Negative reputation (again) - split from, "Science Forums Etiquette."

[mothythewso]

This is not whining on my part, I'm not banned or anything, but how is one awarded Reputation points, and specifically negative reputation points. Don't want to know a specific member, just curious about the process.

I've garnered 5 negative rep points on one thread, mostly today. And to imatfaal's post above, the discussion involved global warming, I took an opposing view, some of my comments were admittedly snarky, but I never denied the reality of global warming. Some of the characterization of me were absolutely venomous, but I'm a big boy, I can take it. And on my last post, I actually cited real sources, proposed real, accepted solutions, and said that if anyone could point out a discrepancy between what I had said in my previous posts on the topic, and my final post, which, except for one inflammatory characterization, was pretty conciliatory, I would publicly apologize. Result: another negative Reputation point. Maybe I should be proud, let "my freak flag fly, so to speak.

I'd really appreciate an answer, even if I'm the Troll.

Sorry, I should have panned further; I didn't realize their was a previous thread. But it's closed. And I'd still appreciate an answer.

[Strange]

Result: another negative Reputation point.

 

I thought that was totally undeserved. There was nothing particularly controversial in that post; I agreed with much of it. I can't imagine why anyone thought it was worth voting down.

[swansont]

This is not whining on my part, I'm not banned or anything, but how is one awarded Reputation points, and specifically negative reputation points. Don't want to know a specific member, just curious about the process.

 

Other members can award you one positive or negative point for each post, just as you can award it to someone else's post, by clicking the green up arrow or red down arrow on the bottom right of the post. There's a limit to how much negative rep you can give in a 24-hour period.

[zapatos]

I gave you the negative rep on your last post on Polar Bears. It was for the following comment, although I admit to having grown weary of your attitude throughout that thread:

 

"And if you can find anything I've mentioned in the above that contradicts anything I really said in my previous posts, instead rather than what you, in your narrow-minded, reflexive attitude against those who disagree with you, who can think for themselves, thought I said, please tell me, and I'll publicly apologize to you in this thread."

[iNow]

..although I admit to having grown weary of your attitude throughout that thread...

This is what drives most neg rep IMO... Attitude, especially on socially important or hot bottom issues. Ask yourself: Are you asking legitimate questions and genuinely trying to learn more and share well confirmed and validated knowledge, or are you being a douchebag, displaying willful ignorance, and being an isufferable asshat?

 

The latter drives most neg rep. The former drives engaging and informative discussion, which is valued here.

Edited January 22, 2015 by iNow

[mothythewso]

Strange: Thanks

Swansont : Thank for the info. Tho if someone can't figure out how little I value their opinions, then giving them a negative reputation point would be wasted.

zapatos, Inow: I at least respect you for owning your opinions. Although, zapatos, you should have added the qualifier "emphasis mine" to your post, and if you've "grown weary of (my) attitude", I pretty much identify myself each time I post, you don't have to read them, unless you are a masochist. And iNow,, first, what's the point of "...sharing well confirmed and validated knowledge..."? . I thought the purpose of these Forums was engage in stimulating conversation, to share new thoughts, dare I say to pose provocative questions? Secondly, what is a "hot bottom" issue? Thirdly, I may indeed be a "douchebag", but an "asshat"? What are you, ten? Perhaps you should peruse my post on the thread "Is political conservatism a form of mild insanity", posted 08:52 today. It pretty well expresses my opinions concerning people of your ilk. That's as close as I'll come to insulting you. You can decide if you're lucky I don't unleash my devilishly acerbic tongue, my scathing command of invective, on you, or you're just beneath contempt.

And my offer of a public apology if you can find any internal contradictions in my various statements still stands.

And I'll be proud to accept both of your negative reputation points. Please don't disappoint me.

[iNow]

"People of your ilk. What are you, ten? I have a devilishly acerbic tongue."

 

Stop acting surprised when people respond with neg rep after making consistent comments like the above. Given your summary here, you're clearly not as oblivious about what's happening around the site as you pretend to be. Nickels worth of free advise? Choose integrity and authenticity whenever possible. You're probably not as clever as you think.

[mothythewso]

"...or are you being a douchebag, displaying willful ignorance, and being an insufferable asshat?"

And you're a "Glorious Leader"?

F--- me in the heart!

[StringJunky]

"...or are you being a douchebag, displaying willful ignorance, and being an insufferable asshat?"

And you're a "Glorious Leader"?

F--- me in the heart!

If you get neg repped, ask yourself: "Am I being a knob?"

[swansont]

 

Swansont : Thank for the info. Tho if someone can't figure out how little I value their opinions, then giving them a negative reputation point would be wasted.

 

That misses the point about how most people use negative reputation. It's not really used a lot as a simple "I disagree" vote. If it was simple disagreement, then you can put that sentiment in a post. iNow's summary of its use is pretty well on-target.

[Commander]

It is unethical for moderators to be able to see who gave them negative Clicks etc and then go after those poor members and spoil their reputation.

 

It is a shame that words like gibberish, zonked , 'bollocks' , rubbish etc are being used by moderators against unsuspecting members and hurt their feelings.

 

Just calling themselves GLORIOUS LEADERS etc based on such false Reputation Points is a great Joke !

[dimreepr]

It is unethical for moderators to be able to see who gave them negative Clicks etc and then go after those poor members and spoil their reputation.

 

It is a shame that words like gibberish, zonked , 'bollocks' , rubbish etc are being used by moderators against unsuspecting members and hurt their feelings.

 

Just calling themselves GLORIOUS LEADERS etc based on such false Reputation Points is a great Joke !

 

 

This reaction is a little like a ‘tilt’ play in poker; you feel angry because your bluff was called.

[Commander]

 

 

This reaction is a little like a ‘tilt’ play in poker; you feel angry because your bluff was called.

 

Sir, what bluff are you talking about ?

 

I thought this is some nice scientific forum but now I find that this is no place for innovations and new ideas which get criticized and buried !

[dimreepr]

 

Sir, what bluff are you talking about ?

 

I thought this is some nice scientific forum but now I find that this is no place for innovations and new ideas which get criticized and buried !

 

 

 

That one (bolded).

[Commander]

 

 

 

That one (bolded).

 

What about that ?

[Greg H.]

Just calling themselves GLORIOUS LEADERS etc based on such false Reputation Points is a great Joke !

Calling yourself a scientist while refusing to follow the basic principles of science is also pretty funny.

[dimreepr]

 

What about that ?

 

 

The moderators here are no fools; they understand so much more than you realise, through rigor and knowledge, there is no short cut to understanding.

Edited March 12, 2015 by dimreepr

[Commander]

 

 

The moderators here are no fools; they understand so much more than you realise, through rigor and knowledge, there is no short cut to understanding.

 

That is what I too thought !

 

Maybe they are just Humans and make use of their Powers and position !

 

If I am a Moderator perhaps I will be the most respected !

[Greg H.]

 

Maybe they are just Humans

...

What else would they be - gerbils?

[dimreepr]

If you think your always correct, you'll never learn anything.

 

 

 

Cross posted, I replied to this:

 

“That is what I too thought !

 

Maybe they are just Humans and make use of their Powers and position !

 

If I am a Moderator perhaps I will be the most respected !”

Edited March 12, 2015 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

Just calling themselves GLORIOUS LEADERS etc based on such false Reputation Points is a great Joke !

 

I always laugh at that too. The titles are built into the reputation system software. I'm about 94% sure that the Admins left them on the default just to be funny.

 

My favorite was when I was a "Beacon of Hope". I wanted it changed to "Bacon of Hope", because well, bacon. The Admins may not be able to change those titles. I know the Mods can't.

 

If we could, I'd change it from "Glorious Leader" to "Fearless Leader". Big fan of Jay Ward & Bill Scott.

If I am a Moderator perhaps I will be the most respected !

 

Wow, you sent chills down my spine! I pictured you on a mountaintop with a storm brooding in the background. There was lighting, and thunder, and lots of stringed instruments playing furiously.

[Greg H.]

My favorite was when I was a "Beacon of Hope". I wanted it changed to "Bacon of Hope", because well, bacon. The Admins may not be able to change those titles. I know the Mods can't.

 

mmm Bacon.

[imatfaal]

...

What else would they be - gerbils?

 

We are seven foot lizards but don't tell anyone.

 

And on a serious note - we really don't have enough time to worry about chasing down those who neg-rep us; it is so much easier to pay Capt Reffs to add another hundred points to our totals.

[swansont]

It is unethical for moderators to be able to see who gave them negative Clicks etc and then go after those poor members and spoil their reputation.

I agree. Do you think that's actually happening?

 

I've checked, and as best as I can tell, I have not given you any negative reputation points, not do I recall seeing other moderators having given you negative clicks.

 

 

It is a shame that words like gibberish, zonked , 'bollocks' , rubbish etc are being used by moderators against unsuspecting members and hurt their feelings.

 

Those are fairly tame words. It was not my intent to insult you, but if it is your opinion that such language does not constitute reasonably civil discourse, I think you are in the minority.

 

To quote myself from a previous time this topic was broached "An attack on an idea is not a personal attack. If you wrap up your self-worth in the idea, then you are responsible for that. Not anybody else. This is a place to discuss science, not a self-esteem support group. Civility is required, but this does not extend to walking on eggshells to accommodate fragile egos."

 

I have the right to disagree with you, and express an opinion about what you've posted. If you want insulation from criticism, you need to start a blog.

 

Just calling themselves GLORIOUS LEADERS etc based on such false Reputation Points is a great Joke !

The descriptions based on reputation are computer-generated, not self-proclaimed.

[Commander]

I agree. Do you think that's actually happening?

 

I've checked, and as best as I can tell, I have not given you any negative reputation points, not do I recall seeing other moderators having given you negative clicks.

 

 

 

Those are fairly tame words. It was not my intent to insult you, but if it is your opinion that such language does not constitute reasonably civil discourse, I think you are in the minority.

 

To quote myself from a previous time this topic was broached "An attack on an idea is not a personal attack. If you wrap up your self-worth in the idea, then you are responsible for that. Not anybody else. This is a place to discuss science, not a self-esteem support group. Civility is required, but this does not extend to walking on eggshells to accommodate fragile egos."

 

I have the right to disagree with you, and express an opinion about what you've posted. If you want insulation from criticism, you need to start a blog.

 

The descriptions based on reputation are computer-generated, not self-proclaimed.

 

Hi swansont,

 

Thank you for giving a balanced response.

 

I have nothing against you and both of us having served in disciplined Services before retirement can perhaps tide over arguments in a logical and scientific way if not with a religious attitude.

 

I agree that these words are not the worst in the list and being in a position of authority in this site you may feel justified using them now and then.

 

There have been other sites which are not condemning use of hard words where I too have given back to others in a tit for tat fashion but on this site which I have respected highly I have tried my best to play by the rules.

 

I am also aware that many members are being banned too and I had some well meaning friends who cautioned me too.

 

I am still learning about this site and have always been a student of science willing to observe evidence and ingeniously understand the intricacies.

 

Someone else here criticized me for being a Scientist, but I have never claimed to be one.

 

Having got stuck in wrong Vocations I could hardly devote my time for Scientific Pursuits. Only for a brief period in 1998 while I was having a break I took it on myself to read some fundamental maths and come up with some new formulas and that is when I detected the Walker's Equation.

 

Apart from that ever since I joined this site on 10 Dec 2014 I have had my best time trying to figure out Facts, Theories and Issues. Perhaps I was too happy too soon and now my mind is getting weighed with other aspects and not purely Scientific.

 

Best regards

 

PS : I am a bit allergic to 13th Friday and that will keep me from posting anymore today !

Edited March 13, 2015 by Commander