Updated Reputation Guide

I think if people have -200 or less REP should be banned.

I've always been of the mentality that if it's not spam, then I have no place acting as a censor for a legitimate question/response.

While I agree that certain persons with excessively low reputation are annoying as all hell (they have that low reputation for a reason, after all), I am loath to recommend banning them for being unpopular.

Anyone who reads their posts can see their reputation and I am hoping that for the most part they will factor that reputation in when evaluating the contents of said post.

In other words, yes, he's a troll, and offers little of use to the forums, however, he hasn't broken the existing rules to the point where he would be banned by the moderators, and everyone knows he's an idiot, so just ignore him.

+1
 
While I agree that certain persons with excessively low reputation are annoying as all hell (they have that low reputation for a reason, after all), I am loath to recommend banning them for being unpopular.

Anyone who reads their posts can see their reputation and I am hoping that for the most part they will factor that reputation in when evaluating the contents of said post.

In other words, yes, he's a troll, and offers little of use to the forums, however, he hasn't broken the existing rules to the point where he would be banned by the moderators, and everyone knows he's an idiot, so just ignore him.

An interesting point there
 
how can i add it to postive, lol
2.gif
 
I respond to those with only one post very often. I want to ask for rep...that's bad form? I truly do crave the rep.
 
Back
Top Bottom