Amped- said:Guys oh meh goodness, y'all are fighting over a stupid number that no one cares about. Some people do, the ones that want to be popular and want to seem trusted but in actual reality, it's just a number which does not make you trusted nor popular. So all in all, this is a waste of time for everyone.
Solidify said:Amped- said:Guys oh meh goodness, y'all are fighting over a stupid number that no one cares about. Some people do, the ones that want to be popular and want to seem trusted but in actual reality, it's just a number which does not make you trusted nor popular. So all in all, this is a waste of time for everyone.
Regardless of who believes it or not, this is a section designated for feedback and that is exactly what we're providing the OP with. By having made a public topic, he's looking for our view on the matter and it's to be expected that there will be some differences or just plain disagreements.
No one is fighting. This is an argument, otherwise known as a debate. You've failed to see that. Take a seat.
Amped- said:I don't really see a point in leaving this thread open for these "arguments" to continue. It's up to The Elite and not up to these other members.
Amped- said:He didn't ask our "view on the matter", he is stating that he wants things to be fair and things to be set even.
Amped- said:A fight, an argument, they're the same thing.
Amped- said:And if this is a section for people to provide their feedback and opinions then why are you telling me to take a seat? I haven't failed to realize anything. :thumbsup:
Amped- said:What word was used in the meaning of fight? ....Thank you. Disagreement, which leads to a debate. What do you think has been going on in this thread? Disagreements, debates, and fights.
Relapse said:Amped- said:What word was used in the meaning of fight? ....Thank you. Disagreement, which leads to a debate. What do you think has been going on in this thread? Disagreements, debates, and fights.
apparently you missed the word "angry" in front of the definition.
Amped- said:Now back on topic.. Like I said in the beginning of the post. I agree with this. But why does it really matter if someone has more rep than they should? Even you Carbon said before you don't care about rep, correct?
Amped- said:Relapse said:Amped- said:What word was used in the meaning of fight? ....Thank you. Disagreement, which leads to a debate. What do you think has been going on in this thread? Disagreements, debates, and fights.
apparently you missed the word "angry" in front of the definition.
And maybe you missed the word "or" after fight.
Now back on topic.. Like I said in the beginning of the post. I agree with this. But why does it really matter if someone has more rep than they should? Even you Carbon said before you don't care about rep, correct?
Well a forum is a hierarchy of some sort, so the higher up on the hierarchy you are the more your opinion matters.Solidify said:Amped- said:Now back on topic.. Like I said in the beginning of the post. I agree with this. But why does it really matter if someone has more rep than they should? Even you Carbon said before you don't care about rep, correct?
By giving someone more ability to rep, you're indirectly saying 'we think your opinion is worth more than those who can give less of a rating'. And that's wrong. If it was up to me, it would be a good rep, bad rep or no rep.
Solidify said:Amped- said:Now back on topic.. Like I said in the beginning of the post. I agree with this. But why does it really matter if someone has more rep than they should? Even you Carbon said before you don't care about rep, correct?
By giving someone more ability to rep, you're indirectly saying 'we think your opinion is worth more than those who can give less of a rating'. And that's wrong. If it was up to me, it would be a good rep, bad rep or no rep.
Amped- said:Solidify said:Amped- said:Now back on topic.. Like I said in the beginning of the post. I agree with this. But why does it really matter if someone has more rep than they should? Even you Carbon said before you don't care about rep, correct?
By giving someone more ability to rep, you're indirectly saying 'we think your opinion is worth more than those who can give less of a rating'. And that's wrong. If it was up to me, it would be a good rep, bad rep or no rep.
So what you are saying is, everyone should have an equal amount of rep available to give and receive? I think no rep at all sounds good.
Amped- said:Solidify said:Amped- said:Now back on topic.. Like I said in the beginning of the post. I agree with this. But why does it really matter if someone has more rep than they should? Even you Carbon said before you don't care about rep, correct?
By giving someone more ability to rep, you're indirectly saying 'we think your opinion is worth more than those who can give less of a rating'. And that's wrong. If it was up to me, it would be a good rep, bad rep or no rep.
So what you are saying is, everyone should have an equal amount of rep available to give and receive? I think no rep at all sounds good.
Solidify said:Amped- said:Solidify said:By giving someone more ability to rep, you're indirectly saying 'we think your opinion is worth more than those who can give less of a rating'. And that's wrong. If it was up to me, it would be a good rep, bad rep or no rep.
So what you are saying is, everyone should have an equal amount of rep available to give and receive? I think no rep at all sounds good.
That's exactly what I'm saying. In an equal world, everyone's opinion is just as valuable as someone else's. So why not exercise that concept here as well?
Amped- said:Solidify said:Amped- said:So what you are saying is, everyone should have an equal amount of rep available to give and receive? I think no rep at all sounds good.
That's exactly what I'm saying. In an equal world, everyone's opinion is just as valuable as someone else's. So why not exercise that concept here as well?
I can understand that and I completely agree. Maybe instead of the red and green numbers, they should be gray numbers. Everyone able to give neutral feedback, and in that feedback they can state the good or bad about that person.
Solidify said:Amped- said:Solidify said:That's exactly what I'm saying. In an equal world, everyone's opinion is just as valuable as someone else's. So why not exercise that concept here as well?
I can understand that and I completely agree. Maybe instead of the red and green numbers, they should be gray numbers. Everyone able to give neutral feedback, and in that feedback they can state the good or bad about that person.
I honestly don't think a color change will improve anything. If we do this, we need to do it the right way. For example, if you have something positive to say about a member, go ahead and specify so when you give him a +1. If you have an argument with him and you weren't able to sort out the dispute, explain the situation or why you dislike this member when you leave a -1 on his profile.
The idea here is to make everyone equal. There's two ways I suggest that to be done.
People should be able to express how they feel about someone in words and not have to cling to the use of numbers to get the job done for them.
- Even out the reputation system so it's one point that can go either way;
- or just simply revoke the entire system itself.
Relapse said:Just because I can use a bigger number doesn't make my opinion any more important than theirs.
Solidify said:Relapse said:Just because I can use a bigger number doesn't make my opinion any more important than theirs.
Then why wouldn't you be willing to give it up?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?