Joined
·
45 Posts
As a new member to the forum I noticed something a bit inexplicable regarding the reputation system and how this particular forum chooses to implement it.
In regards to the forum Moderators and Administrators; why do they have positive rep? Is it not self evident in the fact they were chosen among the hundreds of other members for their maturity and patience, that they in fact should already be regarded as highly reputable?
I have noticed that some Moderators have considerably less "Reputation" than others, yet they should all be regarded as equals by the average member. This only serves to lessen the voice of a Moderator with less reputation even though they hold the same position.
I realize that this will cause some consternation among the Moderators with a high level of rep and perhaps be lauded by Moderators with lower rep, but this is the first board that I have visited, which allowed Moderators to have reputation at all. Moderators already hold a higher position of authority and certainly should have no need of these trappings, unless reputation here is only another means of measuring the infamous E-Peen, which I find distasteful.
This is just my opinion, but perhaps Reputation should be left to identify the "regular" members that have not attained a Modship, but should be regarded highly nonetheless. In other words, it should be a member priveledge since Mods already have elevated priveledges.
Also, I tip my hat to Blackhat. He could modify his reputation to the maximum level any time he wishes, yet he is humble enough to allow even his own Mods to surpass him. I am fairly certain that I would not show the same restraint were it my own web site.
Worlds Collide
In regards to the forum Moderators and Administrators; why do they have positive rep? Is it not self evident in the fact they were chosen among the hundreds of other members for their maturity and patience, that they in fact should already be regarded as highly reputable?
I have noticed that some Moderators have considerably less "Reputation" than others, yet they should all be regarded as equals by the average member. This only serves to lessen the voice of a Moderator with less reputation even though they hold the same position.
I realize that this will cause some consternation among the Moderators with a high level of rep and perhaps be lauded by Moderators with lower rep, but this is the first board that I have visited, which allowed Moderators to have reputation at all. Moderators already hold a higher position of authority and certainly should have no need of these trappings, unless reputation here is only another means of measuring the infamous E-Peen, which I find distasteful.
This is just my opinion, but perhaps Reputation should be left to identify the "regular" members that have not attained a Modship, but should be regarded highly nonetheless. In other words, it should be a member priveledge since Mods already have elevated priveledges.
Also, I tip my hat to Blackhat. He could modify his reputation to the maximum level any time he wishes, yet he is humble enough to allow even his own Mods to surpass him. I am fairly certain that I would not show the same restraint were it my own web site.
Worlds Collide