Rating System for Members?

[yeszir]

Ha I forgot about that guy. But yea, that is what his postbit would look like.

[riverside sluggers]

haha he kind of wore out his welcome with us pretty quick

His team won for the first time since 1917 (1 year more than ours), and yet he started ragging on us about "1918", and a number of silly tries to bash on us here.

[ARod2212]

Actually 2 more years, since it also took them a year after you won to get another.

[26 to 6]

Originally Posted by Moose

I could already see it, if we did have Karma points...

that would get pretty annoying.

...but the thread starter's idea wasnt horrible I dont think, like just for fun. But I agree with everyone else that if you're around long enough you know who is who.

[One Red Seat]

Thanks for the glowing review krazee. While I can see the merits of a rating system based on post quality (it would help noobs quickly filter out some of the irrational posts), I do have doubts as to how it could be fairly implemented and what its effects would have on lower-rated posters. On the first point, how would post quality be gauged? No automated system could accurately measure post quality, and human judgement would be both tedious and biased. Some members would in effect be forced to accept the silver medal because the French judge was in collusion with the Russian judge. Sorry, couldn't resist the figure skating analogy. On the second point, this type of rating would result in de facto censorship, as lower-rated members would be likely to refrain from sharing their opinion if it didn't receive high marks. I suppose this sort of happens already when others rip weak opinions apart (I know I'm guilty of this), but at least the opinion is out there for analysis, and they do receive feedback that has the potential to affect their thought process.

[RedSoxRooter]

It's not really needed here anyway. I mean, how many users post here on a regular basis? If you read the site for a week you'll basically know who each poster is and what quality they post at.

My only problem is that I sometimes get confused with the usernames. Big Papi names I always get mixed up.

[yeszir]

Originally Posted by RedSoxRooter

It's not really needed here anyway. I mean, how many users post here on a regular basis? If you read the site for a week you'll basically know who each poster is and what quality they post at.

My only problem is that I sometimes get confused with the usernames. Big Papi names I always get mixed up.

And those damn similar avatars.

[26 to 6]

Originally Posted by yeszir

And those damn similar avatars.

thats why I stick with the Yankee avatars with the black border lol

[Manny Goes Boom]

Originally Posted by yeszir

And those damn similar avatars.

Thats part of the reason I changed mine from the site's Manny one. I forgot his username but he had the same one.

[He Hate Me]

Originally Posted by krazeebrainz

To all,
1-2/10: You know nothing about baseball, stick to hop scotch.

3-4/10: Picking-up a newspaper every now-and-then would help...

5-6/10: You make good points and bring good information to the forum.

7-8/10: Solid Poster, one that brings insightful and well-thought-out points.

9-10/10: Incredible poster, Peter Gammon's "mini me!"

What do you all think?

-krazeebrainz or

I'm cool with it. I'd like to name each category though

1-2/10: DoucheBag

3-4/10: You have touched an actual douchebag before

5-6/10: You wonder what a douchebag feels like

[BoSox_Babe]

i hate the similar avatars...i used to have a hard time figuring out who was who cuz i usually just look at avatars...thats why i always stuck to hanley avatars

[MC Hammer]

Originally Posted by BoSox_Babe

i hate the similar avatars...i used to have a hard time figuring out who was who cuz i usually just look at avatars...thats why i always stuck to hanley avatars

weren't you banned twice?