Is my reputation system secure?
The flaw in your system is that it focuses on length of membership, not quality of contribution. An inactive user who contributes nothing gains status simply by virtue of having joined a long time ago.
Why do you want to limit the amount of content users can post? I'd suggest a simple system that lets other members flag a post as "bad" (just like SO). Once a certain number of members (say 5) all mark the post as "bad," it is automatically removed. Members with too many "bad" posts are booted off.
There are a lot of good answers here, but I think what you are looking for is a way to "game" the system such that no user, no matter how powerful, can limit how you behave. Thus this is my attempt to game the system in this way.
Necessary precondition: Someone invites you to the site/gives you one mojo, since it takes one mojo to create an account.
Then,
I have my one mojo account.
Each day, I use my one mojo to create a new account (I "invite" them and give them one mojo).
Then each day, I use the mojo of my created accounts to create another account for each account I already have (obviously burning each accounts Mojo down to zero each day).
IE Day 1
1 account creates another account - so I have 2
Day 2 - Each account creates another account - so I have 4
Day 3 - 8
Day 4 - 16 accounts
Day 5 - 32 accounts
Day 6 - 64 accounts
Day 7 - 128 accounts
Day 8 - 256 accounts
Day 9 - 512 accounts
Day 10 - 1024 accounts
Day 11- 2048 accounts
I repeat until I have enough accounts that even the highest ranked user won't have enough mojo to silence me - instead of competing by increasing my individual mojo, I compete by increasing my "group's" mojo - If I post something and you don't like I just repost under another one of my thousands of accounts. Instead of being a bigger dinosaur I would be a swarm of mosquitoes.
I have a long answer, but the summary is: your system does not get rid of the bad users, but only delayed them from doing harm.
...can't be "played"
Giving and taking Mojo is supposed to be an act on the level of marking someone as a friend or as an enemy.
I want them to use it to influence how other people behave on site.
The only way to see if your system is secure is to be evil and game it. Stackoverflow is full of nice people, but for this question to be answered, its best to think evil thoughts.
/me wears goatee
To create an account you need one Mojo. Without it you can only answer other people's comments.
Hi, I'm MrValdez. I'm a nice guy. Here's some friendly answers to your comments.
When you have an account, you get one Mojo a day.
You can give one Mojo to someone who has less, but only once to each person.
Hey, this is a cool site. I'll invite my friends over.
/me creates dummy accounts and give them Mojo.
Hey, here's a blog post. What do you guys think?
/me logins into dummy accounts and post like crazy.
You can only post as many posts and comments as you have Mojo.
You can answer as many comments as you like.
You can't have your Mojo back.
Via a post or private message: Awww man, I'm out of Mojo. Can you give me some so I can answer [dummy account #1]'s post? His post is awesome and I got a great response which I think he'll enjoy.
"Post of the Day" or "Favorite Blog of the Week" contests with prizes of around 3-10 Mojo.
I'll make a post and have my dummies vote me.
10 days later, I would have mojo = (number of dummy accounts) * 10 + (Number of users fooled into giving me Mojo).
/me gives the Mojo to dummy account who goes into a flaming spree. /me washes hands of the deed.
What happens next depends on your current community. They could start flaming back or they could ignore me and my dummies until we go away.
The worst case is that they will fight back and all of your planing and system would go to waste.
The best case is that they would be mature enough not to entertain the bad guy. BUT, if your current community is mature enough, why would you still need such a complicated system to encourage people to be nice?
I recommend that you should spend time building the community. In my opinion, if you want a good community, you should spend more time with the community and helping set the tone for the rest to follow.
Case-in-point: StackOverflow started with a community of programmers who are genuinely interested in helping other people. We got a great sense of community because we all have the same interest. We know the top users won't abuse their moderator's power because we explicitly gave them our trust over a long period of time (in contrast with your system where time and trickery are used to rank a person's status). And finally, the developers of the site actually posts questions and answers as well as "talk" to us via a weekly podcast.
As a (pretend) bad guy, I don't have the heart or the resources to destroy such a tight community.
updates:
To avoid having people create multiple accounts to boost their main account you can only give Mojo to people with less Mojo (and each user can only give another user Mojo once).
Same problem. I'll just have the main account give Mojo to the dummy accounts until I get almost even Mojo across the different accounts. In addition, that rule can be easily circumvent by making more dummy accounts.
The scoring on "Post of the day" type of things is something I have yet to work on.
If you want us to comment on the scoring, update your post and we'll update our answers. But my opinion still haven't changed, you're just applying band-aid to the wrong problem.
Other posters have mentioned that your system encourages idle accounts. From the point of view of a bad guy, I wouldn't want to have an idle account. I would want to get as many account recognized by the community as a legitimate account. This would cause more damage when I finally decide to attack.
Here are some consequences of your design. These may or may not be what you intended, but I point them out so that you're aware of them.
A very Mojo-ful user who has been mostly quiet is not going to care at all about stepping on some toes, because they have a huge bank of Mojo from which to draw. This seems to go against your goal of limiting negative behavior.
Likewise, users who contribute absolutely nothing to your site still get Mojo just by virtue of having an account. But an otherwise valuable contributor who makes one off-color post that's disliked by the community will be silenced until he has enough Mojo to post again.
If someone has something very valuable to contribute, he has to make sure to have "reserve Mojo" at all times -- that is, he must ensure that he isn't at his posting limit. If he doesn't, he might lose the opportunity to say something useful that would earn him more Mojo.
The rate at which people can accrue Mojo is limited by the size of the community. If there are few people who are handing out Mojo, pretty soon they won't be able to hand out Mojo anymore, since there won't be anyone left who hasn't already received Mojo from them.
The oldest users will effectively become an invincible cabal whose ideas may define and shape your site. Since you can only reduce someone else's Mojo if they have fewer Mojo than you, these users can make statements your community vehemently disagrees with and have their Mojo ratings remain intact.
In general, by restricting the supply of Mojo, you have created an economic system in which people will probably be more hesitant to contribute to a discussion. They will need to more carefully weigh what they say, since a post that is disliked by the community may prevent them from speaking further if they get too much negative Mojo.
Playing the system
Either show me how to play the system, or explain why you think it's impossible to play it.
Suppose we define "playing the system" as "artificially changing the value or quantity of one's Mojo in ways you didn't intend". I would say your system is safe from artificial inflation of Mojo, but at the cost of stifling discussion that would have otherwise taken place. You must be able to make the following guarantees:
- Flow condition. Mojo only "flows down"; it is not possible for a lower-ranked user to transfer Mojo to a higher-ranked user.
- Creation condition. It is difficult for users to take actions which can generate their own Mojo. Also, it is either impossible to make new accounts, or they carry such a heavy penalty that no one will want to do it.
For example, if you cannot satisfy the creation condition, then malicious early users will simply make an army of new accounts. They keep a number of these new accounts in reserve, quietly accruing Mojo. They then use them as a "bury brigade" to drain Mojo of factions or ideas they disagree with. Although they will lose Mojo when they do so, the collective Mojo of the bury brigade will be constant as long as they don't go hitman on more than a single hated foe per day.
This is clearly not what you intended.
Artificial deflation
However, your system is not safe from artificial deflation of Mojo. To see why, imagine that users stream into your site to accept their invitations. Imagine a user, Mallory, with k Mojo points. Because Mojo can only flow down, there is no way for a user with k or fewer Mojo points can express their disagreement with Mallory. Only users with k+1 or more Mojo can do so.
Mallory's reign of terror will continue unchecked unless there are enough users with k+1 or higher Mojo. In fact, if Mallory is an early enough user, there may not be any users who have the power to reduce her Mojo. Indeed, because you've artificially made Mojo scarce, they may not want to burn a Mojo to express their opinion, given how precious each Mojo point is -- since that also weakens them and makes their opinions more vulnerable to attack.
In short, if there are enough (or maybe even just a few) Mallorys, you will be reduced to playing traffic cop and cleaning up after Mallorys instead of improving your site. The system can no longer be self-policing. Each Mojo point has now become worth much more than before, because people will see from the example of Mallory and her ilk that it is better not to burn a Mojo to open oneself to attack. Thus, Mojo deflation.
This is also clearly not what you intended.