I don't care one way or the other,

I would like it better if the number of points you give is fixed and not based on how many points you have to the person your giving points to.

Also I don't like neg points, I have never given any, if it comes to that the person should not be here and in those cases they were gone shortly anyway.

The one area I do like is that when you give points you can also send a short private message, and that I like.

Can I live without it, you bet.

River

The part I enjoyed were the little text that often came with the reputation points where it said "Liked you post about such and such"

Even the bad ones were entertaining.

mrt (imported) wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:55 am The part I enjoyed were the little text that often came with the reputation points where it said "Liked you post about such and such"

Even the bad ones were entertaining.

True, very true. Even though I oppose the points system, I did very much like to read feedback comments on my posts (although there were very very few feedback notes that I got.)

I guess now that the point system is off, we will need to communicate more directly, either in "P.M.'s" or within the thread, posting rebuttals and comments for all to see. I am not so sure that it (i.e. posting comments and rebuttals within the thread) will be an improvement, but I am sure that I do NOT like to see people just trying to accumulate "reputation points."

Most of me doesn't care, but the part of me that does feels strongly that Reputations should not be able to be given anonymously.

If someone has a problem with what someone says, then they should say it to their face; if someone likes what someone says, then they should be happy to say it to their face.

Reputation is a reflection of our words and deeds.

It is also an evaluation of us based upon the perception of someone other than ourself.

Some may perceive us as having a good reputation as they like what we say and do.

Some may perceive us as not having a good reputation because of what we say and do.

Some may think of a suicide bomber as having a good reputation, though this is not a commonly held opinion among most people.

Past experiences, and perhaps religion and politicts will influence the reputation we assign to others.

A person can write, speak, act in many different ways intentionally in an attempt to try and "build a good reputation" among certain people. But their reputation may be a sham, as in the case of Bernie Madoff.

A person can have a lifetime of truly good honest reputable accomplishments and have a good reputation among millions, and ruin their reputation with one thoughtless, careless, unfortunate act. Hopefully such will not be the case for a world famous golfer.

When someone posts something others will either agree, disagree, or be neutral.

If it were possible to cast such a vote on every posting, some would vote, some would not. Of those who do vote most would be honest, some would not. Bottom line is that no voting system will be the only accurate voting system. People just have to read, think, and create their own personal opinion about others who post here.

Paolo,

Have you reached a decision yet?

No, not yet.

But I have decided that everyone gets coal in their stockings this year.

Paolo wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:28 pm I have decided that everyone gets coal in their stockings this year.

That doesn't look like coal to me.....

mrt (imported) wrote: Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:55 am The part I enjoyed were the little text that often came with the reputation points where it said "Liked you post about such and such"

Even the bad ones were entertaining.

oooohhhh, me tooo! I'd almost give my left nut to get those again!

Paolo wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:28 pm No, not yet.

But I have decided that everyone gets coal in their stockings this year.

Can it be used for electricity generation?