Anonymous rep

[Wanted]

Not that it really matters to me but if you don't have the balls to say what you think to someone with them knowing it's you then you shouldn't be saying it.

That being said if you still want to be a pansy you can talk trash anoymously over email or some other way.

Wizzup and other admins see anyways. So does anyone that asks or when admins have fun posting their logs.

Just my opinion, don't care though so don't bother trying to troll me over this post.

[onilika]

One question...rep-squares goes up depending on points we've got?
If so, how many points do we need to get a certain rep-square?

[Flight]

Yeah I agree with that, Wanted.

@Coh3n;
I just read your earlier posts, sorry for the delay lol... Anyways, like Frement said, I don't think anyone's really getting upset or worked up about the fact that it's a de-rep, as I don't think that's the issue at hand here. I think it's nice to know who changed your reputation. The same applies even to the opposite, +rep. How would you know who to thank or appreciate for doing so?

[Harry]

Why does anyone care? You get de-repped (for a good or bad reason), deal with it and move on. Don't complain like a child.

Do you miss the point I am trying to say, or do you feel the community is ok with such stuff? It's Javabot-tier behavior in the way people have came to use the anonymous rep feature.

[NCDS]

I say just let it go. So many people "don't care" about reputation, yet there are numerous threads about it. Trolls will be trolls, there's no getting around that. If someone wants you to know who they are whether it is rep+ or rep- they can easily enough sign their name. If it's a compliment, then take it as such and be happy. If it's something negative or perhaps a "flame" comment, then take it constructively or just let it go.

Threads like this simply 'feed the fire' honestly. I understand it can be frustrating, but such is life my friend. It's up to you to interpret it how you see fit, but in the end things still move on.

[Harry]

Because it's good to allow people to anonymously flame people, amirite? Makes a nice friendly community that people want to come back to.

[Coh3n]

I don't know what you're trying to argue. Do you want to see who gave rep? I thought you could already?

[Capricorn]

Because it's good to allow people to anonymously flame people, amirite? Makes a nice friendly community that people want to come back to.

Nah man you're supposed to take their messages constructively.

I can't wait to contemplate the message behind this comment

You trivial son of a mother duck.

When I figure it out I'll be sure to apply that to my life.

[Frement]

And you can, can you not?

No, but you probably can because of your Administrator status.

[NCDS]

Because it's good to allow people to anonymously flame people, amirite? Makes a nice friendly community that people want to come back to.

I can only imagine that someone "flaming" someone else for any reason at all would be provoked by something. It doesn't seem to happen to me (probably will now), but I would assume that's because I don't really give anyone a reason.

No, I don't think it's right, and I would infract anyone I saw doing so without reason. I would imagine if it's truly becoming a problem you could perhaps consult an admin and ask for the situation to be handled? By that I mean a PM via the forums, or maybe MSN or IRC.

This isn't really my place to say how things should be done, and I'm not trying to lecture to you or anything. I'm simply expressing my views on the situation is all.

[Harry]

I can only imagine that someone "flaming" someone else for any reason at all would be provoked by something.

No, it's just people being jerks because they can and because they think they're anonymous so nothing will happen to them. No reason at all.

[Wanted]

What Harry is saying is that there is no point of having anonymous reps because there are no pretty much no pros, only cons.

The reason for changing it is a preventive measure.

Someone has to the power to fix it, so why doesn't it get fixed?

Maybe someone is implying it isn't the role of the administrators to deal with these types of problems, and just not worry about them.

What an interesting philosophy.

[Coh3n]

No, it's just people being jerks because they can and because they think they're anonymous so nothing will happen to them. No reason at all.

As far as I know, giving negative rep isn't against the rules, so I don't think that would matter. People can +rep or -rep for whatever reason they please, whether the person receiving the rep likes it or not.

It doesn't matter if the rep is anonymous or not, it's still going to happen. The entire rep system pisses me off because it leads to pointless arguments like this (no offense, Harry).

[Wanted]

As far as I know, giving negative rep isn't against the rules, so I don't think that would matter. People can +rep or -rep for whatever reason they please, whether the person receiving the rep likes it or not.

Yet, it is against the rules to flame someone? But when it is a rep it is not considered a flame?

it leads to pointless arguments like this (no offense, Harry).

24 to 4 (6 to 1 ~ 86%) people agree that reps should not be anonymous and it's a "pointless argument"?

[sf411]

Rep rank is option that you choose to turn off or on. If you decide to leave it on it is by your doing that you allow someone to mess with said rank. If you do not like it disable it.

[Capricorn]

Rep rank is option that you choose to turn off or on. If you decide to leave it on it is by your doing that you allow someone to mess with said rank. If you do not like it disable it.

Regardless if it's disabled or not, you're still able to rep/de-rep the person.

Having it disabled just means you don't want to use it for e-peen or something like that since it's not shown on your profile/posts.

[TomTuff]

I don't know what you're trying to argue. Do you want to see who gave rep? I thought you could already?

No we can't see who gives rep thats the point of this thread

[Daniel]

If reputation is not anonymous, then it will greatly reduce the amount of negative reputations received. As the majority of negative reputations are a result of "flame-wars" with the sole reason of anonymity.

My vote: should be open.

[i luffs yeww]

We should make forum currency, and each time you rep someone you get 10m villavu coins, which is worth one ha'penny. And each time you de rep someone you owe villavu $0.02 (get it?).

I find it silly that you, Harry, are against privacy in this situation, though.

[Wizzup?]

What Harry is saying is that there is no point of having anonymous reps because there are no pretty much no pros, only cons.

The reason for changing it is a preventive measure.

Someone has to the power to fix it, so why doesn't it get fixed?

Maybe someone is implying it isn't the role of the administrators to deal with these types of problems, and just not worry about them.

What an interesting philosophy.

If you like preventive measures, you must also be in favour of removing all guns from civilians, no? Perhaps we should also disallow tor altogether, start enforcing every ISP to do DPI and all connect our facebook account to everything else on the internet. What a wonderful philosophy.

Harry, I find it odd you're typically in favour of anonymity (like with SRL-Stats), but now you suddenly want rep to be public? If rep was public, people would not de-rep anyone, because they'd be ``afraid'' of getting flamed, getting into a childish fight, etc. The people who whine about receiving negative rep are just silly as they always state they don't care about reputation anyways. And it's not like reputation is _the_ way to flame someone and you can just as easily make another account, email someone, find them on IRC, etc. If you do everything to prevent flame-wars, the tension will only build up. There's nothing wrong with the occasional flame war; it helps clear things up that usual social manners cannot.

[Mr. Bottomtooth]

Probably the biggest advantage and disadvantage of the internet is the ability to be anonymous. You can say what's on your mind without your name attached to the post (good), but it's easy to start thinking it's ok to say anything. (bad)

What goes for the topic I think an open enviorement if always better. True, the amount of de-reps would decline, which just shows people are not willing to stand behind their own opinions.

I don't really care about the rep system so I wouldn't mind if it got removed completely, but if the choice is between 2 options I go with anti-anonymity.

[cycrosism]

It is very annoying when people use rep to flame instead of using it for what it is there for.

For example: After making this post http://villavu.com/forum/showpost.ph...7&postcount=18 I got derepped for "I disapprove the negativity."

Yeah good one, you could have just written that in the thread to me. Didn't have to involve lowering my rep

[Daniel]

Well, this thread is now pointless, since Wizzup? is against the idea it won't happen. Anyways...

If rep was public, people would not de-rep anyone, because they'd be ``afraid'' of getting flamed, getting into a childish fight, etc.

If it were public, only those with a genuine reason will de-rep those. It wouldn't end in flame wars.

The people who whine about receiving negative rep are just silly as they always state they don't care about reputation anyways.

That's because when people receive positive reputation, they feel good about themselves. When they receive negative reputation without a genuine reason and as such are a constant target of abuse, they will hold such a view.

And it's not like reputation is _the_ way to flame someone and you can just as easily make another account, email someone, find them on IRC, etc.

Negative reputation would be the easiest to do and as such, is the most common. Of course, as you know, people have done what you had suggested in that statement (flame on IRC, make other accounts, etc).

There's nothing wrong with the occasional flame war; it helps clear things up that usual social manners cannot.

What?? Flame wars are name just that, because they are hot. "Flaming, also known as bashing, is hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_war ) is completely unnecessary. Especially if you want a community that is respected.

If it isn't anonymous, then people can stand by their decision to give the negative reputation to an individual and not hide behind their 'anonymous' status. People mainly just neg rep others because they simply don't like the post nor the poster, not because it's invalid, inflammatory or against the forum rules.

EDIT: On the other hand, simply just disable negative rep altogether?

[Jakkle]

Okay,

That's it. This thread is now pointless, since Wizzup? is against the idea it won't happen.

Night fellas'.

lol, is this true wizzup ? I'm sure wizzup would want what his community wants ?
I think this hole thread has gone a bit over board tbh. I would prefer to see who Repped me but its no big deal, just nice to know. I agree with wanted on this

Not that it really matters to me but if you don't have the balls to say what you think to someone with them knowing it's you then you shouldn't be saying it.

That being said if you still want to be a pansy you can talk trash anoymously over email or some other way.

Other way to do it is The Bashing Club / BBQ Pit.

If someone wants to flame then to me they have a problem not me so I either put them straight or leave it if I think there's no helping someone.

[Wanted]

If you like preventive measures, you must also be in favour of removing all guns from civilians, no? Perhaps we should also disallow tor altogether, start enforcing every ISP to do DPI and all connect our facebook account to everything else on the internet. What a wonderful philosophy.

Harry, I find it odd you're typically in favour of anonymity (like with SRL-Stats), but now you suddenly want rep to be public? If rep was public, people would not de-rep anyone, because they'd be ``afraid'' of getting flamed, getting into a childish fight, etc. The people who whine about receiving negative rep are just silly as they always state they don't care about reputation anyways. And it's not like reputation is _the_ way to flame someone and you can just as easily make another account, email someone, find them on IRC, etc. If you do everything to prevent flame-wars, the tension will only build up. There's nothing wrong with the occasional flame war; it helps clear things up that usual social manners cannot.

Those ideas of forcing connecting to facebook and ISP matchups is a bit of a ridiculous comparison when it has so many adverse affects compared to say removing anonymous reputation which has no adverse implications.

If 6/7 people don't want anonymous reps, why not just get rid of it?