Just learnd something.

[Amber-Dawnn]

I can appeal to have neg rep removed and I would like to remove the neg rep on this http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=298202 It was a joke and I'm sad that people didn't notice and started trolling me.

[Cordovan]

If you would like to have reputation on a post reviewed, please report that post and state that you would like to have the post reviewed for negative reputation. Thanks!

[Kadagan]

I can appeal to have neg rep removed and I would like to remove the neg rep on this http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=298202 It was a joke and I'm sad that people didn't notice and started trolling me.

If it helps any... I understood your post to be a spoof on the south park episode that had the Gnomes stealing underpants...

Step 1: Steal Underpants
Step 2: ....
Step 3: Profit

PS: I would like to have any negative rep I receive from this post removed

edit: Now I've got their work song stuck in my head... "work work work.. work all day... work work work.. all day long..."

[Therigar]

I'm wondering if we can know the criteria by which Turbine's employees determine if negative rep was warranted?

Here are some of my concerns:

I don't know who gives me negative rep so I have no way of noting a pattern. So I can't request neg rep be removed because some person (or group of people) just doesn't like me (and neg reps out of auto response).

If I am able to neg rep someone and choose to do so are there a set of standards that I need to conform to? Can I neg rep because I don't like What was said? What about How it was said? Or, Who said it?

Is it even worth the effort to ask for neg rep to be removed when the basis for neg rep is so nebulous to start with? What criteria do you use to decide if the neg rep was justified?

I have posts where I get neg rep from some people and positive rep from others. It is the same post. How can it be both positive and negative? Which rep wasn't justified? Is it right that they cancel each other out?

FWIW, I've opposed the whole reputation system from the start because the negative side of it is entirely too easy to abuse. But, without some criteria for knowing if neg rep is justified how am I to know if it is even worth appealing?

And, if everyone appealed every neg rep wouldn't that flood whomever has to deal with the reviews? Unless we have an idea of what should earn neg rep and what should not we have no option but to appeal everytime we get negative reputation and just take our chances.

I don't think I can convince you to get rid of reputation. So what does it take to discover what the standards are that support negative rep?

Edit: I think I can answer my own questions because if I click on the reputation icon I find negative reputation explained as "Inflammatory, Derogatory, Disruptive, Trolling, or violates community guidelines." This bothers me a bit because in written messages it is easy to read into a post each of the first four items -- particularly if a person has a strong point of view. So I would expect that these first four should be blatant which would automatically qualify them for the last item, violating community guidelines.

If that is the case then shouldn't every post that earns negative rep automatically be reviewed for warning or ban? And shouldn't any post deemed not worthy of warning or ban automatically have the negative rep removed?

I reiterate, the negative rep system is simply too easy to abuse.

[Drakos]

I'm wondering if we can know the criteria by which Turbine's employees determine if negative rep was warranted?

Here are some of my concerns:

I don't know who gives me negative rep so I have no way of noting a pattern. So I can't request neg rep be removed because some person (or group of people) just doesn't like me (and neg reps out of auto response).

If I am able to neg rep someone and choose to do so are there a set of standards that I need to conform to? Can I neg rep because I don't like What was said? What about How it was said? Or, Who said it?

Is it even worth the effort to ask for neg rep to be removed when the basis for neg rep is so nebulous to start with? What criteria do you use to decide if the neg rep was justified?

I have posts where I get neg rep from some people and positive rep from others. It is the same post. How can it be both positive and negative? Which rep wasn't justified? Is it right that they cancel each other out?

FWIW, I've opposed the whole reputation system from the start because the negative side of it is entirely too easy to abuse. But, without some criteria for knowing if neg rep is justified how am I to know if it is even worth appealing?

And, if everyone appealed every neg rep wouldn't that flood whomever has to deal with the reviews? Unless we have an idea of what should earn neg rep and what should not we have no option but to appeal everytime we get negative reputation and just take our chances.

I don't think I can convince you to get rid of reputation. So what does it take to discover what the standards are that support negative rep?

The reputation button itself gives you the guidlines as what would be considered reasons for bothe positive and negative rep.

Persumably those would be the criteria used by the mods to determine if Positive or Negative rep was warrented. The system isn't perfect, I got neg repped for a post that stated I have in the past had neg rep removed, in a thread talking about having neg rep removed, and when I thried to have it removed, it wasn't.

I too have opposed the rep system since it's inception for the same reason. To easy to abuse, no penalties for people who abuse it, and not used for the stated purpose.

[Therigar]

I too have opposed the rep system since it's inception for the same reason. To easy to abuse, no penalties for people who abuse it, and not used for the stated purpose.

This may be one of the rare moments when we are agreed on something. Its a Friday, I know it. Its also Friday the 13th. And, we agree on something. Prepare for Armageddon!

[Hambo]

This may be one of the rare moments when we are agreed on something. Its a Friday, I know it. Its also Friday the 13th. And, we agree on something. Prepare for Armageddon!

No, according to a billboard in Stockton, Ca. that is scheduled for 5/21/11.

[Therigar]

For what it is worth, I followed Cordovan's instructions and it actually does work to have unmerited negative reputation removed.

[Therigar]

No, according to a billboard in Stockton, Ca. that is scheduled for 5/21/11.

I'm originally from Ventura so I know you can't believe anything that comes out of California.