USMB Is Reviewing The Current Reputation Breakdown. We Are Open For Input Here.

[kwc57]

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.

Well said!

I would like a discussion on this, but can't seen to get STAFF to participate.

I believe I once started a thread on it, but can't remember for sure. I know I have raised the question before and been shot down....politely.

 

[Alfalfa]

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.

Well said!

I would like a discussion on this, but can't seen to get STAFF to participate.

Maybe they will when they stop laughing.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Well said!

I would like a discussion on this, but can't seen to get STAFF to participate.

Maybe they will when they stop laughing.

I really do not care if people have their rep turned off. If they don't want to participate in the rep system, then que sera sera.

 

[Alfalfa]

Well said!

I would like a discussion on this, but can't seen to get STAFF to participate.

Maybe they will when they stop laughing.

I really do not care if people have their rep turned off. If they don't want to participate in the rep system, then que sera sera.

But how will the schoolyard bullies pull their hair if they're wearing a skull cap?

Kind of defeats their whole purpose for liking the system...

 

[BlueGin]

[MENTION=20285]Intense[/MENTION]

I think everyone should have to be subject to getting rep. There can be punishment, like taking all or part for inappropriate use of rep. But no one should get to opt out and then run rampant all over the forum giving the rest of us hell. Everyone should have to take their licks. I know I take mine. It would make for fewer trolls if everyone had to.


.

Why do USMB conservatives throw such fits when they can't neg someone?

because gang neg-repping is their thing.

it is a very serious thing, too.

First they say it's just a "game". Then they say people shouldn't be allowed to opt out because they skirt peer review of their "worth". So which is it? Seems that line changes pretty frequently.

 

[syrenn]

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."

maybe anyone who has opted out should have that...... instead of rep badges

"I realize I'm an asshole. Deal with it."

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

Well said!

I would like a discussion on this, but can't seen to get STAFF to participate.

Maybe they will when they stop laughing.

At you? I doubt that will happen soon.

 

[Ropey]

Why do USMB conservatives throw such fits when they can't neg someone?

because gang neg-repping is their thing.

it is a very serious thing, too.

First they say it's just a "game". Then they say people shouldn't be allowed to opt out because they skirt peer review of their "worth". So which is it? Seems that line changes pretty frequently.

With some it's dependent on the rationalization of the moment.

 

[BlueGin]

There is always an audit trail so if the same posters belong to a "gang" they should be easy enough to identify. So start a "gang" thread and whenever it happens add the screen shot of the neg reps as "evidence". After it happens N number of times the Admins can then choose to suspend the gang members neg repping privileges, reinstate all of the lost rep thereby negating the gang's efforts, restrict their posting rights, remove the same amount of pos rep that they neg repped or any combination of the above.

After that happens a couple of times the gangs will figure out that it isn't worth the effort or move elsewhere.

When a poster gets negged by several posters, it's likely not what you call "gang rep". More likely the several posters are equally but independently offended.
People that show an array of red splats are nearly universally despised. No concerted effort is needed to drive their rep yet lower.

Now, if I negged with the comment we're negging you 'cause we decided you're an asshole and want to drive you from the site", you might have an argument.

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

I love this. They can never seem to remember posts when someone brings them to their attention...but they all miraculously get "offended" by the same posts when it's convenient.

 

[Sunshine]

Why do USMB conservatives throw such fits when they can't neg someone?

because gang neg-repping is their thing.

it is a very serious thing, too.

First they say it's just a "game". Then they say people shouldn't be allowed to opt out because they skirt peer review of their "worth". So which is it? Seems that line changes pretty frequently.

This entire thing is a game. Just like any other. There are rules, and some behaviors are considered to be fouls. But some people in the game are allowed to opt out of ever getting a foul called on them. That makes it an unfair game because they can troll and bait to their hearts' content and you can't even neg them for it.

 

[boedicca]

Maybe they will when they stop laughing.

I really do not care if people have their rep turned off. If they don't want to participate in the rep system, then que sera sera.

But how will the schoolyard bullies pull their hair if they're wearing a skull cap?

Kind of defeats their whole purpose for liking the system...

Bullying comes in different forms. Some of the folks with rep turned off are terrible verbal bullies.

 

[Sunshine]

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."

maybe anyone who has opted out should have that...... instead of rep badges

"I realize I'm an asshole. Deal with it."

'chicken shit asshole'

 

[Sunshine]

I really do not care if people have their rep turned off. If they don't want to participate in the rep system, then que sera sera.

But how will the schoolyard bullies pull their hair if they're wearing a skull cap?

Kind of defeats their whole purpose for liking the system...

Bullying comes in different forms. Some of the folks with rep turned off are terrible verbal bullies.

Yes, they are.

 

[L.K.Eder]

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

hahahahahh

 

[Sunshine]

Well said!

I would like a discussion on this, but can't seen to get STAFF to participate.

Maybe they will when they stop laughing.

I really do not care if people have their rep turned off. If they don't want to participate in the rep system, then que sera sera.

If they get to turn their rep off so they can bully, bait, and troll, then there should be no holds barred on what other posters can say to them. But, I have learned that if you give it back to them, they go whining to the management.

 

[BlueGin]

because gang neg-repping is their thing.

it is a very serious thing, too.

First they say it's just a "game". Then they say people shouldn't be allowed to opt out because they skirt peer review of their "worth". So which is it? Seems that line changes pretty frequently.

With some it's dependent on the rationalization of the moment.

Or the "who" that is in question.

 

[dilloduck]

Reset everyone to zero on first of every month and hand out a prize to the winner at the end of the month.

Now THERE is some fun stuff !

 

[L.K.Eder]

Maybe they will when they stop laughing.

I really do not care if people have their rep turned off. If they don't want to participate in the rep system, then que sera sera.

If they get to turn their rep off so they can bully, bait, and troll, then there should be no holds barred on what other posters can say to them. But, I have learned that if you give it back to them, they go whining to the management.

whining to the management, like you have been doing for days if not weeks and months? hahahahah

 

[Alfalfa]

because gang neg-repping is their thing.

it is a very serious thing, too.

First they say it's just a "game". Then they say people shouldn't be allowed to opt out because they skirt peer review of their "worth". So which is it? Seems that line changes pretty frequently.

This entire thing is a game. Just like any other. There are rules, and some behaviors are considered to be fouls. But some people in the game are allowed to opt out of ever getting a foul called on them. That makes it an unfair game because they can troll and bait to their hearts' content and you can't even neg them for it.

You can respond in front of everyone instead going into the closet to neg rep someone in the dark.

 

[Alfalfa]

I really do not care if people have their rep turned off. If they don't want to participate in the rep system, then que sera sera.

But how will the schoolyard bullies pull their hair if they're wearing a skull cap?

Kind of defeats their whole purpose for liking the system...

Bullying comes in different forms. Some of the folks with rep turned off are terrible verbal bullies.

If they're bullies at least they do it in front of everyone.