In reviewing new posts this morning, I noticed a negative reputation given to an individual for what seemed a most innocuous post. In fact, I thought his post was as practical and helpful as any other in that thread.
Any reputation system can be abused. Abuse of positive reputation awards is harmless. However, the same cannot be said about negative awards. Presumably good reputation is intended to encourage constructive posts. Likewise, bad reputation should be to discourage disruptive posts and to encourage improvement. Unfortunately, as the system currently stands, bad reputation can be given anonymously and without giving a reason. What purpose is served by a warning or penalty, if you don't know why it was given?
I suggest that negative reputations should be reserved for clear violations of forum rules. Moreover, since negative reputation is in effect a penalty or warning, I think that member actions related to such should be limited simply to reporting the post. That is, any actual deduction of points or warning should be made only at the discretion of a moderator or the administrator, and a clear explanation should be given to the member in each case.
Regards, John
Any reputation system can be abused. Abuse of positive reputation awards is harmless. However, the same cannot be said about negative awards. Presumably good reputation is intended to encourage constructive posts. Likewise, bad reputation should be to discourage disruptive posts and to encourage improvement. Unfortunately, as the system currently stands, bad reputation can be given anonymously and without giving a reason. What purpose is served by a warning or penalty, if you don't know why it was given?
I suggest that negative reputations should be reserved for clear violations of forum rules. Moreover, since negative reputation is in effect a penalty or warning, I think that member actions related to such should be limited simply to reporting the post. That is, any actual deduction of points or warning should be made only at the discretion of a moderator or the administrator, and a clear explanation should be given to the member in each case.
Regards, John