public reputation bot?

[1upnate]

See this feature in budabot, but haven't ever really seen it used. think there'd be any interest in having a public bot (well... semi public) that people can send reputations to? I know I see a lot of stuff in ooc (or neutnet, which usually results in a ban, surprise surprise), about players ninja-ing or KSing or any other time of scam or something and figured it might be a good idea to have a public thing that people can send feedback to and can also check. I could host it and moderate it quite easily (as to avoid spamming or exploitation).

what do ya thinkkk

[Flyingengi]

I think there are way too many cry babies and it would just be nothing but another way to ruin people's reputations.

Unless you are going to require video evidence and comb over that by yourself.

[1upnate]

interesting perspective. didn't think of it that way. noted.

[MachSchau]

"1upnate called me a poopy head" "1upnate thinks he is better than all the raiders and does his own thing" "1upnate swears too much" "1upnate is a bad bad man" "1upnate didn't invite me to raid" "1upnate is greedy" "1upnate doesn't speak english and when you try to communicate with him he doesn't understand and he keeps loot for himself" "1upnate is a newb" "1upnate's org is full of newbs" "1upnate is friends with mr ninja looter" "1upnate is a clan/omni/neut ganker" "1upnate doesn't help with towers and is a bad war leader".

As stated, there are too many cupcake carebear cry babies in this game. If you do something out of the norm, and it doesn't even have to be a douchy thing (like ninja looting is a douchy thing, but selling loot to your own raid mates may/may not), people will find a reason to complain. If you argue with someone in open chat, doesn't matter if you are right and he is wrong and vice versa, people would report that on your bot.

The fact of the matter is, its no ones business to police the players. The players can do that themselves and can simply choose to play with whoever they want/have interacted with on a regular basis.

[1upnate]

lol I am every single one of those things! haha but yeah. I see now. would be a bad idea. nevermindddd haha

[Ahndracorvid]

Reputations used to speak for themselves. If you ninja'd, KS'd, griefed, or whatever... people would remember it. Nobody really seems bothered now though.

[Gatester]

You would be better off making a "good" reputation bot. This way people can put votes in for players who do good things, help others, were an excellent member of a raid, etc.

[1upnate]

You would be better off making a "good" reputation bot. This way people can put votes in for players who do good things, help others, were an excellent member of a raid, etc.

interesting idea. so if perhaps some tank or caller has excellent communication skills and used teamwork to completely ace a raid, that could be noted. that what you mean?

[Gimpynoob]

interesting idea. so if perhaps some tank or caller has excellent communication skills and used teamwork to completely ace a raid, that could be noted. that what you mean?

Somethingsomethingawsome (my sikrit alt) is the bestest in PvP, PvM and has the biggest, fattest cabbage in the whole of RK. And is not even atrox.



A good rep bot would suffer from the same problems as a bad rep bot. Genuinely good people would get a few points over time while the trolls would spam the bot into irrelevance.

[Solox]

A disaster of an idea that's not rescued by Gatester's carebear alternative.

[Gatester]

interesting idea. so if perhaps some tank or caller has excellent communication skills and used teamwork to completely ace a raid, that could be noted. that what you mean?

That is what I meant, and the negative views of it aside there would not be as many trolls polluting it with fake votes as you would think. People would take advantage of it like they do any bot, but the good would still get through as well and consist of the majority of what is in there. One raid could potentially net someone a dozen votes, how many would actually bother voting themselves more than that?

Still, I wouldn't bother with either one really, but the "carebear" alternative would be better

[Armus]

What gimpynoob said.


And.. Why would anyone need this in the first place?

[Unkfix]

a good rep bot wouldn't get trolled "too much" if there was a level requirement to post feedback, such as level 220 req to post anything to the bot about another player

[Flyingengi]

a good rep bot wouldn't get trolled "too much" if there was a level requirement to post feedback, such as level 220 req to post anything to the bot about another player

Because it's so hard to get to 220. I know zero immature 220 players.

[McKnuckleSamwich]

I got a good solution to this.

It's called "word of mouth".

Basically the way it works is you do stuff with your friends, and if you raid with someone and he's a douche, you let him know, and if he doesn't improve over the next few times you raid with him, you put him on ignore or whatever. And if someone is a nice guy and works hard and brings lots of needed toons to a raid or whatever then you mention it to your buddy. then there's 2 people who know that dude's not a douche.

The other alternative is to have a org forum.

In the org forum we keep tabs on anyone who's of interest.

There's basically 3 types of people:

1. Orgmates and applicants (these range from really good to almost /org kick)

2. People who scam/ninja/impersonate/whatever thing that leads to hurt feelings

3. Everyone else (these are all the people who generally follow the rules, don't do anything retarded, and generally don't make so much of an ass of themselves that they drive people away from them)

The only people that are worth talking about are the people in number 1 and 2. The rest of the people are inconsequential for everything other than side XP and getting tara phats for points and not creds.

People in #1 are usually decent or improving.
People in #2 are the ones your mother warned you about.

[aramsunat]

I would like to point out that this initiative is against the rules (defaming people) and the bot will be banned sooner than it can talk to Brandon Thorn.

[Dochere]

I very much like this idea, though that said witha few key differences.

• Reputation would pe private.
• Ability to create shared-pools of reputation.

Everyone can create a pool then invite people to share information with which-ever pool they are a member off. Whenever a person gives someone any sort of reputation they are asked which "pool" this information should be share with.

Person who made pool would have a few editorial tools to "mute" any member of the pool that are polluting the reputation. Everyone are in a soft spot at times and blow things out of proportions espec during a huge fight.


Other functions of pool could be anonymous numerical rating of a person. Which could be public information. Rating could ofc be unique one vote per player limited to level 50 or above. I have been discussing a similar functionality like this earlier, many then argued that "what about one persons vendetta against another" well simply put that could happen just as well in the real world. The solution then is not to oversee this but rather try find a solution and solve the issue.

[Ahndracorvid]

There's really no need for it. Years ago we already had a system in place and it worked fine. It's called "word of mouth".

[Mrstabber]

This sounds like a great idea if you're looking to start trouble in-game and on forums. It might be worth it for that reason alone.

There's really no need for it. Years ago we already had a system in place and it worked fine. It's called "word of mouth".

/thread

[Kazeran]

I'm with the "word of mouth" crowd. If you're worth knowing you will be known. A reputation bot would be a lot like a horrible social media upvote/downvote/like/dislike type of thing and thats the last thing I would want to see in AO.