Changing the Reputation system

Just wondering, why is it when you give someone a negative rep, you also receive one yourself?

examples:

Joe gives John a negative rep for making a very off topic post. Joe, then also receives a negative rep.

Joe gives John a negative rep for him making a very rude unnecessary comment. Joe, then also receives a negative rep.
-------------

So why exactly should Joe also get a negative rep. A lot of comments go made, comments that are just to tally up post counts or comments that are extremely biased or just flat out nonsense. Those who keep posting them deserve a negative rep and perhaps some people are more hesitant knowing that if they red rep the person, then them too will also lose a point.

I just see no real purpose of enforcing this. Can someone tell me?

 

And this method is very effective.

 

before this system was implemented (yes there was a 'then') rep abuse were rampant. this helps to reduce abuse.

 

Thanks for the replies everyone. Starting to make a little more sense now.

Perhaps changing it to 5 reps per 24hrs as opposed to 10 will reduce the abuse as well. Also, you have to wonder if most of those red reps were all abuse. What if they were legitimate red rep's?

 

Anyone know exactly what "you have to spread some reputation around before giving it to so-and-so again" means? Like how much reputation spreading?

 

Probably 24 times.

But current -1 point loss for giving red rep is not fair, it should be atleast 50% loss for the user giving -ve rep cause say i give someone -ve rep he will probably loose -6 points or more but i loose only -1 , i should technically to be fair loose about -5 points thats 50% of my rep power. To keep abuse be red reppers still. Cause still red rep abuse is taking place.

 

Those were the days eh? I have my suspicion on who was the highest abuser.

 

That would not be fair either. That means that the people with a lot of green would lose a lot for giving red rep. If we could choose how many points the receiver will lose then your suggestion is fair.

 

Yeah, that's exactly true. There is no disincentive for people who have a lot of posts, etc. from abusing the system. Especially if they form cliques and rep each other to make up for their losses.

 

another thing users need to start leaving their names when they rep me so i can rep them back the same. For example just got rep saying "Yeah" alright revel urself now ur in trouble buddy

And so on even green reppers leave no name which makes it hard to track who found my crappy post useful . It should be hardcoded into the rep system showing and putting the users name in the rep , be it red or green to prevent any abuse at all.

Cheers

 

I agree with this theory of reps! It is very intelligent the way its set up.. I don't think theres a need to change the rep system. It makes people think twice about unleashing negs on everyone who does just one little thing. Plus - 1 point is not a lot and will not effect your reputation by much!

 

How many reps do higher green users give out when they hit the red button?

Is it 5 or something... that's what I heard

 

I'm pretty sure that they only lose -1 just like everybody else.

 

It is 10 points. If a negative rep it costs -1

 

Depends on the rep points the user has. Like if I give you red or green rep. you will gain/loose 4/5 points...I guess

 

Well all depend on User's power. If he has 7 Rep power than he add +ve than you get +7 and if he add -ve reps than you got -7 and he also got -1.

 

As said above, it prevents abuse and bullying. If I did not like you, I could go to all of your threads and just leave negative - which would leave people getting banned for nothing.

 

Yeah and new members who give -ve reps also take care next time because of this -ve reps.