+1, -1, ...

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

I thought that a ratio would've been more meaningful number than an absolute count. Say, do 2 positives mean that 100% of the responders liked the post, or do they mean that 55% liked it and 45% disliked it? Also, the total number of responders would've been informative, i.e., was it 2 or 20 members that reacted to the post? (All this is immaterial now.)

Fair enough, although anonymity would give more reliable data.

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Fair enough, although anonymity would give more reliable data.

Right. And nothing in the breakdown into separate positive and negative counts implies non-anonymity.

BTW, from the beginning of this thread it was misunderstood that I was talking about responses to my posts. In fact, I was often curious about the responses to other posts. 

[joigus]

6 hours ago, Genady said:

BTW, from the beginning of this thread it was misunderstood that I was talking about responses to my posts. In fact, I was often curious about the responses to other posts. 

You must get a few of them (neg-reps). It's a rite of passage. It's bound to happen if you clash with some nut here or there. I'd be concerned if I didn't get any.

Have you gotten yours?

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

You must get a few of them (neg-reps). It's a rite of passage. It's bound to happen if you clash with some nut here or there. I'd be concerned if I didn't get any.

Have you gotten yours?

Honestly, I don't remember.

[joigus]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Honestly, I don't remember.

I do remember other people being under neg-rep attack, and reporting accordingly. I know I've been protected when I was under fire for no other reason than disagreeing with someone. I like communities that are self-correcting to some extent. A judicious combination of refereeing and community awareness.