Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How are you supposed to try to "clarify" anything.
I have the same question.
**And I would like to point out now that this post is not being typed with anger or insinuations**
I've come to the conclusion that one really cannot clarify things they have posted.
I am not trying to rehash the thread I started in regards to the death of the missing Ohio woman, however, why one member went into that thread and posted several things which were not correct and quite frankly, heartless, is beyond me.
Yes, I gave the person a neg rep for the things they posted which were not correct. At the time this was something I was personally involved in and not to mention the womans body was just discovered a few hours prior.
Their neg rep was supposedly taken away but yet I was given one...I really don't care about the red dot thing...it's the principal of the whole matter.
My point is, clarifying, justifying, and trying to explain yourself in a BB format is virtually impossible without voice inflection especially when things take on a personal tone. Too many emotions get involved and assumptions are formed.
I will say the moderator that responded back to me and closed that thread was more than understanding with our communication via PM, and for that, I thank him.
Location: Lots of sun and palm trees with occasional hurricane :)
8,293 posts, read 16,197,291 times
Reputation: 7018
My particular situation was about the comment left for me through that rep comment box. It was not in or part of the thread itself, otherwise I could have just simply posted my response.
I guess I didn't know it was "wrong" to want to clarify anything. If you don't know who left you the neg rep and you can't address the issue as part of the thread, then you can't really do much.
At this point, it's water under the bridge. I did receive a response from the mod.
It was not in or part of the thread itself, otherwise I could have just simply posted my response.
I guess I didn't know it was "wrong" to want to clarify anything. If you don't know who left you the neg rep and you can't address the issue as part of the thread, then you can't really do much.
Perhaps there's a lesson in there.... the comment that was left via the rep box was NOT part of the thread. Therefore, it was not a PUBLIC response, and no one except you could see it. You do not want to talk about your rep points in a thread... that will always be off-topic unless you have a thread devoted to discussing your rep points, I suppose.
Perhaps what you could have done to "clarify" would have been to take the info from the rep comment, determined what needed "clarifying", and then make your clarifying post without referring to the rep comment.
For example:
Thread title: Professional Wrassling - real or not?
Your post: Professional wrassling isn't real. It's all fake.
Rep box: -1 point because you said professional wrassling isn't "real". Yet, these guys suffer real injuries in the ring, and then there was that one reporter 10 to 15 years ago who got his ears boxed when he asked one wrassler if it was "real". Clearly, the activity itself is real.
Public reply: The point I made about professional wrassling not being real may need some clarification. Clearly these guys need to be in good shape to do what they do and clearly they have been known to suffer some real injuries. What I meant by wrassing not being "real" was that the outcome was PREDETERMINED. Thus, it is the contest itself that isn't REAL, but I will concede the body slams and head butts and pile driver moves all seem to be "real" enough that I would not want to be subject to them myself.
Location: Lots of sun and palm trees with occasional hurricane :)
8,293 posts, read 16,197,291 times
Reputation: 7018
Thanks Shuke! What you're saying makes sense and I appreciate your comments.
I'm not sure I can address the rep comment diplomatically in the thread because I think it would sound off and unrelated and it's not fair to the others.
Thanks again. I'm a little new to this red box thing but as they say "live and learn".
Perhaps there's a lesson in there.... the comment that was left via the rep box was NOT part of the thread. Therefore, it was not a PUBLIC response, and no one except you could see it. You do not want to talk about your rep points in a thread... that will always be off-topic unless you have a thread devoted to discussing your rep points, I suppose.
Perhaps what you could have done to "clarify" would have been to take the info from the rep comment, determined what needed "clarifying", and then make your clarifying post without referring to the rep comment.
For example:
Thread title: Professional Wrassling - real or not?
Your post: Professional wrassling isn't real. It's all fake.
Rep box: -1 point because you said professional wrassling isn't "real". Yet, these guys suffer real injuries in the ring, and then there was that one reporter 10 to 15 years ago who got his ears boxed when he asked one wrassler if it was "real". Clearly, the activity itself is real.
Public reply: The point I made about professional wrassling not being real may need some clarification. Clearly these guys need to be in good shape to do what they do and clearly they have been known to suffer some real injuries. What I meant by wrassing not being "real" was that the outcome was PREDETERMINED. Thus, it is the contest itself that isn't REAL, but I will concede the body slams and head butts and pile driver moves all seem to be "real" enough that I would not want to be subject to them myself.
Well stated response, shuke. The only problem is that once the clarification is made, there's still no way the person giving the negative rep can take it back even though they realize that they might have given it without justification. Well, they can but only by going to a senior moderator ...and also the recipient can request that a senior moderator review the case.
My point continues to be, why go through all this in the first place??????
Can we just do away with the negative rep system? There's just to much ambiguity and subjective decisions when it comes to issuing negative reps. And as mentioned previously, could make a lot of extra work for senior moderators when they have to review and make decisions as the negative reps increase with the corresponding increase in membership.
My vote continues to be to get rid of the negative rep option completely.
Can we just do away with the negative rep system? JMO.
Frankly, I think the whole rep system - both positive and negative rep points - is a crock. And what is REALLY funny is watching how uptight everyone seems to get over those rep points. I think the whole thing should be done away with.
And then there's this thought: right now, negative reps are only supposed to be given for something like violating terms of service, but positive reps can be given for pretty much anything. If they're going to allow negative reps, why NOT allow someone to be "negged" (can I say that here? ) simply because someone doesn't like their post? I mean, people are allowed to give positive reps because someone likes a post... why not allow negative reps because someone posts something that someone disagrees with? Alternatively, if negative reps are to be allowed only for violating terms of service in a post, why not only allow postive reps for adhering to terms of service? That would be kind of silly, wouldn't it?
Oh well. like I said, I think the whole rep system is pretty ludicrous and, for the life of me, I really cannot imagine people getting all uptight about their rep points, no matter which way they go. But I know they do. All the more reason to allow negative reps for a more broad spectrum of reasons... people's reactions to negative reps can be more entertaining than some of the funniest posts in the forums.
Oh well. like I said, I think the whole rep system is pretty ludicrous and, for the life of me, I really cannot imagine people getting all uptight about their rep points, no matter which way they go. But I know they do. All the more reason to allow negative reps for a more broad spectrum of reasons... people's reactions to negative reps can be more entertaining than some of the funniest posts in the forums.
heh
Yes, that's when my popcorn comes out.
You're right, the whole thing is silly, but I do like to give positive rep.
I just got a red dot on a thread and the comment left not only reprimanded me for the contents of my answer to the OP but also made incorrect assumptions about what I said. ..........
OMG!! The same happened to me not long ago and not only did I get dinged, and temp. banned , the poster sent me a horrible PM That scared the patooties out of me (and I do not scare easily) and I still to this day can't figure out why the op went postal.
... And what is REALLY funny is watching how uptight everyone seems to get over those rep points. ....
I think it may be so because the vast majority of us, 99.9%, are truly NOT trying to be ignorant and ugly to each other and it matters that we be understood correctly. I am bothered by a (-) rep, I can get over it. You be sweet now, and don't hog the popcorn!
OMG!! The same happened to me not long ago and not only did I get dinged, and temp. banned , the poster sent me a horrible PM That scared the patooties out of me (and I do not scare easily) and I still to this day can't figure out why the op went postal.
That's interesting. You have never been banned, mary, not even for a second...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) simply because someone doesn't like their post? I mean, people are allowed to give positive reps because someone likes a post... why not allow negative reps because someone posts something that someone disagrees with? Alternatively, if negative reps are to be allowed only for violating terms of service in a post, why not only allow postive reps for adhering to terms of service? That would be kind of silly, wouldn't it? 
, the poster sent me a horrible PM 
That scared the patooties out of me (and I do not scare easily) and I still to this day can't figure out why the op went postal.
