[felix]

Originally Posted by Daniel E.

But of course, it is something I disagree with and thus I posted about it. I haven't make a sig in years, but I still identify with the sig makers around here.

Signature making requires about 7 steps on average which given how about 90% of people out there like using renders or just magnet lasso tool the 7 steps pretty much require 7 buttons or a few in photoshop and another few copy/pasting or in some 3D abstract art generating program (somehow the terminology slips me at the moment).

Anyway, I don't think its wrong to +rep someone because they made you a signature or avatar, but the reason is really time not the work since you probably pressed more keys trying to find what you wanted and where and posting time and such or images then they did.

In special cases where the signature is some vector of the source or was something like blinking animation on a static (text moving right to left etc is not hard, so doesn't count) or drawned, I would agree with you, but I don't recall seeing anyone waste that much time over it for someone else on a request, ever.


Anyway all this is besides the point. Schneizel's initial argument was: why should negative reputation have these super requirements when positive reputation doesn't. Negative reputation doesn't even add nearly as much as positive does. The only reason we're talking more about negative and not positive or reputation in general is because as KiNA and TheFluff pointed out you all are so greedy and childish you can't live if its not all positive. You all recognised how the system is so biased towards positive reputation the only people with actual negative dots are the ones who practically asked people to get them and even self proclaimed trolls like SaintessHeart have not just positive but large positive reputation.

Also, +1 to positive reputation require 50 to 100 characters.

Originally Posted by Death Header

If most of the posts here are stupid, neg-rep would be flying all over the place. Generally from I've seen, people usually de-rep because the person in question has either broken the rules, acting like a troll, or general spam.

Add to that is just posting his own biased subjective opinion over and over regardless of what other constructive discussion and you have the definition of "stupid".

You earlier in this post just go "I think" as if that's the "proof" or "reason" to convince everyone else. Well its not, sorry but I don't recognize you or anyone as having any standing here to just come in and say "I think" ["the sky will fall on us"] and I should accept it as such because they have a bigger ego then everyone else there. That is just noise and yes de-rep in that situation is IMO a good thing since obviously one cause for such inflated egos is positive reputation over the same thing. Because bad behavior gets positive reputation too, last I heard. If you disagree then consider this, my opinion for both of you is "You are stupid" and thus following what you preach on how "we should respect other people's opinions" you must "accept you are stupid"; good luck.

Also as SaintessHeart you seem to have a warped understanding of what respect means. By "I respect your opinion" you should understand I will read it and consider it not that "I will accept it" since all of you use "respect" and "accept" as if they are interchangeable.

Originally Posted by KholdStare

No, it's simply called finding side effects to a proposition.

You do realise in all your posts you are simply finding side effects that would benefit you, not benefit the community since you mostly favor everything that: a) gives you more positive reputation b) minimizes negative reputation, with no regard to archiving any balance in the system. Your suggestion earlier merely favors trolls for example and works with the reasoning that everyone on the forum gets 90% of the time negative reputation (which is ridiculous).