like the idea of an award system or some sort...maybe different levels an avie can achieve with building, socializing, etc... and then a specific reward is given once that goal is reached. IMO the "system" should be rating us, not the general public.
Just my two cents.

Well, in 1.7 positive ratings are still allowed... and still cost L25 from what I understand. Negative ratings are cancelled, and I heard a *rumor* that when 1.7 is initiated, all ratings start at 0 in order to wipe out the days of rating parties. This makes a lot of sense. I know that on the occasion when someone rates me positively now for one of my builds or because I've been able to help that person.. that rating means a lot more than it did 8 months ago when all one had to do was attend a nightclub to get a dozen positive ratings.

As far as negative ratings... they really don't mean much-- except that if you look at a person's bio and they have a dozen neg-rates in behavior... kinda indicates who they are. But still, those negative ratings remain, even if they decide to clean up their act, so neg ratings probably do no one any good at all.

Yeah even in the UK criminal convictions expire after 20 years and your slate is clean.

*sighs* I dont even fight in this catedgory myself Mina, i'd be second class myself, hehe! Thats why i expect it to only go down once a month, so that it continues to check even when u half talk, but hey you are correct, but i personally would rather do this then deal with paying for a rating....I'd rather pay for having ppl on my friend's list or some ordeal similar. As for getting negs in my system of anti-socialism, Maybe we can make a way sililar to a craft just made for attending certain linden sponsored events that help in making you earn REP! Who heck knows what we can do but i personally want a change, i am tired of my stipend system only giving me a 113 every other week when it says on my transfer that i should be getting 367 a week.

I personally feel that the ratings system does serve as sort of a "first impression", since we can't really express ourselves the way we can IRL. So, with that I feel there should always be some sort of ratings system in place.

How bout this, and this is just a spur-of-the-moment thing I'm throwin out there:

We have alot of catagories that people can rate us in, in our profile. At the end of each month, the three catagories with the most rates will be that person's top three "labels". Over time, people will be able to tell what type of person they are by looking at the average "labels" the person gets each month. Everyone should be allowed only to rate on three catagories per person per month, and they should be cheaper the what they cost now.

As far as the stipend issue? Maybe a % of the Ls that goto LL, should goto the person being rated?

First off, yes I wish there were a better way to police the ratings system

Secondly, a ratings system is absolutely critical to help defend against griefers. I know I've found it useful for that. Maybe a better way to make them mean something is to increase the cost for giving someone a rating so that only those who deserve it will be able to have ppl afford to give them, although I'll admit that there has to be a way for newbies and those with little cash to rate as well. Maybe a time limit so that someone can only be rated on each attribute so often (once every 12 hours or so).

Well, that's my two cents worth.

ok try this....how about the only negative ratings would be if a complaint against someone was successful...meaning:if someone reported you that would be reflected in your rep if merit for the complaint was found.....beyiond that...a positive rating should be accompanied by a reason for the rating...."fred was very kind and helpful and made My sl experience a whole lot better".....would resolve a fair amount of the crap currently going on...blackmailing someone with "I am gonna get people to negatively rate you if you don`t......whatever "...sheesh what is this, SL nazism?
And why should My stipend depend on what some crack head in ..well anywhere else...decides arbitrarily?
Is that not a form of griefing?????????or even abuse?

oh...and I may sound a little put off today...well a little while ago I sent an IM to someone I did not know even existed after I was negatively rated offline by them.....now today I get a reply...from someone totally different talking crap and saying I was responsible for creating stuff I never had even input into creating and that was why I was negatively rated.....or he was an alt for the original rater..whatever...as long as someone has an account on a particular ip.....that should be the ONLY one allowed unless a form is filled out explaining the need for more than one....should even cost more for extras.

Sorry for the rant...just seems to be a whole lot of childishness ocurring without any children around......

Well, I still agree with the general sentiment that current ratings system has been abused until it's worthless.

The idea about a neg point being given by LL only, when an abuse report is filed and found valid, is a good concept... except for 2 things.

1. No way in the universe LL is going to do that.
2. On the not-rare occasion when a newbie has to be bannished for 3 days because of being suckered in by an existing user... that newbie later cleans up his act and not another problem is ever experienced. I'd hate to see such a person walking around with a monkey on his back because he was decieved by some abuser (and frankly, I think "newbie duping" should be declared a permaban offense. That'd remove a lot of ill-behaved assasin and mafia people from the board-- no reflection on the decently-behaved members of such groups).

Perhaps the best rating system-- is no rating system except for a paid "this person really treated me nicely" type rating. All ratings should be wiped to zero, paid positive ratings installed (so they're not abused) and let LL deal with the griefers.

There are more ways to let the community know about bad users than ratings. There are forum threads (for the really bad problem causers), there are notecard givers (for those who cause neighborhood problems) and there's simple word of mouth reputation (yeah, that person's a jerk).

I do think that one thing that needs to be done... is that the police blotter needs to be more extensive. The record should be posted for 6 months, the record should be searchable by person's online name, and victims should be able to find out what action was taken. That's how it works in real life, and that's how it should work on Second Life. You do the crime-- you do the time. And it deservedly becomes a matter of public record. And one other concept-- three strikes, you're out!

My two cents from a young user perspective.

1. Negative ratings should be removed
   1. If not removed rating decay should be implemented
      
   
   
2. Rating Decay for positive & negative
   
3. Remove $L stipend bonus for ratings.
   
4. Weighted average for ratings based on giver to receiver
   

Additional ideas:

1. Decayable and Perma ratings
   1. Decayable ratings cost L$25 each and have no effect on $L Stipend Bonus
      
   2. Perma ratings cost L$100 each and do affect stipend bonus OR a portion of the perma rating goes to the recipiant.
      
   
   

The intended money sink effect of the rating is still there, the inflationary pressure is deferred, the rate-party effect is lessened, and neg griefers are parried.

I say leave it as is. . . Without the rep system you really can't tell if a person is good. . . or just plain mean and cruel. By looking them up. . you can tell what kind of person they tend to be. Appearances alone doesn't do. For all you know they may "act" nice towards you. . but the minute anything happens.. they may show thier"true colors." Since you "pay" for rating them they are given an honorable mention. . .or a disciplinary action.
However one should not jump to conclusions here. There are those who have done some things by accident. . . they meant no harm. I can close once. . but decided not to. Accidents happens. this is my opinion.

I find your ideas interesting/intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Plastic.com is a discussion-oriented website that uses rating ("karma" pretty exensively. In some ways, I think it's overly complicated, but there are some good ideas there, IMO.

Obviously plastic doesn't have you pay to rate with L$--instead, there's a limited pool of rating points in circulation at any time, and these are parcelled out 12 (?) points at a time. Most of the time you do not have the opportunity to rate anyone. I'm not sure I'd recommend that, but I do think that giving members a limited number of rating points each week is a good idea. Say, 5 points/week.

Another good idea is that negative ratings cost 2x as much as positive.

One way that ratings are used at plastic is that you only gain certain priviliges on the site after you've received certain rating scores. This idea could be translated to SL by (for example) only giving members rating points once they've received a net positive rating of (for example) 10 points.

I haven't read every message in this thread--sorry if I'm repeating someone else's ideas.

Mina I beg to disagree my friend Pypo is an extrovert in an introvert sort of a way and to be honest you are judging people by saying their judgement is flawed when they rate "extroverts". I like to meet new people but I do not positive rate all that I meet it depends on their demeanor. This is an old arguement and I see it as one of those social us against them kind of things. If you dont like the system dont participate you arent penalized in anyway ..... you just simply have excercised your choice of not participating but I fail to see the merits of penalizing those of us that do enjoy and have enjoyed it. Pypo is more introvert than extro but she has been one of the best people that I have met on SL and a joy to know so before you chuck rocks at us extroverts do a little of your own soul searching and see if it just isnt a few sour grapes on your part...

i agree with mina personally.

a reward system based on how active you are is ultimately flawed. perhaps LL could work in a system judging In Game time instead of how active doing events you are. myself im an extrovert that stays to herself and her closest friends except when out making purchases or setting up new vendors

So what SHOULD be the criterion of award? Just logging in??

Participation is an important part of ANY award system. If someone does not participate in what is going on, then there is no reason to recognize them above and beyond every other guy/gal that "just logs in." You get $50 a week for that.

The current system at least allows people to rate for Building, Giving and Behavior, so if you are more introverted (as I am) there are still categories where you can participate in the Second Life world, and build a reputation as a great Builder, a great Giver or a great socializer (which I assume is for "Behavior".)

If someone is a complete slug and contributes nothing to the world but a consumer of entertainement, if that, then I don't think they SHOULD be rewarded. The rating bonus is a nice way for the content developers to remain motivated to contribute.

If I could change anything, I might make rating points have a "shelf life" so that as people contribute less, their rating eventually dwindles, and with it, their bonus. This way, people must continue to contribute to the world to maintian their rating, and rating numbers will actually reflect relatively accurately on a person's current state of reputation.

Also, if all rating points eventually faded, then even neg ratings would eventually fade and we wouldn't have to get rid of the means to punish those who grief our space, but there would be a path for social redemption for those that fly right and pursue poisitive participation.

Just a thought.

Hmm, the thing I don't like is that your rating seems to be by quantity rather than quality. I think it should be a mixture of both, and ratings should be valued from 0 to 10 (each user decides how high they wish to rate).

How would this work?
Well, a user would have a number of points earned, and a vote potential.
Every time a user is rated their vote potential goes up based on how many points they could have earned. So if the rater gave them a 6 out of 10, and had no modifiers on their rating, then it will give a potential of 10, and a points earned of 6.
These values may be lower than this due to modifiers:

Modifiers
Some votes won't be weighted as highly as others. This will happen one main case:
Rate-you-rate-me ratings. If I rate someone 10/10, and they rate me 10/10 in return, both our ratings will be less highly valued, sure they might be geniune but they are immediately considered to be biased, so may be weight half or less. If we assume a 50% weighting, then this would give me +5 rating points, and +5 rating potential, which is important for the next section.
Another possible modifier is the time since your last rating, to avoid sudden group ratings, the time since your last rating is used to devalue future ratings. So if it is only five seconds since my last rating, a new rating might be worth a rating potential of 1 opposed to 10. So if I am rated 5/10 for it I will get 0.5 added to my rating points.
This also makes it hard to perform massed low ratings.

Rewards/bonuses
Rewards and bonuses would be given on tiers, which tier you fall into is determined by your rating potential. In addition it should be noted that every user would start off with a single 5/10 rating to their name, meaning they do not start at zero.

So if I have a potential of 100, I might fall into the 50 to 250 tier, giving me a maximum bonus of L$200.
However, not all of these are ratings points, I've only got 60 rating points so I get a lower bonus, the bonus I do get is calculated as my rating percentage, minus 50% then double. So, my percentage is 60/100 = 60%, minus 50% is 10%, doubled is 20%. I will only get 20% of the possible bonus for this tier, so I get L$40. Anyone with 50% or below will get no bonus, although 50% isn't a bad rating, it's not a good one either.

In this way it is possible for a commonly rated but disliked user to earn nothing despite being in a high tier, this allows them to be quite conveniently be shown as a trouble maker, and the sheer number of low ratings they'd have to get will make it difficult for them to gain anything.

Conclusion
Although a bit convoluted and confusing to describe, I think is an overall more fair and intuitive system. In-world it should only be possible to see a user's rating percentage, so if they are rated a lot by people who like them they might have 80% in a nice green colour. If they are scum then they might be only 9% in a nasty red.
I should note that the percentage would not be displayed until they have entered the first tier, ie that is they have received enough ratings for them to be considered unbiased enough to be useful.