Neg rep is no more

-1

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

I'm pretty sure we can make a distinction between being nice and being a pushover. Just as we can make a distinction between merely ending pointless neg rep slap fights and demanding that everyone be nice to each other.

It's seems weird that there's no neg rep. Now I don't have to worry about saying anything too stupid.

The sixties were not really like that.

You had not to be there.

But the negative rep was useful, in that by using the system employed in this forum you were able to express your disproval. And then you are right, in the end it wasn't needed to express that, but then again giving someone plus rep because you approve isn't needed at all. So why bother removing one or keeping both? It's inconsistent.

You say paranoid and I say basic psychology. This is behaviourism, one of the most common and simple ideas that form the base of modern psychology. Like I said, these reasons may not even be fully conscious to the person, but that doesn't mean they aren't there and doesn't mean that they are any less significant.

__________________
"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."

Commie propaganda! Dammit, they got Yoda too.

It just doesn't seem right I can only give Sexy Celebrity positive rep.

Because one causes pointless fights, while the other doesn't and seems to make most people happier.

I grok the concept, I just don't necessarily agree with it. But let's put our opinions of modern psychology aside. I'll accept what you're saying for the sake of argument, because it raises a more relevant issue: if this is basic psychology, why fight it? If people are going to like giving and receiving positive rep, and we know they get all worked up about negative rep, shouldn't that settle the matter? If basic psychology is what you say it is, then it seems to me no rep system worth having would go against its grain.

Don't be ridiculous. He's sexy all the time.

I disagree with this as well. It seems to me that if you are going to have something signifying that you approve of something, than as a matter of fairness, you should also have something signifying that you disapprove of it. Otherwise, your choices are either to agree, or to be silent, and silence is ambiguous. I feel the same way with Facebook, which has a like button only. Of course, a poster still has the ability to comment to express their disapproval or disagreement, but that is a far more active role than disliking something, which is far more passive, and requires much less effort. Logically, I would think that having a dislike button would actually lead to less arguments rather than more, since a passive dislike seems a lot less of an affront than a post explaining a strong disagreement.

I will admit that I haven't been an active poster for long enough to know how this works in practice, so Yoda may be correct on that score, but as a principle, I disagree with a one-sided policy.

And that's fair, and I understand why as the dictator of this site you would like to have a smoothly run totalitarian movie society. Really, I'm not being sarcastic or anything. I think it was raul who said some posts back that now he could post freeley and not worry about saying something stupid and getting negative rep. People shouldn't have been worried like that for something as insignificant as rep (+ or -) but I can see how this happens. So in turn, I expect to see a lot more uninhibited posting here in the future as a result of the change! That's a good thing.

That's all I needed. Thanks!

So this is what Harry Lime is like when he is not being sarcastic.

THIS.


This has been bugging me for awhile, now. Like, the other day me and Yoda were responding to some negative remarks about Christopher Nolan in the Interseller thread. I felt we both made some decent points and stuff, but who do you think got all the rep? The only rep I got was from Yoda himself. Now, I don't post to get rep, i've got all the rep I need. Once the green isn't displayed in little bits, it's not as fun to receive + rep. But to acknowledge somebody other the other in the same thread where they both make similar points is taking the piss. I'd rather they just didn't rep either one us.



I don't deny that trollish posts are entertaining and can lure people into reading it all that, but the neg rep can still pretty much put things in a nutshell for those who don't have time to read everything. I can spot a troll a mile away, but if I see a high red number, i'll immediately know not to take it seriously and may sometimes just avoid reading it altogether.


There is no 'right' or 'wrong' way of using the system. It's there. Most people, I would argue, use it for acceptable reasons. Sure, i'm notorious with the neg rep and stuff, but after my first stint, i've only ever negged people who deserved it.

After thinking about it, you're right, the new system doesn't necessarily force us to pat people on the back, but I do think that ONLY being able to give somebody a gold sticker is unbalanced. I really think Harry's on to something when he says that the plus rep should be gotten rid of. You can't have it one way, Yoda.

Once +ve rep is gone, people will stop all doing all of those stupid "favorite movie" countdowns and just release the whole damn list. Sounds great to me. Thumbs up for removing +ve rep! Irony detected.

Yeah, but I'm sure you know not to take it seriously the moment you read it. And as for avoiding it: does his actually happen? This feels like the kind of reason I gave when I first started the system, but not like something that takes place. And for every person who, one time out of a dozen maybe skips over it, I think it's safe to say that far more go out of their way to read it.

Well, if one of those ways has very little benefit and causes lots of pointless discord, and the other doesn't...why not?

A few members have mentioned the idea of "balance," and I'm a little surprised by that. These aren't karmic forces, after all; the idea of having both doesn't have any inherent power, and they're not people that have to be treated fairly or given equal time. The only question is: what leads to be a better community? What encourages discussion and discourages pointless fighting? I think that's the criteria on which these things should be judged.

I can't believe this has gone on for 11 pages. I really didn't know people cared this much one way or the other.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

in my next countdown thread, i'm going to list one half of a movie per post cause you said this. what you gonna do about it? nothing, that's what.

__________________
letterboxd

Well it convinced you to FINALLY change your signature.

__________________

52 neg rep and proud. - Honeykid

That ain't anything considering how many posts you have.

People don't release their whole list because the idea is to talk about each entry.