[Logician]

Originally Posted by tenbucks

But if they choose to reply, then how they reply should be something that feedback can be given. I don't want to name names but yesterday I really wish I could have given someone some negative reputations.
Regular members don't need reputation in my opinion. Those are people that are here using the resources this site has to offer. What is the point in for instance me having a reputation.

Please do not consider reputations a sole tool to punish(!) staff. If some of our members are having problems with the staff, then it is our job to correct things. But since you are also a site admin, I think you'll admit that staff can not make everybody happy. You as a staff sometimes have to take direct actions (like closing thread etc.) and you'll make some people unhappy even if you are doing an excellent job. So I believe reputations is not a good tool for evaluating staff.

On the other hand I don't agree regular members don't need reputation. There are many people here who are able to help to others with certain questions, but they prefer not to. They just download the hacks here, but do not join in the discussions to give some support for the community. I was thinking that good karma can be an incentive for some members to help others in our forums.

In other words my understanding of user reputations is not to put down people (staff or member) but just the contrarty praise them when they are helpful to you. I think good karma helps to build a supportive community.