Tit-for-tat reputation

Remove all ads!

Twice now, I have given what I considered to be justifiable negative reputation only to find that the person in question responded by giving me negative rep with a comment something like 'turnabout is fair play'. In one case, I also got a PM message, which hasn't really resolved anything thus far. I wanted to ask, do most people consider this to be an appropriate act or not?

 

I didn't answer the poll as my choice wasn't there. I personally believe that negative reputation should be removed. In my opinion it is used as an anonymous weapon for people who do not agree with an opinion and has nothing to do with the merit of the discussion on that opinion.

Disabling all reputation is a poor way to solve this problem as many people like to know if someone likes there post.

All negative reputation leads to is hurt feelings and then people put on ignore (which probably makes the situation worse), and then Tal has to get involved.

 

I disagree, Snook. Neg'd.

 

I'd tend to say no as I don't believe in giving bad points to people (we're not in school anymore -at least most of us aren't).

And yet, as far as retaliation is concerned, I think that since the feature exists you can't criticize people who won't turn the other cheek or blame them if you did it to them first.

Never do unto others... You know the rest.

You've got a good point from me Barmy!

 

When you give negative rep, do you get the message that "you may receive the same in return as a result?" But I agree with Snook that there should not be negative rep at all, since we are a communtiy, mostly of members who have posted here for years. We all know each other pretty well. So you, NOG, are "complaining" that you get negative rep for giving negative rep? Why am I not surprised...

 

I've only given neg rep once or twice, and each time it was well deserved. I think one dude ended up getting banned a few days later.
I give pos rep to people who make me actually LMAO in RL....or they make a very compelling argument that I either agree with 110% or I can't refute.


Now, as for giving people neg rep as 'retribution', that just F***ed up. If someone gives you neg rep, at the very least, users should not be able to neg rep to that person without first 'spreading around the rep with others'...or wait a week or two to cool down.

 

Tit-for-tat neg-repping is silly. I got into such games before but it led nowhere. I mean Chandos is quite right, you're being warned that you are warned that "you may receive the same in return as a result". My experience fully confirms that.

These days, I very rarely give negative reputation, and rarely receive some (one in ten reps). And I try to never give negative reputation anonymously. I have actually considered not give negative reputation at all, largely because I think that positive feedback is more productive. Unless I find something decidedly objectionable I will keep it that way.

As a side note, I got anonymous negative rep for a comment last week, for being 'distasteful'. It was arguably not by my 'victim' because that person then gave me positive reputation a couple days later, ironically said person was also the one I gave negative reputation before. That's the spirit!

 

I dont like the negative rep, does it really accomplish anything?

just because I might get negative repped, doesnt mean Im going to change my views

 

I don't use rep, good nor bad. I think the system in general sucks and should be removed, but then that's just my opinion. If you appreciate someone's comment you might as well give the feedback in the thread or if it feels overly off-topic then give a short PM. Negative reputation is of course even worse than positive since it only accomplishes strife and bad feelings between posters.

 

You can always disable the rep system if you don't want to get involved. In profile options I believe, means you can't give any rep as well iirc.

I don't even remember if I've given negative reputation. If I have it wouldn't have been for daft reasons, if I have a problem with what someone has said then I tell them privately.

I'll use positive reputation to commend a particular post as a source of information, quality or amusement, generally in threads I don't post in - such as many of the debates I cannot have the patience to indulge in looping conversations, I will say my piece and generally leave unless directly queried or I directly oppose an opinion.

There are far more effective ways for retribution than tit for tat nonsense.

 

I've never given a negative rep. I think the only reasons to give a negative rep are the same as reporting the post ... so why give a negative?

For my vote I said it would depend. If one person is going to be a total jerk and give a negative because he/she doesn't agree with the other's opinion ... well then tit-for-tat is reasonable ... I've just never done it.

 

I rep alot. Usually when I completely agree with a post or when it makes me laugh. I believe I have neg repped twice and have been neg repped twice. When I 1st joined, I was mad the 1st time someone neg repped me. But I got over it soon enough. The 2nd time made me laugh out loud. I wouldn't give a retribution neg rep now, but I might of when I 1st joined. I'm babbling....

 

I've never given negative rep (although I'm tempted to neg rep NOG for starting this thread ). I have, however, received neg rep at least once, maybe twice. I responded by giving the negative rep'er positive rep (just for the hell of it). So I suppose that could be considered "retribution" rep.

I agree with most of what Snook said, although I'm not sure about the "anonymous weapon" part. But in any case, neg rep is a very poor substitute for constructive dialogue.

 

ROFL!!! Repped!

I answered "it depends". First, I typically identify myself when I give positive or negative rep (unless the person is an SPS account holder in which case they know regardless).

While I do not give negative rep very often, it is usually someone who has also negative repped me. (Not necessarily retaliatory, but I've been negged repped by them at some point previously.)

Oddly, I still debate with people who I have neg repped, and/or they have neg repped me.

 

IMO, I think NOG's creation of this thread has merit, as obviously not everyone agrees with NOG in the alleys, and that is where the heated discussions mostly exists. If he is feeling the brunt of some neg reps for his opinions, he should be able to spill his guts about what he thinks of them.

I think everyone should Neg Rep Splunge, so he can build up our reps in return. Drats, should of kept that one to myself...dolt!

 

I was going to positive rep Blades in a pre-emptive strike, but apparently I need to rep some others first. So the first 5 people to send me $25 will get a rep bump from me, and can also be happy knowing they helped in increasing Blades' rep.

A side question for the admins - is there any way we can view who we have given rep to?

 

I'm pretty much with Snook on this. Negative rep is just a lazy way of disagreeing: instead of posting a counterargument, or saying you disagree because this and that, it's so much easier to just give negative rep (anonymously too if the receiver isn't SPS) and feel all smug about it. I don't use the rep system much anyway but I would prefer to see it used to highlight some genuinely good argument or a very funny post, instead of being a reflection of agreement/disagreement with opinions.

 

My position mirror's Aldeth's. I've neg-repped a few posters, and only to one poster who didn't neg-rep me first. Still, it's never retaliatory. I've never neg-repped someone for an opinion or position they hold. If I disagree with an opinion, I have no bones about challenging that opinion publicly (that's what we're here for). I've been neg-repped several times, usually by posters who disagree with an opinion I hold but for whatever reason would rather flame me anonymously than challenge the opinion publicly. Martaug made an artform out of it, for example.

I reserve neg rep for my distaste with the manner in which that opinion was delivered. If someone is being particularly intellectually dishonest, condescending, combative, self-victimizing, stone-deaf, etc. I'll give them a dig (and they'll have deserved it). But this is still pretty rare, and only a few times have I felt it necessary (since busting someone's balls over the manner of their post, and not the post itself, is usually off-topic). Most folks here are cool enough that it's not warranted. Is it very effective in getting the poster to modify their posting style? In my experience, never. But it's better than nothing, and hey - free speech, b*tches.

Having said that - and I mean this sincerely - WHO CARES? If you're going to dish out negative rep, you can't whine about getting it yourself (unless it is excessive and chronic, in which case it's time to inform the mods you're being harassed). If you're irritated enough by another poster to neg rep them, chances are the feeling is mutual regarding your own posts. If you already have so little respect for the person that you would neg rep them, anonymously or otherwise, why would it bother you so much when they neg rep you?

Last thing - NOG, do you honestly not have anything better to do than start threads drawing attention to your own butt-hurt over someone calling you a doody-head on a D&D message board? I really can think of no indignity more superficial and meaningless than negative rep at SP. Either cowboy up and take the good with the bad, or stop debating if you can't handle the occasional flame. And if the reputation system on a D&D message board is this important to you - ANY of you - you really need to get laid. STAT.

 

Exactly. If you're willing to dish it out, you have to also be willing to take it.

Reason #573 of why I always read DR's posts. LMAO.