An idea from ben himself

[ReubenMcHawk]

Yeah, no. With reputation comes repfucks, then eventually the rep system is "do I like this person or don't I?". Then we'll have the airheads who act like reputation makes them deities or something.

[Frostified]

Nah, I don't think this would work tbh.
We should have something like a marking system, e.g:
A server will only allow players who's profiles are unmarked with a griefer symbol, it will kick/reject all players who's profiles have griefer symbols.

[bobbotheclown]

or something that lets people know when players have bad reputation, that way server admins know which players to keep an eye on, instead of just straight not allowing them into servers.

[CalenLoki]

Another idea to allow hard to abuse rep system:
1. your account keep track of your rep on each server (from -5 to 5)
2. your rep can be either set manually by server admin, or gained for playing:
+1 up to 1 for ending match within upper half of your team scoreboard (server must be filled min 50%)
+1 up to 3 for ending match within top 1/4 of your team scoreboard (server must be filled min 70%)
+1 up to 5 for ending match on top of your team scoreboard (server must be filled min 90%)
-1 down to 1 for ending match in outside top 1/4 of your team scoreboard (server must be filled min 70%)
-1 down to 0 for ending match in outside top half of your team scoreboard (server must be filled min 50%)
-1 down to -3 for ending match on the bottom of your team scoreboard (server must be filled min 50%)
3. server owner can set which other server rep he take into account (so some random rep farms are just ignored), he can also add multiplier to each server (so i.e. he treat rep of certain server 3x more than other servers)
4. your total rep is made of average of your server reps (other than 0), not sum (so grinding max rep on every server can only increase your e-penis)
5. server owner can set minimum rep to join his server
6. your reputation affect voting both passively and actively: it's harder to vote you out when you have high rep, and your vote has more power when you want to kick someone.

Point #3 is most important difference from basic idea. Point #2 is purely optional, it could work only with admins setting rep.

Example: owner of server A thrust owner of servers H, J and M, so he add them to his private "list of serious servers"
It could work in two ways:
a. some group of servers use it as kind of global banning/warning
b. someone who create new server, can add some well known servers to the list to filter douchebags

fixed issues:
-rep farm servers are useless
-spamming someone with negative rep is impossible

additional pros:
-you get kind of community sub-admins: well known players who have a bit higher chances to kick griefers. If they abuse their power, real admins could punish them
-it encourage joining (and staying till the end of the round) in the weaker team, as you get more chance to end close top of scoreboard
-it can be used to filter out bad players too, not only griefers/hackers if server owner wants.

cons:
I'm waiting for your criticism

other changes that would improve this system:
-some better way of tracking player statistics during gameplay, like assisting, intel capping, tent cappint, ect.

[demo123]

Reputation is just a disguise for levels or ranks we hate so much. So I don't get it how people actualy like this.

[nalyd8991]

How about only being able to lose rep? If you never do anything wrong but don't do many things to gain rep, you would look the same as an untrustworthy person who spends some time boosting their rep. If you saw someone with rep gone, you would know something was wrong immediately. Maybe the negative rep could expire after a certain amount of time, or after you stop getting bad rep.

[bobbotheclown]

Reputation is just a disguise for levels or ranks we hate so much. So I don't get it how people actualy like this.

I agree. it just seems like a pointless cosmetic number that will make people judge you.