Some of you may want to become aware of a new rule

[Annie]

How exactly does one define "trading" and "harrassment"?

I wondered about that too. If you rep me and I rep you, perhaps because we both agree with some take on a thread, are we to be punished?

If someone dings me for something, then I find something to ding them for, have I abused the system?

Are those of us with more rep points to be held to a 'higher standard' than those with fewer? Let's just say that someone has posted 4 times, they have no rep points, but ding me-no harm done. Then I return the favor, for something they posts, I'm abusive?

 

[Scooter]

I wondered about that too. If you rep me and I rep you, perhaps because we both agree with some take on a thread, are we to be punished?

If someone dings me for something, then I find something to ding them for, have I abused the system?

Are those of us with more rep points to be held to a 'higher standard' than those with fewer? Let's just say that someone has posted 4 times, they have no rep points, but ding me-no harm done. Then I return the favor, for something they posts, I'm abusive?

Nothing you've described would be considered abuse or "trading" rep.

I'm using the Supreme Court's definition of pornography here...I don't think I can define it, but I know it when I see it.

Also, as indicated in the Guidelines...the first step will be a warning. This means that if you've been flagged for abuse unfairly, you'll have a chance to discuss it with me before I start the whole "toying with you mercilessly" part.

 

[Annie]

Nothing you've described would be considered abuse or "trading" rep.

I'm using the Supreme Court's definition of pornography here...I don't think I can define it, but I know it when I see it.

Thanks for clarifying that. I'm innocent! For once.

 

[Shattered]

Nothing you've described would be considered abuse or "trading" rep.

I'm using the Supreme Court's definition of pornography here...I don't think I can define it, but I know it when I see it.

Also, as indicated in the Guidelines...the first step will be a warning. This means that if you've been flagged for abuse unfairly, you'll have a chance to discuss it with me before I start the whole "toying with you mercilessly" part.

So, if we keep our shirts on, and the guys keep their pants on, we're ok.

 

[Annie]

So, if we keep our shirts on, and the guys keep their pants on, we're ok.

I'm wearing sweats, can't I throw them off? Now big brother is watching? LOL!

 

[Annie]

I'm wearing sweats, can't I throw them off? Now big brother is watching? LOL!

It's Friday night, can ya tell?

 

[Shattered]

I'm wearing sweats, can't I throw them off? Now big brother is watching? LOL!

Well, HE'S the one that likened rep to porn..Not me.

 

[Annie]

Well, HE'S the one that likened rep to porn..Not me.

I DID notice that. Scott is a closet freak? Maybe 'closet' is the wrong word. Open freak? j/k Scott

 

[roomy]

There is at least one guilty party in this thread and hopefully Scooter knows who it is, the trading partner has yet to put in an appearance but there is time yet

 

[Scooter]

There is at least one guilty party in this thread and hopefully Scooter knows who it is, the trading partner has yet to put in an appearance but there is time yet

There are no guilty parties yet. The rule was just established.

All past activity is exempt from the rule, since it wasn't specifically against the guidelines at that point.

 

[Shattered]

There are no guilty parties yet. The rule was just established.

All past activity is exempt from the rule, since it wasn't specifically against the guidelines at that point.

So current activity should be subject to new rules.. Thus a "add you have a hair up your ass" as a reply to "You know not of which you speak" should fall under the new rulings, as it was done within 30 seconds, and strictly for spite..

 

[glockmail]

So, if we keep our shirts on, and the guys keep their pants on, we're ok.

Sorry, I'm not OK with that at all.

 

[Gunny]

Added today to the Forum Guidelines (http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=47455)

<b>Rep System Guidelines: </b>
Our reputation system is designed to provide a feedback and credibility mechanism. Abuse of the system (repeated neg repping of the same person without cause or positive rep "trading" among users) will not be tolerated. Rep system abuse will result in warnings to cease. Continued abuse will result in random acts of rep manipulation of abusers by admins. Abuse the system, and we will mercilessly toy with you.

I can only wonder that certain whiney newcomers who immediately went about displaying penis-envy are the root of this.

And that's not a "rule," IMO. Anything that isn't a random rep to whoever's name you pick out of a hat could be defined as fitting the bill.

 

[Scooter]

And that's not a "rule," IMO. Anything that isn't a random rep to whoever's name you pick out of a hat could be defined as fitting the bill.

You're right, it's a "guideline". I misspoke.

 

[roomy]

Now we have the double up

 

[Gunny]

Now we have the double up

I caught your insinuation the first time. So tell me Roomy, how many of YOUR rep points came from ME?

No one could accuse US of of trading though, could they?

Your assumption is incorrect.

 

[Gunny]

You're right, it's a "guideline". I misspoke.

It pretty-much goes without saying that the same people rep each other, and half the neg-rep's at least are reciprocal.

I just don't see anyone but newbies not being subject to getting nailed by this "guideline" at your whim.

 

[Shattered]

Now we have the double up

Who doubled up on you? Can't be me..I don't think I've ever repped you HERE.. Negatively, OR otherwise..

Could be wrong, tho.

 

[roomy]

I caught your insinuation the first time. So tell me Roomy, how many of YOUR rep points came from ME?

No one could accuse US of of trading though, could they?

Your assumption is incorrect.

Who?.........What?........I have no idea what you are talking about

 

[Gunny]

Who?.........What?........I have no idea what you are talking about

You can't plead the 5th ... you're not an American citizen.