New Rule Suggestion

[Nemmyy]

We're not going to spend our time being reputation babysitters.


What's the point of that? It's not going to prevent them from giving you a neg rep. It will only force them to change the reason. I would be more worried about a valid reason neg rep than something that's nonsense like "muahahaha". Anyone reading that would dismiss it instead of "gives really bad advice and doesn't have the maturity level to be helpful".

Actually, that's a really good point.

[.Fr0z3n]

IRL your reputation is based on how others view you, on the forums it's no different, a bogus reason is a bogus reason, move on

[UrugEci]

SF doesn't have as much a need for rep. ... if it did I would Pm omni about a couple of BS ones I have atm ... but tbh it doesn't bother me as much it does HF and then it's the reason the bugs me not the color. As I don't help around her like I do on HF.

[Lukas]

Agreed. One guy -repped me because I said his site needed improvement...

[ndee]

You guys are taking the reputation system way too seriously. It's supposed to be a way to thank someone for something they did, or point something out when they do something wrong.

Nowadays, when someone -reps someone else, those two become enemies. -rep is basically a declaration of war. And it shouldn't.

It should be a way to give an opinion. It's suppose to be a list of right and wrong.
It should NOT be something to argue over. It's just a system, jeez.

[Sam]

You simply reinforce my point ndee.

It's supposed to be a way to thank someone for something they did, or point something out when they do something wrong.

- This is not happening on the negative reps

It should be a way to give an opinion. It's suppose to be a list of right and wrong.

- It isn't on the negative again.

[Toxic Injection]

I like this rule but Omni doesnt "Baby-sitting reputation"