Giving a person an asshole point does'nt mean that they are an asshole.......it means that the person giving them the point thinks they are. I cant see the logic of allowing a person who is frustrated with somebody else here, using a negative censure mechanism against that person to try and make themselves feel better. The true assholes will be the ones dishing out the points, not the recipients.
At least at the moment, if you disagree with what somebody has posted, you can reply with a post of your own and argue or debate the point. If people are able to anonymously issue asshole points to others that they don't particularly like, there will be no relationship between offensive or OTT posts and the accumulation of points by those posters.
User180209 (06-06-10), nicegirlsarenice (06-06-10), Nicole (06-06-10), Quarterpoundher (06-06-10)
An asshole button? Wouldn't Westie crash the servers day one?
Anything's a dildo if you're brave enough.
Hello Anna.. You have still not informed us who these wrongly banned people are...
How are we to look into this if we do not know who they are or who you feel fall into the category of being banned for expressing an opinion?
It is a very serious matter and a very serious charge to lay at our door please either post/pm who they are or kindly stop saying such a damaging thing and not bother to back it up..
More in hope then in expectation...qph...
Last edited by Quarterpoundher; 06-06-10 at 11:52.
It was actually Anon's post that caused me to post. The fact that somebody like Anon ended up getting two negative reputation votes for what was in effect a helpful/informative thread made it obvious that even the current reputation bar system is being abused............so why open up further avenues for abuse.
If people are'nt prepared to stand up and defend their views by posting with their primary user name, then they should bugger off instead of trying to antagonise others under a further cloak of anonymity.
nicegirlsarenice (06-06-10)
I don't see where she said that anyone had been wrongly banned. She said people shouldn't be banned for expressing their opinions. I interpreted that as a reaction to this reply from Patricia:
I'm sure Patricia's intent wasn't to ban people for expressing their opinions, but you can easily see how her idea could lead to that: People give negative reputation because they don't like the opinion expressed in a post, and after a certain number of times the poster finds himself banned.
“I wish you wouldn’t keep appearing and vanishing so suddenly; you make one quite giddy!”
“All right,” said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone.
Then you must be better with numbers then with words... what part of...
"or will we continue ban people for opinions?!"
...don't you see as clearly saying we ban people for simply expressing an opinion which by definition would be to ban in the wrong?
I have had enough of this bullshit death by a thousand cuts or to be more exact death by a thousand lies that are baseless and cannot be proven as if so it would have been provided by now...