Reputations revisited

[jimnyc]

Some seem to think that the reputation points are a popularity contest, or are decided by political affiliation. This couldn't be further from the truth. I rarely use the system, but will award points on a post if I think it stands out - regardless of who wrote it. I have given out my share of points to 'liberals' because their posts were well thought out, full of facts, and delivered in a respectful and civil manner.

I have also given negative points to conservatives who made foolish posts that didn't serve a purpose other than to incite flame wars.

In a nutshell, your reputation will be ultimately decided by your posting style as opposed to 'who you are'. Bullypulpit is the first to come to mind. He's been a diehard Bush hater from day one and yet somehow retains a positive reputation. Probably because he always cites a source to backup his claims and usually delivers his posts in an intelligent manner - whether you disagree with him or not.

So before you claim you have red squares next to your name solely because your opinion differs from others, re-read some of your own posts and see if you come off as an arrogant know-it-all who rarely cites a source for ludicrous stories. See if the majority of your posts are made in a condescending manner.