Reputations

[Lhunardawen]

Originally Posted by Eomer

Maybe some people prefer to do it that way?

Why not? Signing reps is not a requirement, just a wonderful 'suggestion' by pio (post # 56 of this thread):

And I've signed each comment so the recipient knows who likes what they've written.

But I guess neg reps are a different story...?

[Gil-Galad]

Neg reps should be signed because then you don't know who rep'd you and why they gave you a bad rep, makes you more made when you see a red square pop up for no reason...

[Boromir88]

Exactly Gil-Galad, I know I've made posts that would warrant a bad reputation. But, just one of my biggest pet peeves (on this forum) is people who just give a neg. rep number 1 without signing it, and even worse without giving an explanation.

[Formendacil]

Would it be impossible to change the system so that any rep received automatically comes with a signature?

I'll admit to not having checked this entire thread on the subject, but the general consensus seems to be that most people (that have checked in here) try to leave their name (although they can forget) or feel that they ought to when leaving negative rep.

[Anguirel]

I've given one neg rep only, and I explained and signed it. I agree that the "willing to hurt but afraid to strike" attitude is quite contemptible...

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

Would it be impossible to change the system so that any rep received automatically comes with a signature?

I'll admit to not having checked this entire thread on the subject, but the general consensus seems to be that most people (that have checked in here) try to leave their name (although they can forget) or feel that they ought to when leaving negative rep.

From what I understand of my reading of this thread the idea for not automatically adding the signature is to allow the person to remain anonymous if they so choose. While people don't enjoy receiving blank rep for the most part (especially negative) it allows those who don't want to be known to keep it that way.

I agree with the system as it is and think we have a great self-governed system. On other board and forums there are so many trolls and flamers that it's annoying to try and discuss almost anything. I choose to PM instead of giving negative rep. I never have given any negative rep but I guess I would in the case of something rather crass and inappropriate.

[Gurthang]

I also have never given a negative rep, and have only recieved one. That was a very long time ago, probably right when the system was being set up. No one did sign it, although by the remark I pretty much knew. I will save them the disgrace of naming them(partially because I have since gotten over it and don't even remember who it was).

But personally I don't think I've ever even thought about 'negging' anyone. If I see something I don't like, I either ignore it or argue against it in the thread. It would probably have to be a direct attack on me as a poster to receive a negative rep. Actually, in that situation, I would probably just report it as a bad post.

[Ainaserkewen]

Would it be impossible to change the system so that any rep received automatically comes with a signature?

Not only would the anonymity of the repper be given up, it also might have some people reping for praise or sending back the "favour". While praise, thanks and "favours" are nice, they shouldn't be expected. I think that's what would happen if we knew where each rep came from. I believe the original rating of members was anonymous as well, and there was no room for comments or signing.