Why are downvotes limited?

@Sart0ri said in Why are downvotes limited?:

@happy_tiger said in Why are downvotes limited?:

Willow answered it …and then you got annoyed he brought up cats …this was my original point …can’t anyone call you out ??
You can’t have it both ways …

Please provide the quote where @willow answered the question.
Also provide the quote where I mentioned cats.

Willow enforces the rules …Kul makes the rules

@Sart0ri said in Why are downvotes limited?:

I don’t want to fight everyone and I understand that people want different things out of the forum.

I think the forum could be better for everyone if the rules were enforced.

The same people hijack every thread with jokes and banter, like they have with this one taking about cats and magpies.
The same Negative Nellie’s post the same things over and over and the Positive Pollyanna’s rarely post because how do you argue with “Luke Brooks is pus”

This one …cats

Sorry CB didn’t mean to leave you out of the Mods conversation

You’ve brought all this up with 3 mods CB ,Willow and Mike this place doesn’t run without them

last edited by happy_tiger

@happy_tiger said in Why are downvotes limited?:

This one …cats

You got me there, and the @willow one?

Admins, please close this thread, my question has been answered

@Sart0ri said in Why are downvotes limited?:

@Cultured_Bogan said in Why are downvotes limited?:

Anything that is based on opinion is effectively pointless to argue, because it is subjective.
If you’re negging 30 posts a day rather than expressing why you disagree, then that would suggest that the rep system is actively working against what a forum is set up to do: have people engage with one another, be it positive or negative.

The original question which still has not been answered, is why we can only downvote 10 posts a day.

There is no limit on upvotes, are they different somehow?

I can post that a player, coach or member of Tigers management is puke a thousand times, there is no limit on spamming an opinion.

I did not set the system up. But we have had issues with it in the past with users just using it in a passive aggressive manner. It created more problems.

I’m no psychologist, but people are probably more likely to respond to others’ opinions that they too share, because there’s no risk in being shouted down when you agree. I feel giving people carte blanche to neg rep anyone they like removes the incentive to discuss opinions you don’t necessarily share.

I take your point about how do you argue a repetitive subjective opinion you don’t share (i.e. Luke Brooks is pus,) but at the end of the day you could always just read on. If someone provides repetitive useless input that you don’t value, you can always foe them.

At the end of the day that’s up to Kul to implement and amend. The rest of us just monitor and manage it.

Not until @cochise apologises for squshing the Magpie

last edited by Geo

@Geo said in Why are downvotes limited?:

Not until @cochise apologises for squshing the Magpie

I didn’t squish, didn’t like it but didn’t squish it. It getting squished robbed me of my victory over that fiend. I wish there was a foe function in real life, I’d put every magpie that swooped me on foe.

Recent Topics

Support our community by clicking here and joining our Forum Support Scheme