A suggestion

[ArtDecade]

As a newer player (about 6 mos) on Fibs, and I want to say first and foremnost that I LOVE RepBot!!  I know it has its shortcoming, but I have played at several other on-line sites over the years.  By always checking on a opponent's reputation before playing I have encountered FAR fewer problems with stallers, abusive players, and droppers at Fibs than I ran into in any other site.  So, Fibs is where I am going to stay.

That said, I have a suggestion....

Rather than post a player's raw Reputation I would prefer to see a player's Reputation adjusted by that player's experience.  For example, as I sit here I have been able to find two players with roughly equal Reputations:  alohaman, with a Good reputation of 52,752, and KaKa, with a Good reputation of 58,120.  However, alohaman has achieved his reputation after playing just 1,016 games, while KaKa has played 17,955 games.  To me, then, while KaKa has the 'better' reputation, it seems that alohman would be, for lack of a better expression, the 'nicer' player.

I have looked at roughly a dozen 'random' GOOD players and divided their Reputation by their experience.  The results run between 0 (obviously) and about 50 or 60.  With the two players I have just picked, to continue the example, alohaman would have an experence-adjusted Reputation of 52, and KaKa an experience-adjusted Reputation of 3!  (For what it is worth, my own experience-adjusted Reputation - perhaps call it a Reputation Index?? - is very high, at 88.  I have not found another player with a Reputation Index above 60.)

Anyway, I do not know what a Reputation Index of 10 vs. 20 vs. 30 'means'.  However, should Fibs start publishing these numbers I imagine all players would quickly form their own judgments about given levels.

[playBunny]

Anyway, I do not know what a Reputation Index of 10 vs. 20 vs. 30 'means'. 

Nor do I. An extreme example will illustrate this.

The value of someone's reputation depends on the experience of those who vouch. A newbie could attain a reputation of 30,000 after just three matches if their first three opponents were long-term Fibsters who were impressed and vouched for them. This would give a Reputation Index, for a 1-pointer player, of 10,000. Woohoo! Those same vouches coming from 7-point matches would give an Index of about 1400.

A Reputation Index is thus clearly dependant on who someone plays as well as (and maybe more than) how they are themself and very much on the average match length that they prefer.

[ArtDecade]

While I have to grant that your hypothetical situation might occur, I have two thoughts. 

One, I've never seen anything remotely like that occur.  Again, log onto Fibs, pick some players, and calculate their Reputation Index.  I trust you will find that they fall within the range I mentioned (0 to 60, with many clustered around 20 or 30).

Two, when gauging the Reputation of a prospective opponent who has limited experience (<100?  <500?  <1,000?) under his or her belt, I think most of us take that Reputation with a grain of salt.  We would therefore take a Reputation Index of an inexperienced player with a grain salt.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback   

[playBunny]

The danger with an extreme example is that it might be taken as the point rather than an illustration. The conclusion, once again, is the Reputation Index is dependant on the opponents and even more so the match lengths. Neither of these factors say much about the social quality of the player.

[ArtDecade]

Bunny -

Unless I am missing something, I believe you are mistaken about match length affecting one's reputation.  According to the this (i.e., fibsboard.com) web site:

The reputation metric of a user is the sum total of the experience of vouchers for that user minus the sum total of the experience of complainers against that user. If the number is positive then it's followed by (GOOD) and if it's negative then it's followed by (BAD).

As for your comment that a Reputation Index is dependent on the experience of the opponents who vouch for or complain about you, well, that's absolutely true, but that's simply how one's raw Reputation is calculated.  If you intend your observation about that dependency to be a criticism of my suggested Reputation Index, my response is that what you are really doing is criticizing how one's raw Reputation is calculated to begin with.  Yes?  I understand that those players who do not like how Reputation is calculated are unlikely to look at my suggestion and say, "Oh, great idea!"  If you are at all comfortable with Reputation, however, it just seems to me that the number would be much more useful if adjusted for Experience.

Cheers!   

[playBunny]

Unless I am missing something,

Aye, you are. I said Reputation Index is dependant on the opponents and even more so the match lengths.

As for your comment that a Reputation Index is dependent on the experience of the opponents who vouch for or complain about you, well, that's absolutely true, but that's simply how one's raw Reputation is calculated.  If you intend your observation about that dependency to be a criticism of my suggested Reputation Index, my response is that what you are really doing is criticizing how one's raw Reputation is calculated to begin with.  Yes? 

I'm not really criticising the existing Reputation value; if anything, I'm criticising both. But the fact that it's in both is incidental; the existing Reputation isn't under discussion here. I could hardly omit the effect of the opponent's experience, for my point is that a Reputation Index would suffer from two factors which are have nothing to do with the player.

I understand that those players who do not like how Reputation is calculated are unlikely to look at my suggestion and say, "Oh, great idea!"  If you are at all comfortable with Reputation, however, it just seems to me that the number would be much more useful if adjusted for Experience.

Any reputation value can and will be used by people in various ways. If they don't understand what it means they are more likely to misuse it, or rather be misled by it.
My contributions here are simply agreeing with your statement "I do not know what a Reputation Index of 10 vs. 20 vs. 30 'means'" and exploring a bit deeper why it's hard to discern a meaning for these values.

Personally, I use the reputation pretty much as bad/uncertain/good. If it's negative then I avoid the person and will accept an invitation from them when they go decently positive. If it's less than decently positive (a fluctuating value) then they are uncertain but I still won't play. If they're decently positive on both reputation and experience (and I forget to check whether they're using a slobile phone) then I'll play them.

Cheers!   

Cheers!

[socksey]

Another point that you may not be getting, ArtDecade, is that Repbot has nothing to do with Fibs except as a tool.  The bot is not run by Patti through Fibs, but by an independent Fibs player. 

A complaint or vouch made after a match of any length is the same, based on the voucher or complainer's experience up to 10,000 maximum.  Repbot was originally conceived by burper, in a slightly different format, then later, taken on by inim (thank you, inim) who is currently running Repbot to Patti's specifications. 

Btw, welcome to Fibs, ArtDecade!  May you enjoy many years of entertainment there!   

socksey



"The way a team plays as a whole determines its success. You may have the greatest bunch of individual stars in the world, but if they don’t play together, the club won’t be worth a dime." - Babe Ruth