Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by MicroWay
-> My suggestion is to allow only higher that a + rep. vote, like higher than "+10"... Because people to get +10 will need a period of time and with that, they will be interested in "getting there"..

---

+10 seems to be a little too much. People like me don't have +10 rep yet, but we do have enough experience here to give rep. +2 would be reasonable. The 1st few reps seem to be the hardest to get.

i like this idea... it would really help the reputaion system.... also an idea is to have a report link for reputations....

I think it would be unfair and ignorant to enforce a rule like that.

Just because our overall opinion of a member is negative doesn't mean that member's opinions are worthless and should be blocked.

Payback reps can be dealt with on an individual basis.

time to close thread ,,agree with DZ it would be ignorant to do such a thing like this

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
Just because our overall opinion of a member is negative doesn't mean that member's opinions are worthless and should be blocked.

---

its not blocking all together, its giving the person a chance to let it sink in because most repbacks are caused by bad tempers, and if you opinion really hasn't changed in 2 weeks then fine you can give the rep, but it would stop the childish repbacks, and i don't agree that repbacks are always removed, my 2 negs are both repbacks, because they were both given with in a couple days of me giving them a neg, and wdz refused to remove them because he thought they contained a valid reason, which i consiter to be an insult

So it's a payback every time two members give each other negative reps? Where do you draw the line?

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
So it's a payback every time two members give each other negative reps? Where do you draw the line?

---

no, a payback rep is when ever one member negs another member right after getting a neg from that person, valid or not, thats why you should put the 2 week limit, if the desired rep is truly based on the opinion of the member, then 2 weeks wouldn't change the rep, as opposed to allowing them to act in anger, sit there and think up a comment that is not warented, but would not be consitered remove able by WDZ

But maybe User A never even thought about giving User B a rep until User B caught User A's attention...

I think a time limit could be abused. If User A is worried about User B giving him a negative rep, User A can effectively block User B from repping him. And the 2-week limit could be renewed indefinitely by simply updating or re-adding the rep.

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
the 2-week limit could be renewed indefinitely by simply updating or re-adding the rep.

---

oh come on, you could easily counter that with some code, plus that would only apply for negs. i think its a good idea

quote:

---

Originally posted by NiteMare

quote:

---

Originally posted by WDZ
the 2-week limit could be renewed indefinitely by simply updating or re-adding the rep.

---

oh come on, you could easily counter that with some code, plus that would only apply for negs. i think its a good idea

---

I don't. Should the original repper have to wait 2 weeks after a post that the repee made that was the cause behind the rep? I don't think so.