observation on user reputations

I'm noticing more and more that people seem to be giving each other negative rep points over a simple difference of opinion.

I think that really goes against the purpose of the reputation system.

I'm not going to make any hard rules as to how people should give out rep points, but to me rep points should only be given out to reward a person for an outstanding contribution or to take away points for a really horrible post that lacks substance. To give out negative points over a difference of opinion is pretty childish if you ask me.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Should we consider doing away with the rep system?

If it's a difference of opinion, and that's the sole reason, then yeah it's lame to give neg rep for that.

But if it's a difference of opinion, plus the person you're debating with is glancing over posts, not reading the whole thread, ignoring strong arguments against him/her, then I can see giving neg rep. It's no fun to debate with someone who doesn't listen or who picks and chooses points to debate.

I tend to hit people with neg rep for starting a retarded thread. When it comes to neg rep, you shouldn't evaluate whether the person agrees with you, you should evaluate whether they're acting as a solid contributor.

If you are looking for equality and fair play in a system that caters to the petty emotions of humans, you may have to remove the humans.

If you are looking for equality and fair play in a system that caters to the petty emotions of humans, you may have to remove the humans.


Great post! So true.

We probably should just do away with it because we keep having to ask if we should get do away with it. I think Schneed hit the nail on the head pretty well with his post. A lot of people respond to negative rep points by just giving negative rep points back. They don't actually stop and think maybe there was a legit reason they were given negative rep points.

What I especially don't get is when people talk about rep points in a thread "Hey why'd you give me negative rep points?" It's like PM's. They should, in my opinion, be private.

My point exactly!
The reason that I have not risen to greatness in the "rep point" process is not because my posts suck. It is because I am misunderstood, and frequently the target for misplaced anger and emotion, from the sheer power of my rebuttal!

If you are looking for equality and fair play in a system that caters to the petty emotions of humans, you may have to remove the humans.

Unfortunately that's the truth.

I've never given negative reputation points to someone based on their opinion. I've given about 5 or so negative reputation points (if that) for the same reasons that Schneed has.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that people care so much about the reputation points. It's not like you get a car if you get 10 rep points. The system has its purposes, but I'm starting to think they're becoming more trouble than they're worth.

I'm not a big fan. It's not a popularity contest. If somebody has a problem with something you posted, they should respond in the thread -- not in a rep. Neg rep should be given for poor grammer, poor spelling, redundant/unnecessary threads, and/or thoughtless posts.

Take this post of mine for example (from the National Anthem thread):

I don't have any problem with it. It's a beautiful song. I suppose she didn't keep her word, if she agreed to sing the National Anthem, but whatever. I give her props for her courage.

After reading the lyrics, it is apparent that all races can relate to them -- not only African Americans.

America is defined by so much more than the War of 1812 (for which the Star Spangled Banner was written). I think this song is more reflective of America's struggle and character than the Star Spangled Banner.

I was sure that post would ruffle some feathers, but nobody ever responded to it. I did however receive this negative comment:

"So it's ok to not keep your word? Terrible post, and terrible points."

I actually thought my post offered a different point of view, and I had some good points, but whatever. So, instead of sparking some interesting discussion, I just got negative rep. No big deal as far as I'm concerned, but I'm a little disappointed that no discussion ever became of it.

I could care less about the rep system. What I'd really like to know is what happened to the edit button? Without it, my reputation for consistently being grammatically correct and a great speller may now be at risk.

Edit: Ok, that was freaky. Someone was reading my mind before I posted that.