reputation amendment

[vikrant]

summary
the name of reputation giver will be displayed in one's user control panel

Reputation amendment

the proposal is aimed at restoring the previous system where a member was able to view the name of reputation giver . Now since only staff can give negative reputation one of the primary reason why this feature was disabled is no longer valid .

[Erich von Manstein]

I'm not a patrician, but I support this.

[Obi Wan Asterix]

Support this....

I also wanted to know want esteemed patricians think of the idea that we return to the state where we are not limited to the amount of rep we give out

[Amroth]

I support.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

supported

I also wanted to know want esteemed patricians think of the idea that we return to the state where we are not limited to the amount of rep we give out

what do you mean?

[Obi Wan Asterix]

supported



what do you mean?

I mean that there is no limit of how much rep within 24 hours be given or that it be doubled at least... sometimes also a person posts something so brilliant its a shame to only give them one point for it

[Ragabash]

Tacticalwithdrawal.

I think he means the restriction not being able to give more then one reputation to same person during a certain time limit, of course he could be after something else also.

[Arakorn]

No, it's better IMO to limit it. It's more fair this way.

[Tom Paine]

Support this amendment. It means I can stop manually signing!

[Perikles]

I support this (even though moderators can cast their spells and find out anyway). I believe it would make people think before giving rep, especially the staff with neg rep.

[Shaun]

summary
the name of reputation giver will be displayed in one's user control panel

Reputation amendment

the proposal is aimed at restoring the previous system where a member was able to view the name of reputation giver . Now since only staff can give negative reputation one of the primary reason why this feature was disabled is no longer valid .

I think this is a good idea, and support it, for what its worth.

[MCM]

I may be the noobie,

but I support the idea too.
If people are going to make comments,
they should have to write their name down with it.

MCM

[the Black Prince]

do not support


it would be entirely and utterly absurd to insert the following text into the constitution as the first post suggests

the proposal is aimed at restoring the previous system where a member was able to view the name of reputation giver . Now since only staff can give negative reputation one of the primary reason why this feature was disabled is no longer valid .

for this to be an amendment, you would need to codify into the syntagma the entire reputation system, which is incredibly impractical simply because the system can and will change depending upon the technology utilised for the forum and such changes should not be restricted by requiring constitutional amendments to implement

this should be a Curial Decision

[Virgil]

well with what little influence I hold I offer my support as well.

[makanyane]

On a technical note, I would like to know, if this passes would it be retroactive?

Having occasionally given +rep, I'd prefer to remain anonymous I'd like to know if I need to go and hide!

Also, more seriously, would it show senders of previous neg rep?

[Tom Paine]

I think it'd have to be retroactive, software-wise...

[the Black Prince]

Curial Decision - Reputation

Given that negative reputation has been disabled for most members, there is no longer a need for Reputation to remain anonymous. The Curia therefore Decides that the previous system should be restored, and the names of the people who have given you reputation points be known

as previously mentioned, the text of the post would look totally ridiculous if included in the Constitution not to mention the absurdity of having a section of the constitution that specifies that reputation names shall be shown without reputation itself being defined

[Perikles]

I support tBP's version, a decision makes more sense...

[Spiff]

Rather than a seperate decision, could this not just alter the text of the existing reputation orientated one? It makes ore sense to keep everything related to reputation from the Curia in one body of text rather than spreading it out.

[the Black Prince]

Curial Decisions aren't the same as a the syntagma.

the syntagma is a single enforcable document that can be modifed by amendments that in themselves hold no force. an amendments only power, regardless of its text, is to amend the constitution.

Each decision is a single entity, a message signed by the Curia and sent to the staff asking them to do a particular thing. it would seem to have no prolonged existance, its not something we pass which comes into force, its a statement of how we would like things to be. each one is a one off event, a past record of which we keep in the archives. amending a past decision would seem like a rather pointless exercise. that decision has already been decided and (one would hope) acted upon. what is now considered is a new decision. this new decision may surpass or render obsolete previous ones, but cannot be said to amend previous ones, because the decision itself is not a piece of legislation that can be enforced or referred to.

the new constitution further codifies this principle, with only the Syntagma kept up to date in the Curia Main, with decisions, once made, simply listed in a single thread in the archives alongside the list of amendments.