Concerns about the new revenge reputation rule

[FlyingJesus]

The main problem as I see it isn't that the rule's badly written (although that is a concern) it's that the rule and the action of it exists at all. Reputation should never be removed because that is 100% not the point of it - it's a form of user moderation allowing the members to reward or punish posts/people in a way that reflects their... wait for it... reputation.

I still think it's mad that -rep doesn't show on the posts the way +rep does, as if 1 person agrees with a disgusting view and 4 disagree, those disagreements are clearly not being noted as important and therefore it appears that the unpopular view is actually being praised overall. If you don't want negative figures showing then it should at least deduct from the total positive count that's displayed

[The Don]

Ah, but they have to find something in a post to issue negative rep. If they can do that, it's not revenge rep because unknown to them is they're actually finding something to complain about rather than just the member - if that makes sense? It stops children who are having a temper removing valid negative rep all because they got their first. It's much fairer and works for people who think rep should stay as it is - at least with this there's a reason, rather than instant removal.

Yes but it's still a revenge rep... In law, the but for rule is used to determine whether or not the injuries would have occurred but for the defendants negligent act. The same can be said here, in this case, if x didn't -rep y, y wouldn't have looked through all of x's posts to find one to -rep

[Inseriousity.]

As most reporting rep thread was based on the idea of "its revenge rep, just cos its been several months since I -repped them, that just means they decided to hold a grudge and wait before giving revenge so I couldn't say it was revenge rep but obv it clearly is so remove it please ty" I think the rule is justified.

[GommeInc]

Yes but it's still a revenge rep... In law, the but for rule is used to determine whether or not the injuries would have occurred but for the defendants negligent act. The same can be said here, in this case, if x didn't -rep y, y wouldn't have looked through all of x's posts to find one to -rep

On what grounds is it revenge rep? It's not revenge rep on the grounds that it was done shortly after the other person repped them, that would be ridiculous. In law, intention is important and the but for rule of law does not apply to such a circumstance. The but for (proximate cause test) does not come into this, as we're talking about actions that are controllable, unless you're suggesting people are repping others but not knowing it? It's sort of what that rule of negligence is based on, so it's not really relevant here Besides, this is a much more freely written part of the rule - if you think rep should be left untouched then this is one step closer, as it means repping now has to have a reason and that reason comes from the thread or post it relates to. Before the rule change, people were having rep removed for what is essentially no reason.

[HotelUser]

As most reporting rep thread was based on the idea of "its revenge rep, just cos its been several months since I -repped them, that just means they decided to hold a grudge and wait before giving revenge so I couldn't say it was revenge rep but obv it clearly is so remove it please ty" I think the rule is justified.

If months have passed it's not revenge reputation. If hours have passed it blatantly is 9 times out of 10.

[Inseriousity.]

That doesn't stop people from arguing that it is was my point and for the other person to argue that it's the 1 out of 10 where it isn't. If it therefore makes it harder for people to justify a 'this is a revenge rep' comment then I'm for it.

[HotelUser]

That doesn't stop people from arguing that it is was my point and for the other person to argue that it's the 1 out of 10 where it isn't. If it therefore makes it harder for people to justify a 'this is a revenge rep' comment then I'm for it.

It makes it easier by considering virtually nothing as revenge reputation. You don't fix a problem by throwing it all away, and I didn't see many people complaining about this "problem" to begin with.

[Inseriousity.]

On the contrary, it was a running joke that everything requested to be removed was removed without question or investigation simply on the basis of something being a revenge rep (the easiest argument to make and hardest to argue against).

[nvrspk4]

So the problem was that some people would call things "revenge rep" but it would have a valid reason, and there would be a grey area. This eliminates the grey area.

Problem: People can still revenge rep by finding a "reason to negative rep"
Response: Well, if they can find something valid to negative rep then it should count. If it's not a valid rep comment, it would be removed under pointless reputation.

Problem: But they could just work hard to find something...clearly if they rep me within 24 hours its a response.
Possible Solution: If it's within 24 hours and seems sketchy, it gets removed
Problem: What stops them then from doing it 25 hours later? And what if its a valid negative rep?

If they can find a valid reason to -rep you back, then so be it. If it's not valid, then it will be removed anyway, not necessarily because its revenge rep but because its pointless rep (ie: isn't directed at the post or clearly isn't sensible.)

[Grig]

It's how you look at it really.

That revenge rep, like nvrspk4 can be classed as pointless rep, so you can give that as the reason. Revenge rep goes into a wider umbrella of pointless rep, so it doesn't really affect much but the way you word it.