Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Oh yes....coincidence...thats it
Just like it is a coincidence when they follow a poster from thread to thread ridiculing and heaping neg rep
Beyond that there is always blame the victim
They deserve what happens to them
Go to the members list and sort people by rep, low to high. Pick out one or two with 4 or five red splats and read a few posts.
These people deserve ridicule and neg rep for their content and attitude. Some deserve scorn for what goes on behind the scenes as well.
There may well be several people who consistently neg certain members, but it's quite a stretch to call it an organized effort.
Call out those who have opted out of the rep system and see what they have in common
Go to the members list and sort people by rep, low to high. Pick out one or two with 4 or five red splats and read a few posts.
These people deserve ridicule and neg rep for their content and attitude. Some deserve scorn for what goes on behind the scenes as well.
There may well be several people who consistently neg certain members, but it's quite a stretch to call it an organized effort.
Call out those who have opted out of the rep system and see what they have in common
They are worthless trolls.
You are right though if you are insinuating that they are mostly Liberals, but then, most worthless trolls ARE Liberals.
The few Conservatives with the severely low rep are probably negged as often by other Conservatives as they are by Libs.
You are a vile, disgusting "ass hole".
Go to the members list and sort people by rep, low to high. Pick out one or two with 4 or five red splats and read a few posts.
These people deserve ridicule and neg rep for their content and attitude. Some deserve scorn for what goes on behind the scenes as well.
There may well be several people who consistently neg certain members, but it's quite a stretch to call it an organized effort.
This is why nobody should be allowed to opt out.Go to the members list and sort people by rep, low to high. Pick out one or two with 4 or five red splats and read a few posts.
These people deserve ridicule and neg rep for their content and attitude. Some deserve scorn for what goes on behind the scenes as well.
There may well be several people who consistently neg certain members, but it's quite a stretch to call it an organized effort.
Call out those who have opted out of the rep system and see what they have in common
They are worthless trolls.
You are right though if you are insinuating that they are mostly Liberals, but then, most worthless trolls ARE Liberals.
The few Conservatives with the severely low rep are probably negged as often by other Conservatives as they are by Libs.
Does that mean that the conservative trolls are "worthy", Ernie?
Seriously though trolls are trolls irrespective of which side they are trolling. The Admins can probably identify more or less equal numbers of trolls on both sides of the aisle. Simply because someone opts out of the rep system does not make them a troll. What makes someone a troll is if they deliberately make provocative and inflammatory posts for the sole purpose of eliciting a reaction. There are plenty of posters that I have come across who have opted out and who don't make posts of that nature.
I can take this one step further and ask you if the statement you made above fits the definition of "provocative and inflammatory"? Because from the perspective of liberals it could definitely be perceived that way. Does that make you a "troll"? I don't think so at all. From your personal conservative perspective you must have been the brunt of many "provocative and inflammatory" posts from "liberal trolls" in the past. And I am sure that gave as good as you got in return.
But the significant difference between a heated exchange and deliberate trolling is intent. A troll has no other objective but to get a rise out of you. A heated exchange is just par for the course on message boards. The distinction is an important one and for many who opted out of the rep system they probably did so because they felt that they were being subjected to "provocative and inflammatory" trolling by whomever was doing the harassing.
This is the Current Reputation Breakdown. It is Under Review. It's Idea Time.
==================================================
User jumps out of basement windows -5000
User should be ignored at all costs -2000
User is likely a worthless troll -1000
User is not well liked -500
User is misunderestimated -100
User is an unknown quantity at this point +-0
User could be on a school board +200
User could be police chief +1000
User Could have my own talk show +3000
User could be city mayor +5000
User could be state governor +10000
User could be state senator +15000
User could be the president +20000
User has a reputation beyond repute +30000
User could be the Buddha +40000
User could successfully start his own religion +100000
==================================================
Hasn't been changed for as far back as I can remember. Considering better Names for the Levels, and adding Levels. What's on your mind?
Let's open Pandora's Box.........
This is the Current Reputation Breakdown. It is Under Review. It's Idea Time.
==================================================
User jumps out of basement windows -5000
User should be ignored at all costs -2000
User is likely a worthless troll -1000
User is not well liked -500
User is misunderestimated -100
User is an unknown quantity at this point +-0
User could be on a school board +200
User could be police chief +1000
User Could have my own talk show +3000
User could be city mayor +5000
User could be state governor +10000
User could be state senator +15000
User could be the president +20000
User has a reputation beyond repute +30000
User could be the Buddha +40000
User could successfully start his own religion +100000
==================================================
Hasn't been changed for as far back as I can remember. Considering better Names for the Levels, and adding Levels. What's on your mind?
Let's open Pandora's Box.........
Actually this is not bad..... I do suggest just one change then my vote would be to go with it....
the change?
One word in line two...
Change from ignored to avoided
This is the Current Reputation Breakdown. It is Under Review. It's Idea Time.
==================================================
User jumps out of basement windows -5000
User should be ignored at all costs -2000
User is likely a worthless troll -1000
User is not well liked -500
User is misunderestimated -100
User is an unknown quantity at this point +-0
User could be on a school board +200
User could be police chief +1000
User Could have my own talk show +3000
User could be city mayor +5000
User could be state governor +10000
User could be state senator +15000
User could be the president +20000
User has a reputation beyond repute +30000
User could be the Buddha +40000
User could successfully start his own religion +100000
==================================================
Hasn't been changed for as far back as I can remember. Considering better Names for the Levels, and adding Levels. What's on your mind?
Let's open Pandora's Box.........
Actually this is not bad..... I do suggest just one change then my vote would be to go with it....
the change?
One word in line two...
Change from ignored to avoided
Call out those who have opted out of the rep system and see what they have in common
They are worthless trolls.
You are right though if you are insinuating that they are mostly Liberals, but then, most worthless trolls ARE Liberals.
The few Conservatives with the severely low rep are probably negged as often by other Conservatives as they are by Libs.
Does that mean that the conservative trolls are "worthy", Ernie?
Seriously though trolls are trolls irrespective of which side they are trolling. The Admins can probably identify more or less equal numbers of trolls on both sides of the aisle. Simply because someone opts out of the rep system does not make them a troll. What makes someone a troll is if they deliberately make provocative and inflammatory posts for the sole purpose of eliciting a reaction. There are plenty of posters that I have come across who have opted out and who don't make posts of that nature.
I can take this one step further and ask you if the statement you made above fits the definition of "provocative and inflammatory"? Because from the perspective of liberals it could definitely be perceived that way. Does that make you a "troll"? I don't think so at all. From your personal conservative perspective you must have been the brunt of many "provocative and inflammatory" posts from "liberal trolls" in the past. And I am sure that gave as good as you got in return.
But the significant difference between a heated exchange and deliberate trolling is intent. A troll has no other objective but to get a rise out of you. A heated exchange is just par for the course on message boards. The distinction is an important one and for many who opted out of the rep system they probably did so because they felt that they were being subjected to "provocative and inflammatory" trolling by whomever was doing the harassing.
They are worthless trolls.
You are right though if you are insinuating that they are mostly Liberals, but then, most worthless trolls ARE Liberals.
The few Conservatives with the severely low rep are probably negged as often by other Conservatives as they are by Libs.
Does that mean that the conservative trolls are "worthy", Ernie?
Seriously though trolls are trolls irrespective of which side they are trolling. The Admins can probably identify more or less equal numbers of trolls on both sides of the aisle. Simply because someone opts out of the rep system does not make them a troll. What makes someone a troll is if they deliberately make provocative and inflammatory posts for the sole purpose of eliciting a reaction. There are plenty of posters that I have come across who have opted out and who don't make posts of that nature.
I can take this one step further and ask you if the statement you made above fits the definition of "provocative and inflammatory"? Because from the perspective of liberals it could definitely be perceived that way. Does that make you a "troll"? I don't think so at all. From your personal conservative perspective you must have been the brunt of many "provocative and inflammatory" posts from "liberal trolls" in the past. And I am sure that gave as good as you got in return.
But the significant difference between a heated exchange and deliberate trolling is intent. A troll has no other objective but to get a rise out of you. A heated exchange is just par for the course on message boards. The distinction is an important one and for many who opted out of the rep system they probably did so because they felt that they were being subjected to "provocative and inflammatory" trolling by whomever was doing the harassing.
I'll respond to the bolded points above.
1. Of course not. The few that remain get negged as often as the Lib trolls.
2. Of course it doesn't.Opting out does not make one a troll. Several people have opted out for purely altruistic reasons, but the vast majority are those who's trollish behavior has caused them to rack up a lot of negative reputation. These people have opted out, out of cowardice, not wanting others to see in what low regard they are held by their peers.
3. Plenty? Several, perhaps. Most are outright trolls or habitually dishonest or argumentative. Some are simply racists. I have grouped liars and racists with trolls for the purpose of this discussion.
4. Of course it was, intentionally so, but it was germane to my point.
I suppose some would call it trollish, but that's on them.
5. I can't help the way people feel. People that get a lot of negative feedback usually do so for a reason that only they have control over. Negative rep it a tool to tell them that you disapprove. They are free to use the criticism to alter their approach or ignore it and continue to receive negative attention, but opting out is either a method of hiding what others think of them or a middle finger salute saying in essence, "I realize I'm an asshole. Deal with it."
Does that mean that the conservative trolls are "worthy", Ernie?
Seriously though trolls are trolls irrespective of which side they are trolling. The Admins can probably identify more or less equal numbers of trolls on both sides of the aisle. Simply because someone opts out of the rep system does not make them a troll. What makes someone a troll is if they deliberately make provocative and inflammatory posts for the sole purpose of eliciting a reaction. There are plenty of posters that I have come across who have opted out and who don't make posts of that nature.
I can take this one step further and ask you if the statement you made above fits the definition of "provocative and inflammatory"? Because from the perspective of liberals it could definitely be perceived that way. Does that make you a "troll"? I don't think so at all. From your personal conservative perspective you must have been the brunt of many "provocative and inflammatory" posts from "liberal trolls" in the past. And I am sure that gave as good as you got in return.
But the significant difference between a heated exchange and deliberate trolling is intent. A troll has no other objective but to get a rise out of you. A heated exchange is just par for the course on message boards. The distinction is an important one and for many who opted out of the rep system they probably did so because they felt that they were being subjected to "provocative and inflammatory" trolling by whomever was doing the harassing.
I'll respond to the bolded points above.
1. Of course not. The few that remain get negged as often as the Lib trolls.
2. Of course it doesn't.Opting out does not make one a troll. Several people have opted out for purely altruistic reasons, but the vast majority are those who's trollish behavior has caused them to rack up a lot of negative reputation. These people have opted out, out of cowardice, not wanting others to see in what low regard they are held by their peers.
3. Plenty? Several, perhaps. Most are outright trolls or habitually dishonest or argumentative. Some are simply racists. I have grouped liars and racists with trolls for the purpose of this discussion.
4. Of course it was, intentionally so, but it was germane to my point.
I suppose some would call it trollish, but that's on them.
5. I can't help the way people feel. People that get a lot of negative feedback usually do so for a reason that only they have control over. Negative rep it a tool to tell them that you disapprove. They are free to use the criticism to alter their approach or ignore it and continue to receive negative attention, but opting out is either a method of hiding what others think of them or a middle finger salute saying in essence, "I realize I'm an asshole. Deal with it."
Thanks for the reply, Ernie. The first question was rhetorical.
Your responses to 4 and 5 are interesting. You posted something deliberately provocative and then claim that you are not responsible for the way other people feel about your provocation. If you were in a bar and someone insulted your significant other would you hold them responsible for what they just said to her? How is that any different to what is posted here by you?
The point being that we are accountable for what we post. It is a reflection of who we are as people. We can come across as a/holes or not depending upon what we say in our posts. And we must appreciate that others will hold us responsible for what we post. This is our choice to make. What others do is up to them but we don't need to stoop to their level.
I'll respond to the bolded points above.
1. Of course not. The few that remain get negged as often as the Lib trolls.
2. Of course it doesn't.Opting out does not make one a troll. Several people have opted out for purely altruistic reasons, but the vast majority are those who's trollish behavior has caused them to rack up a lot of negative reputation. These people have opted out, out of cowardice, not wanting others to see in what low regard they are held by their peers.
3. Plenty? Several, perhaps. Most are outright trolls or habitually dishonest or argumentative. Some are simply racists. I have grouped liars and racists with trolls for the purpose of this discussion.
4. Of course it was, intentionally so, but it was germane to my point.
I suppose some would call it trollish, but that's on them.
5. I can't help the way people feel. People that get a lot of negative feedback usually do so for a reason that only they have control over. Negative rep it a tool to tell them that you disapprove. They are free to use the criticism to alter their approach or ignore it and continue to receive negative attention, but opting out is either a method of hiding what others think of them or a middle finger salute saying in essence, "I realize I'm an asshole. Deal with it."
Thanks for the reply, Ernie. The first question was rhetorical.
Your responses to 4 and 5 are interesting. You posted something deliberately provocative and then claim that you are not responsible for the way other people feel about your provocation. If you were in a bar and someone insulted your significant other would you hold them responsible for what they just said to her? How is that any different to what is posted here by you?
The point being that we are accountable for what we post. It is a reflection of who we are as people. We can come across as a/holes or not depending upon what we say in our posts. And we must appreciate that others will hold us responsible for what we post. This is our choice to make. What others do is up to them but we don't need to stoop to their level.
Of course I would be offended if it was unprovoked. If it was simply rhetorical in response to some rude or offensive remark I had made, I would likely just say "touche" and leave it at that.
In this case, it was undirected and used to make a point, not an insult.
Occasionally we do need to stoop lower in order to speak the language of those we are responding to.
Go to the members list and sort people by rep, low to high. Pick out one or two with 4 or five red splats and read a few posts.
These people deserve ridicule and neg rep for their content and attitude. Some deserve scorn for what goes on behind the scenes as well.
There may well be several people who consistently neg certain members, but it's quite a stretch to call it an organized effort.
Hey, I did just that! What an interesting exercise, thanks!
Frankly, I think you're wrong. I've read many of their posts. Some of them seem to be racist, some of them I think are off their rockers. Yet, a great majority seem to be Anti-globalist's and Anti-corporatist's. Anarchists seem to be the bulk of the lot. The ones that refuse to listen to any reason seem to be Dogmatic World Socialists.
I've also encountered some of them, and they are just stubborn as hell, deaf to reason, and unwilling to discuss in a civil manner the issues. It is one thing to come to an issue at hand and present your side, but to not address or even hear the opponents counter arguments, that is an entirely different matter. It is a like talking to a brick wall.
But I will give them ALL one thing, they think outside the box. Sometimes a little too far outside the box. That gets me thinking. And many of them, post way more evidence to support their arguments and their line of reasoning then the average poster. When the average poster is faced with a line of reasoning that is supported with evidence, and then must question their own beliefs? A psychological condition sets in which is known as "cognitive dissonance," which is the feeling of having to reconcile two opposing beliefs.
In other words, it is far easier to shoot the messenger than it is to work through those feelings. Hence, for many of those that you claim rightly deserve their negative rep.? I don't think so. I think people need to walk away when they feel these posters are no longer listening to their side. I do.
If their content and attitude doesn't make you laugh and feel sorry for them rather than handing a neg. to them, if their content and attitude enrages you and makes you feel they deserve scorn rather than an education in your point of view, are you sure it isn't cognitive dissonance and a desire to "shoot the messenger" that you are feeling? Because if you don't like the message, seems to me, that's all it is, shooting the messenger.
I still maintain that rep should be mandatory and can't be turned off. It's intent is a "truth in advertising" type thing. High rep means the person's post are highly regarded. Low rep means they are not. Anyone desiring to raise their rep and how they are regarded can simply up their game and become better in their manners and their content. 99% of the time, those that turn it off want how they are perceived, received and regarded hidden from the general public. Why subject members to bad posters? Make rep mandatory.
