Disable Reputation(Or Bring Neg. Rep Back)

[Nuala]

Hello! I'm a little puzzled by the negative reputation option being disabled. Why is this? It defeats the purpose of having a reputation feature at all. It's basically a means to wag your e-wang around, and serves no other purpose.

I realize there is an option to personally disable reputation in the control panel, but it seems illogical to even have such a feature whereas members cannot give negative reputation and positive reputation equally. I'm sure there are others on the forum who agree with me on this.

Would the admins consider removing this feature, or enabling the option to leave negative reputation again?

 

[Hezam]

negative reputation ? @_@
I wouldn't like it...and i've never heard about it !!

 

[Mycernius]

Before your time Hezam. If you got a red ball it meant you were a dick. Two meant you were soon to be banned. Three meant you were McTojo, the only member I ever saw manage to get three red balls before banning.

 

[Hezam]

Before your time Hezam. If you got a red ball it meant you were a dick.

I hope you mean ( idiot ) by dick,not the common word

 

[Grandpa Frank]

WHAT! Negativity on our forum ??

We are such a wonderful loving family , a kind of feely-touchy group; much too polite for saying anything negative about one another.

Uncle Frank

 

[Nuala]

We are such a wonderful loving family , a kind of feely-touchy group; much too polite for saying anything negative about one another.
Uncle Frank

It's funny, because I sorta posted about disabling the negative reputation feature back in high school. Also, no offense intended, Uncle Frank. you know I love you!

 

[Grandpa Frank]

WOW! I was mean then !

It's funny, because I sorta posted about disabling the negative reputation feature back in high school. Also, no offense intended, Uncle Frank. you know I love you!

Now that I am on valium and prozac here at the old folks home, my drug induced calm has changed me, LOL.

Uncle Frank

 

[Nuala]

Now that I am on valium and prozac here at the old folks home, my drug induced calm has changed me, LOL.
Uncle Frank

Aw, don't kid, nobody would dare put you in an old folk's home.

 

[Davey]

One of the reasons why negative reputation was disabled was because it was being misused. Members would give each other negative reputation for posts just because they didn't liked the person, or the post it self rather than the actual quality of the post.

The only way it could work is with strict rules and it should be moderated well... It's not a bad thing to start a debate about this.

Any other opinions?

(the thread regarding the stop of negative rep: Negative reputation)

 

[Pachipro]

Negative rep points did not work out because, as mentioned by Dutch above, it was severely misused and was often given when someone disagreed with you whether you presented an articulate argument or not, or because you presented a better argument than they.

I believe that if you disagree with a persons post you should say so in the thread or don't give any rep. Pretty simple. Bad posters will be banned soon enough or just ignored.

The rep point system is for those who agree with what you say or, even if they do not agree with what you say, they give you rep for presenting a valid counterpoint. Sometimes they just like what you have posted because it was funny, interesting, or something they didn't know and they give you a high five.

It's a system for reputation (the estimation in which a person or thing is held, esp. by the community or the public generally).

That seems pretty fair to me and I believe it should stay the way it is. Thomas was correct when he disabled it back in 2005 and it has worked quite well since.

 

[FrustratedDave]

I say don't bring it back b/c I would be banned before the week is out.

Seriously though, say if 2-3 or more members found the same post offending, issuing a "red" dot by a mod could be good.

But that would still mean I would probably be banned by the end of the week. LOL

 

[Hezam]

I agree with what DB and Pachipro said.
By the way FrustratedDave,It will be my honor to ban you before the others do

 

[Nuala]

All joking aside, the fact that negative reputation was there for members of the forum to point out that something you're doing is less than desirable was a good thing. God only knows I had plenty of negative reputation, and I was eventually banned, and later unbanned. It taught me a lesson. I was rewarded for my contributions as much I was reprimanded for acting like a child. It seems a tad too politically correct to have the option to give positive reputation, and not have the option for negative. Is it really just a matter of it being abused?

I mean, first we have a ridiculously long delay posts to deter spammers, whereas we could take proactive action against spammers by limited access to other parts of the forum until a certain number of posts has been met(We do have the same feature for the posting of pictures, and nobody has a problem with it..), and we also don't have negative reputation because it's either offensive to those receiving it, or it's abused by idiots who would be better off temporarily suspended from accessing the forum.

I seriously think this forum has gotten a little stagnant over the years, guys. Geez, this is just a little frustrating for me.

 

[noyhauser]

All joking aside, the fact that negative reputation was there for members of the forum to point out that something you're doing is less than desirable was a good thing. God only knows I had plenty of negative reputation, and I was eventually banned, and later unbanned. It taught me a lesson. I was rewarded for my contributions as much I was reprimanded for acting like a child. It seems a tad too politically correct to have the option to give positive reputation, and not have the option for negative. Is it really just a matter of it being abused?

I mean, first we have a ridiculously long delay posts to deter spammers, whereas we could take proactive action against spammers by limited access to other parts of the forum until a certain number of posts has been met(We do have the same feature for the posting of pictures, and nobody has a problem with it..), and we also don't have negative reputation because it's either offensive to those receiving it, or it's abused by idiots who would be better off temporarily suspended from accessing the forum.

Actually I don't want to see negative Rep be returned. It was severely abused before to play little forum fights. As I argued here, I believed that it was one of the reasons why the politics forum (which was somewhat popular from 2003~2005) experienced a major decline.

Having left for awhile and returned, I think there are some things that could be done to streamline the forum experience. Returning negative reputations isn't one of them however.

 

[Nuala]

Actually I don't want to see negative Rep be returned. It was severely abused before to play little forum fights. As I argued here, I believed that it was one of the reasons why the politics forum (which was somewhat popular from 2003~2005) experienced a major decline.
Having left for awhile and returned, I think there are some things that could be done to streamline the forum experience. Returning negative reputations isn't one of them however.

Then positive reputation should be removed as well. It serves no purpose.

 

[Davey]

For it purpose you can check the link in my signature!

 

[thomas]

Negative reputation will not be reimplemented due to the reasons cited in this and in the other thread DB linked. It was quite obvious that "neg rep power" brought out the worst in some members.

Thanks for the suggestion though, Thor.

 

[Nuala]

Do you actually consider any of my suggestions, thomas?