Neg rep is no more

"Like" on Facebook. I get it.

Hardly. I love reminiscing about most of them and do it all the time. But in this case it's pretty boring: medusa, FilmExpert, Django. The usual suspects (not The Usual Suspect, though).

Anyway, I'm gonna start zapping all the posts that aren't, you know, actually about the topic of removing the neg rep system. There's some worthwhile stuff to talk about there, so let's let people talk about that, if they want.

It's like the quote under your username.

This is the first forum I've been which allows to + or - a post.I think that neg rep isn't very bad but I believe that it should be given for normal reasons - bad language or insults.I don't discuss here much but I think if someone disagrees with a opinion,he can neg rep it.Too bad that many people take it too seriously because only positive rep is boring. :P

To me, neg repping someone just because you disagree with their opinion is pointless.

If you don't agree with what they have to say, tell them that in a post and explain why you disagree with them. You know, have a discussion. That's kind of what this forum is for.

__________________

I only negged when I thought they were being big time jerks. It is better to neg than to post they are an ahole.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

yes,I agree that is the best way but if you give positive rep for a post you like or agree with,then I don't think it should be insulting if you get negative rep for different opinion or disagreement.The thing which bothers me is that people take neg rep like an insult.I think "-" and "I disagree" is the same thing.

Yeah, I've never understood neg repping because you have a difference of opinion.

I rarely negged anyone (on purpose) and when I did it was because they were flat out being a jerk. Even then it's still pretty pointless. If the person is being a jerk, most likely they want to be a jerk and the neg rep is probably a positive to them anyway.

I enjoyed doing both.

But it's okay to positive rep when you agree with an opinion?

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

I positive rep people to say I liked your post. I would neg someone's post to say I didn't like your post. One seems nice, the other doesn't. I wouldn't want to neg someone's post if I simply disagreed with them, because some people don't like neg rep and I prefer to deal with people positively.

It's not any more sensible to give positive rep simply for agreeing with someone than it is to give negative rep for disagreeing, but let's not pretend they're just opposites. Being nice to someone has inherent value; you don't really need a reason for it. Being negative towards someone, on the other hand, does require one.

I don't particularly like the way some people hand out rep so easily, mind you, but it's a false equivalence to say that neg repping people for simple disagreement is the same thing.

Anyway, I don't think we've heard any examples of how the option to neg rep people has been really useful. And no, using it to deliberately work people up doesn't count. If that's your idea of amusement, you can easily replicate it by gathering up some pointy sticks and poking things with them.

Yoda, just out of curiosity what purpose did you have in mind with the positive and negative rep? Or what effect (if any) did you think it would have on the forum?
You may have addressed this somewhere, so I apologize if you have.

I was wondering if there was any behavioral thought behind it or another reason.

Yeah, when I introduced it many years ago, I was thinking of something kind of like Slashdot or reddit. I was hoping people would vote a lot of things both up and down and everyone would just go with the flow. To that end it was even anonymous at first, if I remember correctly. But it really irked people to get negative rep and not know who gave it.

I think that kind of thing can work, but the entire site and its culture needs to be built up around it from the get-go. It works with sites where people don't really have avatars and people can quickly and easily create lots of disposable accounts. Free-for-alls, basically, with a lot of anonymity and the upvotes/downvotes are the only way to separate good from bad. Doesn't work as well in places where people have constant identities and know each other.

I think it was just a few people who got all out of shape about it.

Yeah... (Yoda)

__________________

Sounds like you agree with the removal, then.

As for the religious angle...isn't what you're describing inherent in any kind of reputation system? I don't see anything about this one, in particular, that suggests that. Other than that glowing crucifix I put on people's posts when they get to +5, I mean.

Guarpornese posted his top 25 list in the 90's list thread even though I had asked everyone not to. Negative rep useful.

So is using a gun and shooting Guaporense for doing that, but would you do it? Is it necessary? NO!

Attachments

 

Actually, if you changed the "thumbs down" hand to a gun, and "-1" to "BANG!" -- that would be so much more fun!! I would want the neg rep system back, then. Screw gun control.