Originally Posted by Frith:
I hope you don't get whacked, Akria for your views. I hope that you rather get rewarded with a vote for a good post, or ignored if someone doesn't agree. One shouldn't vote in negation because one doesn't agree. That option should be reserved for breaches of conduct by an aggressor.

Indeed. Posts which abuse another member, for example, or contribute nothing useful to the discussion.

We can also but hope that people will also give positive reputation points to good posts in topics, whether they happen to be in agreement with the views or not.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Akria:
Indeed. Posts which abuse another member, for example, or contribute nothing useful to the discussion.

We can also but hope that people will also give positive reputation points to good posts in topics, whether they happen to be in agreement with the views or not.

If only people could discipline themselves to do this, Akria! It is so very important to a civilized world view that one can appreciate the positive qualities of another without necessarily agreeing.

As you have these ideas already in situ in your toolbox of critical values then if I were your teacher I'd be very optimistic about your future forays into critical theory. :-)
[Rep]

I am hoping that it will reward members who make strong positive contributions in terms of finding interesting news items and submitting solid policy/political analysis
[Rep]

Might be a good idea to take away the function that minuses rep points.

BTW, I have already received a rep point.:-) (to everyone). I can't tell who it's from though.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Hartlepool:
I dont agree.

You should be voting on a good post or a bad post,or,not at all,surely?

Posters should be able to post their comments on things,points should be given or not given depending on the content and not the politics.

H, on this forum the content is the politics.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Cleopatra:
Might be a good idea to take away the function that minuses rep points.

Exactly!

Seems like a childish exercise to me,there's enough words in the english language to extol what someone feels is a good post,just as there is to describe a negative one,or for that matter to extol the virtues of positive consistent posting,as oppossed to the querulous,rebarbative,vexatious ad hominem types that we all too often get!

I feel that resorting someones character or intelectual/political views to this kind of bias towards computer friendly (it's hard enough for the system to accomadate a posting without pressing the "back" button a couple of times) modern forms of voting will add nothing but to downgrade the forum to the equivalent of modern entertainment,such as "pop Idol" or "X-factor" etc...

I'm feeling somewhat akin with John Lydon in the jungle when Ant & Dec tried to tell him what his vote from the public was!:-)

Very depressing,is there not any santuary's left that have not been tainted by the superficial traits of the modern world!:-)
[Rep]

Oh & another thing,those people that are new to the forum or simply browsing should have enough intelligence of there own through reading the words of someone whether that person is of interest or not.

A star point system is just a completely vacuous exercise!:-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by John Connor:
H, on this forum the content is the politics.

So,non political threads can be ignored then,is that what you're saying JC?

Plenty of threads and posts on here contain nothing pertaining to politics because they have been posted to address one part of someone elses posting.(s).
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Hartlepool:
So,non political threads can be ignored then,is that what you're saying JC?

Those outside the lounge, yep. It's a political forum, after all.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by John Connor:
Those outside the lounge, yep. It's a political forum, after all.

Could someone who he hasn't got on ignore ask him what he thinks about scientific threads, then? :-)
[Rep]