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.
There's so much negativity and sarcasm on many threads that it turns me off and I go elsewhere!
Some people have nothing nice to say so they get attention from being a jerk.
I think if you bring it back it will deter some people from being wiseguys.
What do ya think?
I think it's not necessary.
Those who are consistently abrasive will get less positive reps than others will going forward, so it all works out in the end.
I liken it to human nature and traffic. Notice how most people drive these days, until they have a state trooper on their ass. People tailgate you even though you're going 5+ the speed limit, but if you leave a two foot gap between the car in front of you, the tailgater behind you will just go around you. In the slow lane, you get blocked in. Folks convoy to keep others from getting past them.
I'd say 99% of the problems of society is one of attitude. We can't mandate courtesy. It just doesn't work that way.
The best we can do is to just pave the way for a positive attitude. Be the change you want to see. Serve others. Ignore the negative and move forward.
Anyone who has seen a vicious clique in action on City-Data will understand why negative reps are a bad idea. I'm not claiming that all City-Data forums even have such a thing as vicious cliques, and I don't care to identify which forum I am talking about. But this particular clique is a group where the members seem quite normal until one of them receives the slightest criticism, at which time the wagons are circled, the big guns are hauled out, and the fangs go into action. It is really quite remarkable; the words "mental illness" come to mind.
So if there were negative reps and if any poster were unfortunate enough to run afoul of the clique, that poster would receive tons of them, all quite undeserved.
Anyone who has seen a vicious clique in action on City-Data will understand why negative reps are a bad idea. I'm not claiming that all City-Data forums even have such a thing as vicious cliques, and I don't care to identify which forum I am talking about. But this particular clique is a group where the members seem quite normal until one of them receives the slightest criticism, at which time the wagons are circled, the big guns are hauled out, and the fangs go into action. It is really quite remarkable; the words "mental illness" come to mind.
So if there were negative reps and if any poster were unfortunate enough to run afoul of the clique, that poster would receive tons of them, all quite undeserved.
Dunno about all of that, but I do know that allowing only Postive reps was one of the best moves Admin ever made.
Negative rep, by its very definition, added nothing to dialogue.
Rather than have negative reps, I'd like to see at least a trial of the up or down per post, which would be limited to the person being able to do this only once for that post.
After all, this is a utilization of the wording expressed in the 'scales of justice' rep box, but would be specific to the comment made, instead of being so personal to the poster. Also, with no option for comment, hopefully the Mods. would have less work to do.
I've seen this done using this same brand of software program, and it gets listed in each comment box, with the thumbs up or down mechanism.
Are their obvious flaws to this idea that I don't see?
Rather than have negative reps, I'd like to see at least a trial of the up or down per post, which would be limited to the person being able to do this only once for that post.
After all, this is a utilization of the wording expressed in the 'scales of justice' rep box, but would be specific to the comment made, instead of being so personal to the poster. Also, with no option for comment, hopefully the Mods. would have less work to do.
I've seen this done using this same brand of software program, and it gets listed in each comment box, with the thumbs up or down mechanism.
Are their obvious flaws to this idea that I don't see?
If I understood you correctly, wouldn't the "mob mentality" still be able to operate? That is, people could DM each other and gang up on a poster to vote the thumbs down on every post he or she makes.
Negative reputation won't happen, and it's not necessary. Even if it were brought back, then what would the point be? (Uh, no pun intended) If a poster disagrees with or dislikes a post, then he/she doesn't have to even give any reputation at all. Better yet, they don't have to read their posts. Problem solved without creating anything new.
If I understood you correctly, wouldn't the "mob mentality" still be able to operate? That is, people could DM each other and gang up on a poster to vote the thumbs down on every post he or she makes.
That could happen, but wouldn't it be harder for the 'mobsters' to accomplish? When viewing the fora which have the feature, I just naturally disregarded the ones with excessive thumbs down, whenever I noted that what was written made good sense. Mobbers are going to mob, no matter what.
And, I'd think it would be possible for the Mods to see who was doing what, if there seemed to be that sort of thing happening. And they could do their Moderating.
I think we all know who are the mobbers and I just read past them, as they mean nothing to me.
That could happen, but wouldn't it be harder for the 'mobsters' to accomplish? When viewing the fora which have the feature, I just naturally disregarded the ones with excessive thumbs down, whenever I noted that what was written made good sense. Mobbers are going to mob, no matter what.
And, I'd think it would be possible for the Mods to see who was doing what, if there seemed to be that sort of thing happening. And they could do their Moderating.
I think we all know who are the mobbers and I just read past them, as they mean nothing to me.
But...
What on earth is the point?
Is this just an academic discussion now?
Because, "negative rep" really isn't anything but a way to do a drive by on the posts of people you don't like.
And while, "positive rep" may be the similar, it's still a pleasant way to encourage positive feelings from the membership at large.
Do you think people would keep on logging in and participating if their opinions were a bit unpopular and they had constant negative reps?
It's not like it would make them behave. It would just be a thing they'd either ignore because they're thick-skinned and do not care what anyone thinks, or they'd stop posting entirely because they'd perceive this forum as too hostile.
Do you suppose the site owner wants that? No.
So, what is so compelling about being able to negatively rep someone besides being mean spirited?
Just write a post that disagrees. It encourages a dialog. Problem solved, because you are indeed allowed to register your dislike of someone's opinion or commentary already.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Because, "negative rep" really isn't anything but a way to do a drive by on the posts of people you don't like.
And while, "positive rep" may be the similar, it's still a pleasant way to encourage positive feelings from the membership at large.
Do you think people would keep on logging in and participating if their opinions were a bit unpopular and they had constant negative reps?
It's not like it would make them behave. It would just be a thing they'd either ignore because they're thick-skinned and do not care what anyone thinks, or they'd stop posting entirely because they'd perceive this forum as too hostile.
Do you suppose the site owner wants that? No.
So, what is so compelling about being able to negatively rep someone besides being mean spirited?
Just write a post that disagrees. It encourages a dialog. Problem solved, because you are indeed allowed to register your dislike of someone's opinion or commentary already.
The point I am trying to make is that the voting on the individual post could be seen as a brief, polite way of saying "I disagree with what you said" without provoking argument.
I did not mean it in a mean-spirited manner. I think you have not understood that I'm speaking about the opinion given, not the person holding the opinion.
And yes, I think this has been an academic discussion for a few pages now!
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.
) If a poster disagrees with or dislikes a post, then he/she doesn't have to even give any reputation at all. Better yet, they don't have to read their posts. Problem solved without creating anything new. 
