Shoutbox

I just found out that to rate someone's reputation, you need at least 100+ votes. I thought that was thrash because there are people, who for 100 votes will write this as a reply:


So I was a bit dissapointed. I should have the right to vote for a person's reputation, just because you made 100+ posts, it doesn't mean I don't have the right to vote, writing 100+ posts doesn't determine if I'm able or not to use my common sense and vote good, bad or neutral on a person's reputation.

VOTE AND REPLY AT THE BOTTOM

If you have less than 100 posts, it "probably" means you are not here long enough to know members and so to rate them. In addition to that, anyone could go create an account and rate himself positive. And if someone tries to get to 100 to fast, he will be spotted by the other members and the moderators

Well I can tell by common sense who is rude, who is disruptive etc..., and I don't have a hundred votes (THIS IS MY TENTH POST).

There are people that have practically nothing written, with just a quote of the other person's profile. Just to make it seem longer. For example

____________________________________________________
If you have less than 100 posts, it "probably" means you are not here long enough to know members and so to rate them. In addition to that, anyone could go create an account and rate himself positive. And if someone tries to get to 100 to fast, he will be spotted by the other members and the moderators
____________________________________________________

Ya

''Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get.''

________________________________________________________
OH YA, AND I JUST NOTICED, I SIGNED UP AT THE SAME TIME AS YOU......HTH, YOU GOT 641 POSTS?

The restriction is there for a reason.....100 is perhaps a bit low if anything, I certainly can't see it being changed to a lower number.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but I can tell you now that any campaign to get it lowered will be in vain

quote:

---

Originally posted by androo123
will write this as a reply:

---

There are length restrictions to avoid this.

You see something wrong? Pm an administrator or moderator.

THE REPUTATION SYSTEM WILL NOT BE MODIFIED OR REMOVED. Get used to it. This has been discussed so many times an entirely new community could be started just for that. Why don't you go do that, instead of wasting tids here?

The reputation system does not need to be changed at all, there is nothing wrong with it.

Besides, reputation votes are not important in my opinion.

I find it to be fine the way it is as people with less than 100 posts wouldn't know how people act in the community overall so a new person might just negative vote out of vengeance just for being flamed about a stupid thread or coming to a forum and expecting things to change because of their arrival.

This isn't even worth voting for because it's not going to change, move along citizens.

[almost] Everyone is right, the reputation system doesn't need to be modified.
And it won't be modified, as far as i know.

100 posts is a good number... a bit low if you ask me, but it is alright.
Also, reputation isn't that important... You know if a person is helpful or not just by browsing its latest posts.

Hey, you're the same guy from the translation thread! I wonder who you want to rate negatively. Just because you got a little butt hurt from being proved wrong and exposing the fact that you are an idiot, doesn't mean we will change the reputation system for you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Val
Hey, you're the same guy from the translation thread! I wonder who you want to rate negatively. Just because you got a little butt hurt from being proved wrong and exposing the fact that you are an idiot, doesn't mean we will change the reputation system for you.

---

though other people could vote in his place if he truely believes and can proof that someone was very rude to him....