Negative rep

[pdqdl]

There seems to be a growing trend on this site towards giving out negative rep. I have a pretty strong opinion about that, and I thought I would sound off about it.

Arborist Site serves a global community, but I believe that it mostly follows ideals near to the hearts of USA citizens: FREE SPEECH.

Every time you silly bastards that go around red-repping folks that you just disagree with, you are admitting that you support tyranny, that you think it's ok to suppress others free speech, and you also admit that you lack the personal courage to put your opinions up where they can be seen by everybody.

I suppose someone does deserve negative rep if the content of their posts is prohibited, vulgar, or somehow inappropriate. On the other hand, if you just don't happen to like someone else's opinion, then don't be a little coward and quietly stick them in the back! Just stand up like a man and tell them all about it. [BTW: I don't think the girls are doing this stuff at all, hence my sexist comment.]

So let's stop this bad behavior, ok?






If anybody red-reps me over this post, you can bet that I will publicly denounce you and repeat your comments for everybody to read. Why?

'Cause I ain't no little chicken-#### that willingly tolerates that kind of behavior.

 

[bobt]

Post would have been better without the two instances of vulgar language usage.

Bob

 

[pdqdl]

On the flip side of this argument: PLEASE! Feel FREE to disagree with me, and tell me all about how wrong I am.

 

[pdqdl]

Post would have been better without the two instances of vulgar language usage.

Bob

Granted.

But I was trying to be controversial with that post, and I was counting on the profanity filter to screen anything the moderators felt was unacceptable. I was also indirectly calling the folks that do that stuff a naughty name, thereby indicating my ire. Please note the "sticky" at the top of this forum.

BTW: vulgar originally was a term used by "upper crust" individuals to refer to actions perpetrated by the common populace. Vulgar really means "common", so I fear that my usage in that instance was indeed vulgar. I'm sure that you meant "crude; coarse; unrefined", a more recent meaning which I will also admit to having planned to do in my original post.
Wikipedia explains this much better than I: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgarism

Heck. I'll be a gentleman about this. If I get enough comments signifying a desire for me to edit out the vulgarities, I will do so.

 

[komatsuvarna]

I agree. Free country(for the most part), free speech. If you dont like what i have to say then dont listen. Disagreeing with someones opinion is not a reason to red rep.

 

[treevet]

Aren't you referring to the poster that is negative repping if you don't agree with smoking marijuana on the job?

I have had 2 negative reps in over 3 years and over 3k posts and this was one of them. He simply said "here is neg rep for saying bad stuff about pot". Typical delusional paranoid bong sucker.

Conversely his neg rep in return was 1 of only 3 I have given in that time and 2 of them were just paybacks.

 

[beowulf343]

Well, this site has become pathetic. A couple years ago, i could come into the commercial forum and talk about the job with other professionals. Now it's become a place where someone can whine about a neg rep he has received. I wonder where all the real treemen have gone.

 

[boda65]

When you give rep, there are two options. I approve, or I disapprove of the post. No one (except mods) can censor you, no one (except mods) can suppress your speech, no one (except mods) can take your freedom, no one (except mods) can be a tyrant. All one can do is say they approve or disapprove of a post, and state a reason why.

This is in no way a slam against the moderators, I'm just sayin' they are the only ones that can limit what you say on this site.

 

[les-or-more]

When you give rep, there are two options. I approve, or I disapprove of the post. No one (except mods) can censor you, no one (except mods) can suppress your speech, no one (except mods) can take your freedom, no one (except mods) can be a tyrant. All one can do is say they approve or disapprove of a post, and state a reason why.

This is in no way a slam against the moderators, I'm just sayin' they are the only ones that can limit what you say on this site.

There is yet another option you can quote them and post why you disapprove of their post.

 

[boda65]

There is yet another option you can quote them and post why you disapprove of their post.

True, dat.

I didn't mean to support or promote negative repping, just stating that is doesn't limit anyones speech.

 

[moray]

...silly bastards that go around red-repping folks that you just disagree with...

I'm glad you brought this up, pdqdl. I would take it a step further: eliminate all rep.

If it is bad form to ding someone because you don't like something they said (I got one, but the guy wasn't silly, he was vicious), then it is also bad form to give them a green dot because you approve of something they said. Just join the conversation and say what you think. Other sites don't find it necessary to employ this juvenile system, and I have never missed it when posting on other sites. Who decided this was a good idea, anyway?

 

[komatsuvarna]

Aren't you referring to the poster that is negative repping if you don't agree with smoking marijuana on the job?

I have had 2 negative reps in over 3 years and over 3k posts and this was one of them. He simply said "here is neg rep for saying bad stuff about pot". Typical delusional paranoid bong sucker.

Conversely his neg rep in return was 1 of only 3 I have given in that time and 2 of them were just paybacks.

LMAO. "saying bad stuff about pot" "They'' are the only people that think its a good thing. I dont agree with smoking marijuana on or off the job. But oh well, its there life. I guess they can do what they want with it.

 

[pdqdl]

I'm glad you brought this up, pdqdl. I would take it a step further: eliminate all rep.

...

Thank you Moray! Check out JPS. He can turn off his "rep" display. I wish the moderators would let us all do that. Then we could be free of rep considerations if we chose to.

I suppose that the quest for rep drives much of the activity at this website, which relies on internet activity to stimulate advertising revenue. I like this place, and I have learned a lot from talking to "real treemen", so I guess I indirectly approve of the rep system.

*************************************************

Regarding "whining about a negative rep" that I may or may not have received: Sorry! I didn't make any remarks about any personal red-rep experiences in this thread. I can see it happening all over. Look around and you will find some unpopular folks sporting entirely red scores where their rep is displayed.

I take every comment for what it is worth, without considering some arbitrary scoring system.

 

[beowulf343]

I negged you.

 

[pdqdl]

Yes he did!

He also commented: "Whaaa-I neg-repped you. Go cry about it." I sent him this private message in response:

"Sure thing. I was counting on some of that.

I hope you see that you would only have neg-repped me because I challenged you. I bet you don't go around doing that very frequently, if at all, because you KNOW I am going to post this occasion. It doesn't count as cowardice this time.

Thanks for giving me something to work with. You are the first. Really though; apart from my whining about negative rep, do you support the red-rep activities?"

It's too bad you publicly posted your ID, as I was not going to give you credit for being the first to take up my challenge. Somehow, I think we would actually get along if we worked together. At least you are a straight shooter with your opinions.

 

[treevet]

I'm glad you brought this up, pdqdl. I would take it a step further: eliminate all rep.

If it is bad form to ding someone because you don't like something they said (I got one, but the guy wasn't silly, he was viscious), then it is also bad form to give them a green dot because you approve of something they said. Just join the conversation and say what you think. Other sites don't find it necessary to employ this juvenile system, and I have never missed it when posting on other sites. Who decided this was a good idea, anyway?

:agree2:

 

[Toddppm]

eliminate all rep.

Other sites don't find it necessary to employ this juvenile system,

Yes indeed, the rep is gay as can be.


Alot of backbiting and #####ing lately. Can't we all just get..........



together and have a Treeman Cagefight!!!!!


I think it'd be a great pay per view event. This is one profession where I don't think I've ever met a climber that was a wussy, just a bunch of bullheaded guys. Just think of all the posts that come out whenever working out, weightlifting or athletic ability is mentioned. Everybody trying to one up the other. Only one thing to do......

 

[Bigus Termitius]

I don't mind the rep, one way or the other. I figure the neg rep is there for the absolute bozos. Kind of a self governing tool for us. It would have to be more than subtle disagreement for me to neg someone. Likewise, I pos rep someone for above average input or effort.

As far as receiving, I'll take the good with the bad. It averages out. There aren't enough tards that stick around long enough to make a mess of it. Everybody else seems to do well with the system in general.

 

[treevet]

I don't mind the rep, one way or the other. I figure the neg rep is there for the absolute bozos. Kind of a self governing tool for us. It would have to be more than subtle disagreement for me to neg someone. Likewise, I pos rep someone for above average input or effort.

As far as receiving, I'll take the good with the bad. It averages out. There aren't enough tards that stick around long enough to make a mess of it. Everybody else seems to do well with the system in general.

can't disagree with that opinion either

 

[komatsuvarna]

I like the rep system. If i ask a question, and get a answer that im pretty sure isnt correct, i judge by the stars. There is usually a reason that some people have 2000 post and no stars. Then some have 200 post and 12 stars. I know this isnt 100 % correct, but it gives me the benefit of the doubt. Just my opinion.