Yes. I only give Positive reps also. I must admit that I don't initial mine, because that way the recipient feels no obligation to "give one back".

Fortunately, the people on this forum with whom I've had differences of opinion, have been "big enough between the tits" to accept my views as just that,... my view, and I do the same with them. It certainly makes life a lot more pleasant all around.

I've never use the negative reputations...

As we've said many times before in similar threads:
If you receive negative (or positive) reps you feel that you don't deserve then don't start threads like this, but create a private message to the staff instead and we'll look into it when we get online:
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum...ages-staff-80/

Originally Posted by Damien435

So I hopped on MilForums today and checked my control panel to see that I had the following message in my "reputation" area.



I want to know who the ****er is that wrote that, get rid of this anonymous reputation or just use your magic admin powers to tell me who wrote that. I don't give people reputations, I let my posts do my speaking for me, and furthermore I think this idea of reputation/karma/nods is retarded. But to call what I wrote a "Self-righteous rant, while being a hypocrite to boot. See post #47" is really out of place, here's what I said.



Which was in response to the following statement.



Which I was correct and being not at all self-righteous or hypocritical. Saddam did fire SCUDS are targets in Kuwait in 2003 after we started bombing Iraq for Round II and those weapons were banned by the truce (incorrectly labeled as "trust" in my actual post) following Desert Shield. You want self-righteous, I can give you self-righteous. You want hypocritical, I can give out hypocritical. You want a rant, I can post a rant. But in the meantime, I would like to suggest that this anonymous reputation BS be removed, I don't need to see a person's Reputation to know if they are full of BS or not just based on my experiences with them. This is the internet, it's already quite anonymous, that takes some special kind of chickenshit to be too scared to even call a spade a spade over 10,000 miles of cables and satellite signals. If you're going to give a person reps at least add your name to the comment box.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

LOOK NO FURTHER, THAT WAS ME.

Your reasoning is wrong. You got the neg because of the following:

1. I replied to something Missileer said, slightly off topic but I thought it was fair game as Missileer had brought it up...

2. You gave a smug comment to FOX about me being off topic with my post in quotes despite the fact I was merely responding to someone else.

3. At the same time *a mysterious somebody* (feel free to volunteer whoever you are -I just did.) gave me a negative rep point with the comment "off topic -as usual". for the very same post. Now I am not accusing you directly but the timing was very close to your remarks to FOX. Coincidence maybe? Maybe not? You tell me.

4. But even if you did do it, it doesn't even matter. Whats worse, was that the very NEXT post you posted you did exactly the same thing of what you what you just finished lecturing me about. That was a bit much, especially if it was you that gave me the - remark.

If you are going to get on your podium about a minor thing like an OT post (your're not a mod, so you shouldn't be doing it anyway) don't do exactly the opposite thing 2 posts down. The "see post 47 " was a reference to your bit of hypocrisy, not because of the message itself. I don't mind if a subjects get *slightly* sidetracked, its easy enough to do. And everyone here has done it.

I am sick to death of certain hypocrites here who give unwanted sermons on morality, on milforum rules, etiquette, whatever, to other members and then do exactly the opposite. I won't use names, but you know who you are and there is more than one of you.

The only thing I will apologize for was not initializing the remark. That was merely an error. I apologize for that. I will try to remember for the future, although I dislike giving these out. But for the remark itself you earned it.




One final thing for the Staff. I have been meaning to say this for awhile, but this is a good place as any.

I hate the reputation system. I have a good rep right now, but I absolutely hate the system. Since Day 1, it had been used for nothing more than revenge and personal attacks.

All 4 of my negative reviews so far have all been unjustified or unfair:

1. I got a neg review from *Somebody* (I know exactly who you are) a few months ago because I opposed his bullying of another member. His comment was "can't take a joke".

2. I got another negative comment for "US Military bashing is against the rules" because I thought the F-22 was too expensive. (I think I know which Iranian-Canadian ex-member that was.)

3. A third neg review was because a member misinterpreted a harmless joke. (this stuff can happen, I would have explained and apologized if I was given the time).

4. And now this one for committing the minor sin of being OT committed by everyone INCLUDING the Senior Staff. If this person doesn't come forward, you are a coward as well as being a hypocrite.


So again I don't think it does any good and it leads to episodes like what happened today.


I would Disable it immediatly but thats only my opinion.

Darn.. I am lost... mmarsh, could you put a link to the thread you are referring to? I honestly can't remember the topic. I would like to go back and read for myself. Thanks

Decision 2008

ok.. thanks...

How was I being hypocritical or self-righteous? All I did was point out that Saddam did used banned weapons in 2003, even if they weren't WMD's, and if I left out the part where he only fired... 11? missiles because it makes my statement look even more ridiculous (tongue-in-cheek doesn't work well over the internet) then that just makes me a good journalist.

I don't condemn off-topic posts, I relish them. How often have you had a conversation in a bar where you discussed the exact same topic for... three hours or so? Never, conversations always veer from their original topic. Forums should be the same, who cares if a topic labeled as "Future of the F-22" evolves into a discussion on the history of the automobile. It happens all the time as one thing leads to another. The point isn't to stay on the topic exactly as it was stated in the first post, it's to continue the discussion in a civil manner. In no way did I condemn any off-topic posts with either of my statements, I was merely continuing a trend that started a couple pages earlier as always happens with any forum discussion, as night follows day.


For the record, I have never given anyone any rep one way or the other, as I said, I think it's stupid. A person's posts can speak for itself, I don't need some reputation system to tell me if a person is full of **** or not. In fact I had narrowed the suspects down to one person based on the time I received the neg. rep and the time of posts, unfortunately I was correct in who it was even though I dismissed the possibility almost immediately, mmarsh, because that sort of snide comment did not sound like it would come from you. Even though we've disagreed at many turns you've always been a very forthright and honest person. My post wasn't supposed to be self-righteous or hypocritical and I certainly wasn't going negative against people who make off-topic posts, as I said they have a role to play here, my comment was supposed to be more sarcastic than serious because I think the idea of anyone defending the WMD causus belli is ridiculous at this point. If you somehow felt personally attacked then I apologize, my intent wasn't to attack anyone. My comment to Fox wasn't smug, it was only pointing out that there had already been off-topic posts, if putting ", Fox." at the end as a way of indicating who I was talking to made it a smug comment then I won't be making that mistake in the future.

On the topic of the rep system I agree with Mmarsh I think it is a complete waste of time that for the most part is only serves to wind people up and I believe it to be especially worthless given that your reputation is not used for anything anyway ie apparently you wont be banned based on it and there are no tangible benefits to having a positive reputation. I also tend to believe that it has become even more meaningless now that the idealogical battles of the P80 era seem to have subsided.

For the record I have had about 7 hits 5 positive and 2 negative both from the same person who's bark is worse than his bite.

On the whole I won't say I would miss the system but given that the only two people that know about good/bad reps are yourself and the giver I really can't say that I care whether it stays or goes either. Essentially I just ignore it.

MontyB, I thought about giving you one for acing me on the miniature golf game.
I guess I would just add, "don't sweat the small stuff."