Rep System Misuse

[*Summer*]

So if I wish to disagree with you then I should do so in private?

That is fundamentally what you were saying to me, so back at you if you wish. :)

[boobsticle]

I am aware of the purpose of the rep system, I'm just confused as to why you have a problem with CWP repping posts of yours, since he clearly stated why he did it and his reasons are valid.

[*Summer*]

Actually, I can't be arsed "discussing" this any further.

Have a nice day

*Claps* Good job!

[*Summer*]

I am aware of the purpose of the rep system, I'm just confused as to why you have a problem with CWP repping posts of yours, since he clearly stated why he did it and his reasons are valid.

Then re-read the thread, it is quite clear.

[*Summer*]

Actually, why am I being drawn in to this, it is not a discussion I was even having with you Arrakis. You need not worry yourself.

[boobsticle]

You have a problem with the way the rep system is being used, I'm here to make sure no one abuses things on the site, so your problem is relevant to me. If you don't want to talk about it, why did you make a thread about it?

[*Summer*]

I was discussing with CWP, you started to question my answers, that is not your business. You have so far added nothing, asked nothing, initiated any discussion, so that is why I have nothing to discuss with you. You have been unhelpful, I have asked you to read Lilly's post as you certainly are not all using the same song sheet.

[boobsticle]

You say I questioned your answers, and yet you also say I have asked nothing? If I have not initiated any discussion, what are we talking about now?

I questioned your answers so that I could better understand your problem, so I could try and help. You do not want to elaborate, and so are hindering my assistance, there isn't much I can do then I'm afraid since I don't understand the issue and you don't seem to want to help me understand it. And like I said, I have already ready Lilly's posts and I perfectly understand the purpose of and correct usage of the rep system

[Miko]

It strikes me we haven't quite been given the low down on this really. (I have a theory that this is nobody's fault)

Does this boil down to: if you give a negative or positive point don't state that you have done so.

Or does this boil down to: if you give a negative or positive point don't make a post at all.

By the law of averages someone will give a neg to a post and someone else will give a pos.

Mostly I don't trouble to give any either way, even when I feel strongly about the content of a post.

I've noticed rather few points either neg or pos are being given out to posts on the whole. Is this in line with intentions?

What criterion should we use?

*Too curious to yawn (as usual)* ;)

[*Summer*]

You say I questioned your answers, and yet you also say I have asked nothing? If I have not initiated any discussion, what are we talking about now?

I questioned your answers so that I could better understand your problem, so I could try and help. You do not want to elaborate, and so are hindering my assistance, there isn't much I can do then I'm afraid since I don't understand the issue and you don't seem to want to help me understand it. And like I said, I have already ready Lilly's posts and I perfectly understand the purpose of and correct usage of the rep system

If you understand the system then you would know CWP was abusing it. All the other answers to your questions are in this thread.

[jillv]

I'd like to applaud Cleopatra on the very valid point she makes about the misuse of the reputaion system, particularly the use of the negative repuation points. Time and time again I see the same people negatively repping posts for the simple reason they have a problem with the poster. It does not seem to matter whether these posters have a valid comment or not; in fact they may be posting about something completely inocuous or personal. I suggest everyone who uses neg reps examines their motives.

[Jinxsta]

I agree with WP... it shouldnt be about like of the person, just the post... there a few and i mean very very few people i dislike (as far as internet knowing them goes)... but i still give pos points to them if i like or agree with their post... i dont think ive used a neg point yet but if i did it could be against someone i really like... i just obviously haven't agrred with or liked their post..

xxx

[*Summer*]

It strikes me we haven't quite been given the low down on this really. (I have a theory that this is nobody's fault)

Does this boil down to: if you give a negative or positive point don't state that you have done so.

Or does this boil down to: if you give a negative or positive point don't make a post at all.

By the law of averages someone will give a neg to a post and someone else will give a pos.

Mostly I don't trouble to give any either way, even when I feel strongly about the content of a post.

I've noticed rather few points either neg or pos are being given out to posts on the whole. Is this in line with intentions?

What criterion should we use?

*Too curious to yawn (as usual)*

The criteria is if you agree or disagree with a post, however, as Data boasted last night, most people use the points to cancel out negative points that their friends receive. Arrakis received a negative point last night, demands to know why and then Data says something like, "Don't worry I have given you your point back". Now Data would not have awarded said post a point had I not of taken a point. Also marking a post does not give the postee the right to demand a public explanation. The point is I disagreed with the point in the post. :)

[boobsticle]

Like I said to you last night, I did not 'demand' an explanation, I was just curious as to why it was given since I was quoting a rule and speaking truth, with evidence, and so I asked.

You say I questioned your answers, and yet you also say I have asked nothing? If I have not initiated any discussion, what are we talking about now?

I questioned your answers so that I could better understand your problem, so I could try and help. You do not want to elaborate, and so are hindering my assistance, there isn't much I can do then I'm afraid since I don't understand the issue and you don't seem to want to help me understand it. And like I said, I have already ready Lilly's posts and I perfectly understand the purpose of and correct usage of the rep system

If you understand the system then you would know CWP was abusing it. All the other answers to your questions are in this thread.

Like Lilly says in her post, not every point can be accounted for, and we're not about to wade through every single rep point to make sure it adheres to the guidelines. We assume our members are responsible enough to read the rules and stick by them, we do not want to nanny them and supervise every move, only to step in when it is necessary.

We count abuse as repeated misuse of the rep system, which is not what CWP did, so he was not abusing the system, more misusing it on one occasion.

[*Summer*]

So, you do understand what I was saying about CWP, very good! And you have also read the thread where I acknowledge it is members responsibility to adhere to these rules, very very good. It is almost like we are making progress. :)

[Data]

The criteria is if you agree or disagree with a post, however, as Data boasted last night, most people use the points to cancel out negative points that their friends receive. Arrakis received a negative point last night, demands to know why and then Data says something like, "Don't worry I have given you your point back". Now Data would not have awarded said post a point had I not of taken a point. Also marking a post does not give the postee the right to demand a public explanation. The point is I disagreed with the point in the post.

Most of the time I give positive reponses for constructive, helpful and supportive posts. I can think of one person on here who has made it clear that she positively despises me, and I have even given her posts a positive when I felt the content deserved it.

However, our positives (and negatives) are rationed so I use them sparingly. If I tried to give a positive to everyone who I agree with then I'd quickly run out of points since there are so many nice people on here. If someone gives a good response and they are unfairly criticised and negged, and I positive them, then I do not view that as being a misuse of the system.

What I do regard as a misuse of the system though is when someone is disliked and the person who dislikes them regularly reads their posts and if they are even slightly controversial they are negged. This is what is happening to me. I know who the biggest offenders are but I am not allowed to name them here. These people would probably say that they disagree with my posts but if they hate me so much, how come they feel strangely compelled to read all of them?

[Jinxsta]

[*Summer*]

Like I said to you last night, I did not 'demand' an explanation, I was just curious as to why it was given since I was quoting a rule and speaking truth, with evidence, and so I asked.

We agreed last night this was subjective.

[boobsticle]

So, you do understand what I was saying about CWP, very good! And you have also read the thread where I acknowledge it is members responsibility to adhere to these rules, very very good. It is almost like we are making progress.

So everybody understands the rules and what's abuse and what's not... what's the problem?

edit

Subjectivity of truth is irrelevant here. What I stated was fact, goodbye threads are always closed, there is plenty of evidence to support the fact. I didn't understand why someone would disagree with that fact, so I wanted to know why they felt that way. I made no demand, and I apologised in case I had come across that way.

[*Summer*]

So, you do understand what I was saying about CWP, very good! And you have also read the thread where I acknowledge it is members responsibility to adhere to these rules, very very good. It is almost like we are making progress.

So everybody understands the rules and what's abuse and what's not... what's the problem?

As you seem to have only just understood, the problem is now solved, however, five minutes ago you didn't seem to grasp the point. Now you have perhaps we can move on, or maybe other members have other views. :)

[*Summer*]

So, you do understand what I was saying about CWP, very good! And you have also read the thread where I acknowledge it is members responsibility to adhere to these rules, very very good. It is almost like we are making progress.

So everybody understands the rules and what's abuse and what's not... what's the problem?

edit

Subjectivity of truth is irrelevant here. What I stated was fact, goodbye threads are always closed, there is plenty of evidence to support the fact. I didn't understand why someone would disagree with that fact, so I wanted to know why they felt that way. I made no demand, and I apologised in case I had come across that way.

Fine, lets leave that now. :)

[Jinxsta]

I guess we all know what abuse is, but thats not stopping people is it? and as for action to be taken on abusers... obviously not if data is still being victimised.

xxx

[boobsticle]

While we do everything we can, there is only so much that actually can be done. People will do what they please, so unless we went on some kind of banning spree, the problem is going to reoccur so long as people continue to abuse the system and ignore the guidelines.

@ Cleo

I grasped the point perfectly well, I was just seeking validation for it in case I had the wrong end of the stick, so I could better help you. If you have a problem with that, that is not my problem. :)

[*Summer*]

I grasped the point perfectly well, I was just seeking validation for it in case I had the wrong end of the stick, so I could better help you. If you have a problem with that, that is not my problem.

Good for you. :)

[*Summer*]

Discussion for the community not suggesting a banning spree, also to allow perpetrators such as Data to be clear on the standards of giving and taking points. Please Arrakis, there is a grey area here. :)