One of the new benefits of silver membership is you can see who gave you rep (+ve and -ve). Go, on, splash out, you tightwad, it's only £20 a year
I really don't think this is something the moderators should get involved in, that way lies madness.
I've splashed out my hard-earned dosh, yes - you can tell who the paying punters are, they're the ones in bold.
As for anonymous rep - to be fair, it's not designed that way, it's just that non-paying-members don't get to see who sent any rep. It's possible that your comment wasn't meant to be anonymous, but the person just forgot to sign it.
Last I checked, all rep comments/senders are visible to the moderators, and the senders are stored such that if somone decides to splash out on silver membership then they get to see the senders of past reputation comments.
I'm feeling lazy, so I'll let other people express my opinion for me:
Yeah. That improves the 'power'. But wasn't the question about the little green boxes (though, I will admit that trouble seemed to be a little confused in the question)?
Power, and the number of little green boxes are different things. Power is as DJ said above. The number of little green boxes you have depends totally on the amount of rep you have received.....
Or maybe the person can't be arsed with signing it, in the same way that some people can't be arsed with paying for certain privileges?
I can't help thinking, though, that if someone having problems with negative rep, maybe the issue is with them, rather than the system?
It's a system that's open for abuse - that's the point. It allows anonymous negative communications. And if (for example) you're a woman, you really don't want that sort of thing, it's like a poison-pen letter.
I know of one person who's received such a communication, just recently, and it upset them.
Honestly, I reckon it'd be easiest just to remove the anonymity aspect from rep comments - that way you don't have to rely on people to sign comments or whatever.
Absolutely agree with you but,, my one neg rep was sent saying ~~ DONT LIKE SWEARING~~ and i had not sworn. it took me too a thread that showed Fu5k in the middle of something i had written but thats not swearing is it. Now my point was that if i was shy or a little unconfident, that could have knocked me sideways as it was anonymous and pretty pointless. I dont think there is a need for it at all.
I'm not saying you deserved the neg rep, I don't know the exact situation, but really swearing is about how you intended it, not the words you use. It's quite clear what Fu5k was meant to mean (unless I've read it wrong too). Mis-spelling a word so it'll get through the censors is still swearing.
and??? - i didn't write it out, it was not meant in a horrible way, i wasn't directing it at anybody,, still think it was unnecessary to send a neg rep in my opinion, blimey if somebody did that everytime somebody wrote a swear word there would be neg reps all over the place.
Ah, you've never been Harpered then?
So, just to clarify, 'coz I'm confused - is it the fact of getting neg rep, or the anonymity of it, that you don't like?
"Neg rep" as such is not necessarily bad - although it's generally misused. It's like flashing your lights when driving - can be useful (e.g. to tell a driver "you forgot to turn your lights on"), but generally it's used too aggressively IMO.
Yes, (for example) I'm a woman.
Don't tell me, they felt sooooo abused...?I know of one person who's received such a communication, just recently, and it upset them.
But they're not anonymous for those people who pay. And that's The Point.Honestly, I reckon it'd be easiest just to remove the anonymity aspect from rep comments - that way you don't have to rely on people to sign comments or whatever.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks