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

[roomy]

What is "Neg Repping"?

Thats when someone takes a dislike to you for whatever reason and deducts points from your reputaution score as opposed to giving you points, I am going to give you some.

 

[Shattered]

Thats when someone takes a dislike to you for whatever reason and deducts points from your reputaution score as opposed to giving you points, I am going to give you some.

He asked what NEG repping was. Why didn't you show him?

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Thats when someone takes a dislike to you for whatever reason and deducts points from your reputaution score as opposed to giving you points, I am going to give you some.

Thanks, Roomy.

 

[Gunny]

THe dynamics of the board have changed, politically it has a good mix now, a lot of the old timers here were repped for savaging token liberals that had the audacity to show their face here, and neg repping those not in the clique was a great way to keep others down.It still happens to a degree here but I think it balances itself out a lot more now.There are newbies here that would have given you a run for your money in the rep race had the playing field been level over the last few weeks.I am not saying you or shattered haven't deserved your rep power, but it is a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life................and it feels good.

You call some of the raging left-wingnuts that have suddenly appeared a "good mix"?

You don't know for a fact that anyone gained rep by "savaging token liberals." I actually put forth an honest attempt to make a legitimate argument withuot savaging anyone, unless as some are proving to be, they merit nothing better.

And I haven't seen any newbies here that would give me a run for my money for shit. I will also point out that liberals who posted here that didn't act like retards had pretty good rep. I'll rep a liberal for making a good argument as quickly as I will a conservative, and I don't reward conservatives who can't argue their points. And generally speaking, I don't neg-rep anyone unless they neg-rep me. I wage war to your face on the board ... not that backstabbing bullshit.

And IIRC, I even repped you when you were just being nothing but a troll before this board was sold even the first time. You do have entertainment value.

What I really don't like about your argument is that whether or not you think some of the newbies could "give me run for my money," the fact is, I should not be punished for them deciding to join this board 3 years after I did.

 

[Gunny]

What is "Neg Repping"?

Negative-reputation. A member has rep power based on rep points given, and total posts. Positive rep given equals the total amount of the rep power. Negative rep will take half a member's total rep power value worth of points from the member he neg-rep's.

 

[roomy]

You call some of the raging left-wingnuts that have suddenly appeared a "good mix"?

You don't know for a fact that anyone gained rep by "savaging token liberals." I actually put forth an honest attempt to make a legitimate argument withuot savaging anyone, unless as some are proving to be, they merit nothing better.

And I haven't seen any newbies here that would give me a run for my money for shit. I will also point out that liberals who posted here that didn't act like retards had pretty good rep. I'll rep a liberal for making a good argument as quickly as I will a conservative, and I don't reward conservatives who can't argue their points. And generally speaking, I don't neg-rep anyone unless they neg-rep me. I wage war to your face on the board ... not that backstabbing bullshit.

And IIRC, I even repped you when you were just being nothing but a troll before this board was sold even the first time. You do have entertainment value.

What I really don't like about your argument is that whether or not you think some of the newbies could "give me run for my money," the fact is, I should not be punished for them deciding to join this board 3 years after I did.

You are taking this far too personally Gunny.
I don't think anyone decided to join 3 years after you on purpose, it is not about you or me or any one poster in particular, it is about changing dynamics and new starts, there is nothing wrong with change so long as the majority agree or are indifferent even.Like I said before,I only asked a question.
As far as me being a troll, those I disagree with often use that term, it is an easy get out when they find themselves struggling in an argument.
I rep anybody and everybody.I only neg rep in retaliation, except for only two occassions I can remember, and one of those was about 5 minutes ago.

 

[roomy]

Thanks, Roomy.

Don't mention it Chips, I sent some more anyway.

 

[roomy]

He asked what NEG repping was. Why didn't you show him?

Roomy don't do that.

 

[Gunny]

You are taking this far too personally Gunny.
I don't think anyone decided to join 3 years after you on purpose, it is not about you or me or any one poster in particular, it is about changing dynamics and new starts, there is nothing wrong with change so long as the majority agree or are indifferent even.Like I said before,I only asked a question.
As far as me being a troll, those I disagree with often use that term, it is an easy get out when they find themselves struggling in an argument.
I rep anybody and everybody.I only neg rep in retaliation, except for only two occassions I can remember, and one of those was about 5 minutes ago.

I am taking it personally only insofar as it affects me, and I am one of the ones who stand to lose the most from it, figuratively speaking. Whether or not others chose to join 3 years after me is irrelevant ... the fact is, they did, for whatever reason. By your reasoning, everyone's rep should be zero'd every time a new member joins.

It's about as personal as you voicing your opinion, and me voicing mine in disagreement.

As far as the troll thing goes, I DO recall when you you basically did just that. You'd pop into a thread just to spout off some inane BS for the purpose of aggravating certain posters. I believe that would fit the definition.

If you recall, I also have been the one, or one of the ones, who have rejected that BS from you from the start, knowing you aren't quite as dumb as you like to play. I did not use the term for the purpose of deflection; rather, to describe your actions.

 

[Emmett]

IMO, the rep system does not signify how "reputable" the user is necessarily. I tend to look at rep pts vs. number of posts!

In all due respect to my friends here, we do tend to bloviate and BS alot. IMO a person with thousands of posts and only a 1 pt per post or less avg is a bloviator. Clear and simple.

As of recent I think the left side of the board has become infiltrated with a bunch of little kids and "young" adults who in my opinion represent a very misguided direction of travel. They are more interested in namecalling and insults so naturally they will accumulate less rep. I remember when lefties could build a fairly decent number on here. I used to award good points even when I did not agree simply in respect for debate.

The window that pops up immediately after you rep someone very clearly states that "maybe you will get rep in return" - oxymoron?

And before anyone reminds me, yes I know I am a horses ass sometimes. However if one takes the time to read under the ink you will usually see a point I am trying to make at the time.

So, personally I like the rep system just the way it is. I intend to award good points whenever I feel and not think about how often i HAVE REP'D THAT PERSON. Anything else would be affirmative action!

 

[maineman]

there is no doubt that some immature members have been abusing the system.... this rule only gives the owners and moderators a means to provide some degree of discipline.

 

[maineman]

for example, over the past two days, I have received eight negative reputation comments all from the same member...an old hand with an enormous number of reputation points - and none from anyone else.

And the comments that accompanied that barrage of negative points were profoundly immature and unwarranted. I get four or five negative reps from that same poster nearly every single time he is online - and for the longest time, I had him on ignore so I NEVER even saw the negative rep comments...I just saw my point total get decimated by him and only him as he continued a vendetta.

Is that how the rest of you "old hands" think the system ought to work?

 

[hjmick]

Christ, I didn't realize I had joined a popularity contest. But then I suppose the affirmation or disapproval of strangers met on the internet is important to some. Go figure.

 

[Dr Grump]

If somebody neg reps me, they're getting it back. Simple....

 

[Gunny]

Christ, I didn't realize I had joined a popularity contest. But then I suppose the affirmation or disapproval of strangers met on the internet is important to some. Go figure.

The same affirmation or disapproval that causes one to feel the need to voice one's opinion to strangers on the internet.

 

[sitarro]

If somebody neg reps me, they're getting it back. Simple....

Such a mature reaction to criticism, just what I would expect from a hack writer for the Kiwi version of National Enquirer.

Simple is a perfect description of most of your posts.

 

[Dr Grump]

Such a mature reaction to criticism, just what I would expect from a hack writer for the Kiwi version of National Enquirer.

Simple is a perfect description of most of your posts.

I have rarely, if ever, neg repped anybody. If somebody feels so strongly about one of my POVs that they neg rep me, how hard do you think it is gonna be for me to find one of theirs?

I know, it's a real bummer being a writer - wish I had a true calling in life - like say, a BAGGAGE HANDLER!!

 

[Gunny]

Such a mature reaction to criticism, just what I would expect from a hack writer for the Kiwi version of National Enquirer.

Simple is a perfect description of most of your posts.

I do the same thing. I rarely have dished out neg rep except in retaliation, and when I have, it was for something WAY over the top, and you could count the number of times I've done it on one hand.

As previously stated, I do my fighting on the board, in the open. If I have to resort to neg-repping to win an argument or stifle a poster, I consider that a sure indicator that I lost the argument.

 

[Puddles]

Christ, I didn't realize I had joined a popularity contest. But then I suppose the affirmation or disapproval of strangers met on the internet is important to some. Go figure.

I was thinking the same thing...who really cares?

The same affirmation or disapproval that causes one to feel the need to voice one's opinion to strangers on the internet.

I'm not sure how you can even come to that conclusion when the 2 aren't even comparable. People visit message boards for various reasons - debate, share ideas, learn, vent, socialize, get opinions, etc ...all that doesn't equate to someone needing or wanting approval from strangers.

 

[pegwinn]

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

No, you and the other ladies may feel free to remove your shirts and get the cams running......... I don't want anyone stifled.

As to rep, I am pretty close to perfect and really have to tone down my posts so that I don't spontainiously hit the million point mark and blind those who look upon my greatness.

In all seriousness, I haven't neg rep'd anyone that I can remember. If you do good I rep you. If you do bad then we duke it out. [cue the music] If I were the king of the world I tell ya what I'd do.[/music] It'd be positive rep only and when you got to a certain point we'd get naked pictures of fake celebrities in our PM boxes.