Reputation points

Is there any way to see how many points each reputation given is worth? Is there also a way of knowing how many reputation points that I can give?

well, i assume that each box represents a set number of reputation points. i have 15 points, but only one box, so they are worth at least that. for some research, next time you up somebody’s rep ask them how many points it goes up by

I think he’s asking if he can see how much is given in any given situation. You can’t really, unless you keep track starting right now and checking the difference between your total points after you get rep, vs, before you get rep.

Each person does not give the same amount. For example, I give around 20 or so (I think) while DJ gives 38, and the top people give something over 50 I think. It all depends on your own level of reputation. The higher it is, the more points you give.

does your # of posts have any influence on anything with reputation? or anything at all for that matter?

Yes, I believe those with under 50 posts don’t contribute to reputation, thus the gray squares…

each dark green box is worth 100 points,
from 1-99 rep points you will have a single dark green box (or grey if your new).
from 100-199 its 2 dark green boxes
200-299 is 3 dark green boxes
300-399 is 4 dark green boxes
400-499 is 5 dark green boxes
500-699 is 5 dark green boxes and 1 bright green box
700-899 is 5 dark green boxes and 2 bright green boxes
900-1099 is 5 dark green boxes and 3 bright green boxes
1100-1299 is 5 dark green boxes and 4 bright green boxes
1300-1499 is is 5 dark green boxes and 5 bright green boxes
1500+ is 5 dark green boxes and 6 bright green boxes

Currently you cant go over a total of 11 boxes. Also when you place your curser over the boxes it will give you a phrase which represents the users point value. Also like Cory said, each person will give or remove a certain value with a positive or negitive rep comment. people who currently have 1 grey box will not give or remove any rep points when they send a positive or negative request. I dont know if there is a way to see how much each request is worth with out brandon doing some work on a new feature…

There isn’t a way (that I know of) where your reputation score is shown.

There are alot of factors that contribute to how many points you give. It is based on your reputation score (which you can see on your main user cp page, in the upper right corner of the recent reputation box. It is also based on the # of days you’ve been registered, the # of posts you have, etc.

There are a few other quirks spelled out in the FAQ, too, if this doesn’t answer all your questions.

From a previous post about reputation:

Hope this helps

Thank you for posting how the math works! I am still amazed at how one person who has been around the forums for a while and who has at least 8+ boxes gave me a negative rep point. It turned my 1 green box into 1 gray box. I think they were just having a bad day since my post was just an insight into the thread.

However, it shows us how much power a veteran member can have negatively. But this also shows, how forum members can build rep points back up.

But not to leave this post on a negative, thank you to all of you who have helped make ChiefDelphi so wonderful and a great resource for all of us.

Do red bars limit ones posting? Say there are members on CD that have a very negative reputation, does the system limit their posting because they have such a negative reputation?

If it doesnt, I think it should.

I agree. Then we could keep that SilenceNoMore fool from posting.

Think of what a better place Chiefdelphi would be.


Here Here!

The problem is that one can then come back on as a guest.

To steer this back on topic: <humor> So, if someone with 2 red boxes gives you neg feedback, do you really get positive feedback? </>

Remember kids, censorship is bad.

“'Tis better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”

This is a wise sentiment that many have not yet taken time to understand. They should be given every opportunity to do so.

I agree. If you censor one thing, it sets a dangerous precident to enable censoring in the future. That’s the theory behind Slashdot- No posts can be deleted or edited. It’s been a very contraversial stance for them, and they’ve been threatened with legal action a few times because of it. But the idea is if one post can be deleted, it opens the doors for other posts to be deleted. If that happens, there’s no stopping how many posts can be deleted, or under what criteria a post would be eligable for deletion. Some would argue political or moral censorship, and the site would loose lots of credibility as people complained. Of course, this means there are plenty of trolls who take advantage of the system, but I think it’s a small price to pay for the freedom of knowing your thoughts can be expressed without fear of censorship. It’s easy enough to browse around trolls, but far more difficult to get your ideas heard in a public place without fear of ridicule or censoring.

It doesnt really matter what anyone thinks about the forum moderators ability to delete posts or edit them, or if censorship is bad.

Read the TOS. Im sure it says something along the lines of it is up to the discretion of the moderators to delete what they consider inappropriate content.

Now if people went around deleting threads just because they didnt like the person, that’d be another story entirely.

[edit] here we go. “The owners of the ChiefDelphi Forums have the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.”


I think that for people with an extreamly low reputation, maybe their posts should be evaluated by a moderator before it is posted. This way it is not compleate censorship, but does give people an opertunity to review possibly inappropriate posts from a user infamous for bad posts. I also feel that only the administrators, modorators, or the person who posted should have the right to deleate already existing posts.

I have to disagree with having posts from those with low reputations moderated. First, the moderators would have a lot more work to do than they already have. Second, who is to say what type of postings the reputations have come from?

I haven’t posted very often simply because I don’t feel that there is much more for me to add to a current discussion, esp. if M. Krass has responded before me. Therefore, the number of my posts is still under 100, as is my reputation, even though I’ve been around these forums since 2001. In addition, one of those posts that would be waiting for the moderators to approve may be the critical answer to your problem that must be solved in the next 10 min.

One of the interesting issues that is posed by having people post any time they want is that the reader must determine what information is valid. The same goes for any site on the internet.


I don’t think the suggestion was for low but positive reputations, but for the (very) few people that have extremely negative reputations.

I haven’t finished working through my mind as to what I think about that, though.

Cory, I understand that the fine folks in Michigan and the moderators scattered across the country are free to close, move, modify or delete any posts or threads that they’d like. I’m also happy to say that, with some exceptions, I feel that they use those privileges wisely and sparingly. Censorship isn’t a problem on these forums so far.

Everyone, there are also only two people with an overwhelmingly negative reputation among the thousands of members. For that reason alone, discussion about censoring their ability to speak seems fruitless and wasted. One of those members hasn’t posted in over a year, before the reputation system even existed, suggesting to me that their extremely negative reputation probably isn’t deserved.

Remember also that the forums have an “Ignore” function that automatically removes the text from posts by certain individuals. You can choose to view individual posts if you’d like, but on the whole, you can spare yourself from their inane stupidity, ramblings, or trite commentary.

Numerous methods of censorship exist already on these forums, so suggesting a site-wide policy of censorship that lay in the grasp of the majority is overwhelmingly dangerous and completely unnecessary. Around here, we don’t get to vote people off the island, but we can pretty easily pretend they don’t exist.

I don’t particularly like some of the moderation that happens here on CD. For instance, I think threads get closed more often than they should when discussion gets intense. However, I also feel that moderation on CD is a good thing. All in all, the moderators do a great job.

The difference between CD and Slashdot is Slashdot geared for nerds and was started by a group of friends and now financed by the Open Source Devlopers Network. The open source comminuity tends to be extremely liberal and would frown upon censorship of any kind. There is also no specific age group with Slashdot.

CD I would assume is financed by Delphi, or at the very least something with reasonle enough ties to Delphi that it would damage their reputation if you could post whatever you wanted here. There’s also a specific age group on CD; high school students, most of whom are under 18. Granted, some of us are older, but we go to robotics everyday knowing that we have to keep it PG13.