Edited by Mr.Zukovsky, 26 October 2010 - 12:24 AM.
Repuation Rating System Needs To Go
#1
Posted 26 October 2010 - 12:24 AM
#2
Posted 26 October 2010 - 12:27 AM
Just kidding. Honestly, I don't know how many people even pay attention to it, I sure don't.
#3
Posted 26 October 2010 - 12:36 AM
#4
Posted 26 October 2010 - 12:47 AM
Do you see what i mean?
LOL
I'm sure someone marked us down just to be funny.
I marked you back up
#5
Posted 26 October 2010 - 01:08 AM
I like the system, even though I tend to forget all about it.
#6
Posted 26 October 2010 - 01:26 AM
even though I tend to forget all about it.
What are we talking about again? I forgot already
#7
Posted 26 October 2010 - 04:49 AM
Mine used to be a lot higher until the Glee fans decided to lynch my reputation score.
#8
Posted 26 October 2010 - 08:38 PM
#9
Posted 27 October 2010 - 05:59 AM
#10
Posted 27 October 2010 - 06:44 AM
Yeah, but then you open yourself up to all manner of nasty.I wish the reputation system had transparency so that cowards wouldn't be able to hide behind their anonymous -1 ratings.
#11
Posted 27 October 2010 - 01:59 PM
#12
Posted 30 October 2010 - 02:04 PM
In a "friendly" forum, I find it unfortunate that people would want to vote on a post, submission, reputation, etc. If you want to communicate with someone, or post your valid opinion on a thread, great go ahead, if you don't that's fine too. The ability to rate people or people's work / opinions is always going to cause resentment as it is essentially a personal judgement.
If the system revolved around the number of posts made, it becomes a fair system. You guys have that here with the "crew" - "lieutenant" thing, which I always take as my guide to reasonableness.
#13
Posted 04 November 2010 - 07:16 PM
#14
Posted 05 November 2010 - 06:17 AM
There is no conspiracy against you, but we can start one if you want. If you have a negative reputation, it's probably because people disagree with you. You do, after all, have a tendency to post even the meanest rumour and present it as news, and people probably don't like that too much.i have such a negative number that i wouldn't be surpised if certain members have paid to get me off this board permantly.
#15
Posted 06 November 2010 - 05:14 AM
#16
Posted 07 November 2010 - 03:34 AM
Like, say, accusing the forum of a conspiracy against them?I don't give -1 to people simply for disagreeing with them. I issue them when people act abrasively towards others, spam the forums with nonsense and otherwise conduct themselves in an uncivilized or unproductive manner.
#17
Posted 08 November 2010 - 06:34 AM
But seriously,I am in the +1 camp for someone who argues with me as long as it is well composed. This community seems to shine through with well behaved and respectful individuals.
Edited by Chief of SIS, 08 November 2010 - 06:43 AM.
#18
Posted 08 November 2010 - 07:15 AM
I like the way this post has -7 ... I wonder, who has the lowest reputation on the forums?i have such a negative number that i wouldn't be surpised if certain members have paid to get me off this board permantly.
#19
Posted 08 November 2010 - 07:35 AM
I believe the reputation score of our old buddy Bryan Pervert (Oh, I mean Hebert) got up as high as -80 before he was banned.I like the way this post has -7 ... I wonder, who has the lowest reputation on the forums?
i have such a negative number that i wouldn't be surpised if certain members have paid to get me off this board permantly.
#20
Posted 08 November 2010 - 07:53 AM
#21
Posted 08 November 2010 - 07:28 PM
good lord i was joking. Don;'t you know sarcasm when you hear it.There is no conspiracy against you, but we can start one if you want. If you have a negative reputation, it's probably because people disagree with you. You do, after all, have a tendency to post even the meanest rumour and present it as news, and people probably don't like that too much.
i have such a negative number that i wouldn't be surpised if certain members have paid to get me off this board permantly.
#22
Posted 09 November 2010 - 07:46 AM
Oh, I know sarcasm when I hear it. However, it didn't come across as sarcastic. It came across as whiny and something entirely in character for you, so -1.good lord i was joking. Don;'t you know sarcasm when you hear it.
#23
Posted 09 November 2010 - 07:51 AM
I accept your apology.Sorry about that Righty007 or Jeff007 (can't remember) !
Mine used to be a lot higher until the Glee fans decided to lynch my reputation score.
#24
Posted 09 November 2010 - 07:23 PM
Oh, I know sarcasm when I hear it. However, it didn't come across as sarcastic. It came across as whiny and something entirely in character for you, so -1.
good lord i was joking. Don;'t you know sarcasm when you hear it.
I'm not whiney and that is not my character.
#25
Posted 09 November 2010 - 07:26 PM
You're a character. That's for sure.
Oh, I know sarcasm when I hear it. However, it didn't come across as sarcastic. It came across as whiny and something entirely in character for you, so -1.
good lord i was joking. Don;'t you know sarcasm when you hear it.
I'm not whiney and that is not my character.
#26
Posted 09 November 2010 - 08:56 PM
#27
Posted 09 November 2010 - 10:16 PM
I quite like the system myself, but why is there a daily limit?
Any anwsers for my question?
#28
Posted 09 November 2010 - 10:21 PM
I have noticed as of late, that two of our forums resident toddlers - Quantumofsolace007 and Mr. Zuckovsky (formerly Bryan Herbert) having being thumbing down my posts, but apart from that, I don't have many problems with this system.
I didn't think that you could see who negative pointed or positive pointed you?!
I wasn't aware of a daily limit - to the number of points you can give/deduct or the numbers you can recieve or have taken away?
#29
Posted 09 November 2010 - 10:22 PM
I aciddentaly Did that my apolgies anyway to change it?I have noticed as of late, that two of our forums resident toddlers - Quantumofsolace007 and Mr. Zuckovsky (formerly Bryan Herbert) having being thumbing down my posts, but apart from that, I don't have many problems with this system.
#30
Posted 10 November 2010 - 12:56 AM
It's certainly how you come across. Like I said, I know sarcasm when I see it. Your "sarcastic" post about how there was a conspiracy against you didn't contain any sarcasm. It read like something you would normally post, hence the whining and in-characterness. After all, the only other things you do around here is 1) post anything and everything you can find as "news", and it gives me the distinct impression you're trying to create a reputation for yourself as knowing more about BOND 23 than anyone else (all you really do it come off as if you're trying to let on that you know more than you do) and 2) creating wild theories about how BOND 23 has actually been written/being greenlit/being in pre-production despite Peter Morgan/Babs/MGW/appropriate person saying otherwise and then wondering why people pick your arguments apart.I'm not whiney and that is not my character.