The rep aspect I can take or leave, I guess, but I definitely wouldn't want to lose the ability to leave comments on posts. If that stays intact, then it's six of one, a half dozen of the other.
You can still leave comments in the posts if your rep is turned off. So quit acting like a bunch of 3 year old school children.
Why is anyone even bothering to respond to this? Garamet has some angle she's fishing for like she always does and I'm not playing her fucking game. Grow up.
For future reference if you are going to create a rep dual, at least go over the magic 50 posts. It's not too hard to figure it out when you spam to 50 in a week mostly with one liners "oh really" "sounds interesting" "I'll have to check it out." Nor when every posted is repped by two other rep duals (Lloyd Wabbit and DJ Black) who also followed the same MO. Except of course Lloyd Wabbit being first had to be repped every post by FBI.
No, I'm in the green. There seems to be some controversy over it in the community. I was trying to get a read on it, that's all. Were you under the impression that I had the power to do anything about it other than raise the issue? I didn't realize that would seem so threatening.
Speaking of duals, what happened to SillyBilly? Or, has his purpose been served? You know, getting Volpone back in the door without looking like a complete ass?
Well, no need for Lanzman to invoke the Teal Reign of Terror. All that's required to elicit hysteria is to *suggest* the *possibility* of *temporarily* suspending rep *for a specified period of time*. I must confess I expected the weeping and gnashing of teeth. What I did not expect was the unusual perception expressed in Post #11 that the issue was to revoke *only some posters' ability to rep*. Who'd have thought English As a First Language could be such a challenge? Anyway, at least now Lanz knows who'd get the vapors if he ever did decide to eliminate rep. Wish I knew the name of the aliens in the bubble in MIB II. Scorp is right. Rep sure is important to *some* people...
Trial for what? I really don't see what turning it off would do. We already have the option whether to use it at all or not. So I say no.
locustinferno disagrees: I take that back, I can find a reason to disagree with almost everything you say! Your intent is to annoy the very people who are looking for it to be turned off by.... wait for it.... agreeing with them? You're fucking retarded. Yeah. See the retards who want it turned off don't understand that it will just make things worse. They think it will get better. I want them to win their silly little game so when rep does get turned off they can really gnash their teeth over the situation. Well at least that was the original thought. The new one is to rip it out totally.
You know, this kind of attempted emotional manipulation is such bollocks. I think rep war is the most ridiculous waste of time some people feel the need to piss away their life doing and I assure you my desire to keep a function of the board I find useful and efficient is neither hysterical or outlandish. However, the notion that a bunch of "disagrees" and red-colored squares is so threatening that we must dispense with the feature is the very picture of over-reaction.
Good observation, but here's the thing. Disabling emoticons is just round 2 of a process that started with allowing comments with negative or turned off rep: Because originally, the cowards engaging in rep wars were specifically trying to take away the comment function from those who didn't want to join in by negging them into the red, which used to mean they could no longer leave comments. So now that that no longer works, the same cowards have started to leave long lists of enormous emoticons in their comments, thus making the user cp part of rep unusable for targetted users. And when the script is changed to stop that, they'll look for and probably find a third way to take away board functions from those whom they don't like but won't face in debate. The question is, does rep serve a sufficiently useful purpose to make it worth going through iterations of this silliness every few months? I used to think yes. I no longer do. Others have lower or higher thresholds. However, I've said this before and will say it again: The real problem with rep "wars" is not the above, but that they directly detract from real debate. We have posters here who used to engage in discussion, who are now content to almost exclusively troll with rep. Take Peter: He hasn't switched from trolling with posts to trolling with rep. He's switched from debating in posts to trolling with rep, and that's a shame and detracts from WF. We have other posters who still sometimes engage in debate, but mostly turn to negrepping because it's easier. Scorp is an example of that, and again it's a loss. And we have posters like Sokar who think the whole board is designed for the kind of posts that go well with rep war -- who think that free speech is allowed because it helps with the flaming, rather than the reverse (his dead mummy thread spells this out clearly). It seems to me that turning off rep, at least for a longish while, would get posters of Scorp's type back into debate, and force posters of Peter's type to either join in or go somewhere else. It *might* even help to encourage the Sokar type to make a similar decision, although I'm not sure about that.
