Mikebits
Well-Known Member
I often see a new poster with less than 5 post and already has a reputation marked as BAD. To me this seems silly, how can a first time poster be listed as bad. It would seem obvious that first time posters may not know the rules and proper etiquite of the forum. I would think a little tolerance should be given to new posters, and to brand them as BAD after a few post seems counter productive. After all, increasing the user base is good for the forum, but for the branded ones, they may abandon the site in shame.
I also think the term BAD for reputation is a badge of shame and perhaps a better term should be used such as, change BAD to None. At least none denotes no reputation which is better than the stigma of bad.
People seem to submit bad reps more often than good, so once branded bad it is hard to be redeemed. Just my thoughts. Ban the word BAD
I also think the term BAD for reputation is a badge of shame and perhaps a better term should be used such as, change BAD to None. At least none denotes no reputation which is better than the stigma of bad.
People seem to submit bad reps more often than good, so once branded bad it is hard to be redeemed. Just my thoughts. Ban the word BAD