I know, right? It's like eww and daww combined into one (un)holy alliance.

Would be nice, but I'm not that concerned about it. Rep is just another form of epeen. It would be nice if someone were ask me to clarify what I mean if there is a misunderstanding. I actually put some thought in my posts, I'm not trying to troll. If someone has a problem with what I post, I don't mind giving some clarification.

I try not to downvote unless it is a spam or a trolling attempt. I have been guilty of hitting the - button too sometimes when I see a post that just really grates on my nerves. I try to keep in mind that everyone has a right to their opinion even if I don't agree with it.

I remember when i first started posting on the forums "years" ago. I had made a comment about there's no such thing as girls that play games....Now i was obviously being sarcastic BUT didn't state that in my post. Next thing i know, people were taking me seriously and made my rep plummet. Not that it really bothered me but i was like WTF? lol

I actually posted a thread about this not too long ago, which some liked and some hated with a Die-Hardian Vengence. (Maybe that's the one you voted down ;)

I'm not a fan of -1ing unless it's absurdly stupid or spam, but I would suggest try at least posting WHY you voted down a certain post. I guess -1ing wouldn't be so bad in my mind if people didn't have the option of auto-hiding -1'd posts (see image), but then again if there is some offensive content posted, hiding it may be best.

In a nutshell, I'd suggest trying to discuss more than just slap the -1 button, especially if you simply disagree with them.

To me, the thing about it is, like just about any topic here, it's mostly in the perception of the reader. So to down-rep something as a warning to others that it's not worth the time is, well, subjective. And that's what it pretty much boils down to, because it's rare that someone posts something here that is beyond the pale; it just ends up as "I don't like what you're saying so down you go."

And I'll bring it up again, just because: in a recent thread about the down/up-rep thing, I posted a response addressing this very topic and said I thought the down-rep should be removed completely, but if not, then "There should be some sort of notification - ie, You have been down-repped by...."

and someone wrote a response in which it was specifically stated that they down-repped me because they didn't like the idea (or rather, because I "asked" for it) - so you see, with such an arbitrary system, you'll never please everyone.

I still say there could be a better system to implement. Getting down-repped because someone doesn't like what you say is just ridiculous. If someone is intentionally offensive/racist/inflammatory/whatever, then there should just be a simple way to flag a post for review - but that would require a little more active moderation.

But anyway, to answer your specific question, sure, I'd rather have someone explain to me what they don't like about what I said - in a tactful manner - rather than just hitting the "-" and feeling like they did their good deed for the day. :-)

One's epeen can never be too large.

;)

You have to downrep when you want to report genuine spam. Apart from that, there's no good reason to do it. It's petty and childish (feel free to downrep my post, that'll show me) and does no good, but plenty of harm. We've had at least two forum members who were driven insane by all the downrepping they got and went on to shit all over the forum for freaking months.

When you have a problem with something, say so, here on the forum or via PM.

I used to be a part of a forum that had a system that let you neg rep people with a comment, it was anonymous.

Usually with positive rep, people would sign their rep, but rarely did anyone ever sign neg rep. It sortof became a way of saying "I don't like what you said, but I'm too lazy to actually explain why, so I'm just gonna neg rep you with some obnoxious comment". It seemed contrary to the point of having a discussion board if people were just making negative comments without allowing for any discussion.

Overall, IMO the system was not constructive and didn't really help the community police itself.

If the only thing someone has to say to me is "-1" then they probably don't have anything thought provoking to say, they just had a visceral reaction to my comment. That's fine, but I don't much care about those. If everyone gives me a "-1" at once, I probably already knew what I was saying was going to get on most folks' nerves and decided to say it anyway.

Long story short: if you have something worthwhile to say, say it, if not -1 is probably a waste of time.
And this, right here, is why I typically downrep. The only other times I did it was because the comment was so genuinely offensive I wanted to give people more of a chance to avoid it by making it's collapsed by default. I can say that that's been a mere handful of times.

TBH, I rarely bother one way or the other. When I do down rep, I tend to do an entire string of replies as it's become obvious after the fact that I was dealing with a troll. Or somebody who is unredeemably stupid. In either case a downrep because I can't push a button to slap them.

It would be good if hiding a post and giving the post a negative rating were separate things.

See, even a downvote is a reaction, the one thing a troll really craves. The only effective way of fighting trolls is to ignore them. "Don't feed the trolls!"

I once bash the downrep button on someone because of calling me names, and I don't have to explain it to him.

I think it happened while I defended GOG on the issue of CDPR issuing of sue letters.

No, it's not. Think it through. Consider the implications of giving people from the internet access to anonymous PMs. If you could see who was behind every downvote, do you think there'd be nearly so many of them? And then you don't think an anonymous PM system would be abused?