Censorship in the Heroscapers community

[RetroJunky]

I was wondering if anyone felt like the rep system helps promote censorship in this online community?

I feel that having an anonymous rep system doesn't hold people accountable for their actions when dealing reputation. I think that your member ID should automatically be posted when you leave reputation. This would help prevent people from neg repping over unfavorable opinions and start encouraging neg rep to be used for its proper intentions (misuse of the website).

With the recent announcements for Wave 10 and the DND master set, I have expressed my dislike in the products that will be released soon. In response to my opinions of these items, I have been receiving a lot of anonymous negative rep. I was even neg repped for my avatar and nothing more. It has gotten to the point where I feel unable to express my opinions, for fear of being neg repped if considered unpopular by somebody.

If I express my dislike for the new products, it is so my voice as a consumer can be heard. I want my input to be considered by WOTC when their reviewing customer reactions to their products. Hopefully this will help persuade a different direction for future product releases that I would be willing to purchase.

[champrjk]

I don't think needing to know who negrepped you is necessary. All I can think of it doing is allowing whoever was negrepped to react in kind.

[RetroJunky]

That is my point about being accountable. If you are neg repping someone for appropriate reasons, then you shouldn't have to worry about negative retaliation. If you are neg repping over something unsubstantial that you worry could get backlash, then you probably shouldn't be leaving neg rep for it in the first place.

[ZBeeblebrox]

Although I would not neg-rep you for it...IMO I think your avatar is in poor taste.
We have a group of Heroscapers, who have played this game from the beginning...giving us indications that they worked on this master set themselves....and some noob comes along goes and creates an avatar that takes a dump on their hard work. I will not neg-rep you for it; but I will call you out.

[Syvaris]

While I feel for you when people neg rep wrongly (I made a joke about Matthew Broderick being in the new Godzilla film and got a neg rep for not being on topic) you avatar really is in poor taste. I always put my sig on any rep I give out, just to let you know who is spreading the love.

[SuperflyTNT]

Originally Posted by RetroJunky

That is my point about being accountable. If you are neg repping someone for appropriate reasons, then you shouldn't have to worry about negative retaliation. If you are neg repping over something unsubstantial that you worry could get backlash, then you probably shouldn't be leaving neg rep for it in the first place.

This is the dumbest argument EVER. Don't you think that 99.999% of people who are neg-repped will go to their "accuser" and neg-rep them back? People who get told they're wrong don't agree with the accuser because they posted the opinion in the first place, so they'll always feel slighted! Can't anyone see that?

What is all this damned conversation about the rep system lately, anyhow? It is NOTHING MORE THAN A POPULARITY CONTEST!!!! You cannot be all things to all people all the damn time!

Furthermore, this kind of post here WILL get you negative rep. Nobody likes someone who whines about getting neg-repped. There is no better sure-fire way to get neg-repped than to publicly complain about neg-rep, call it unjustified, and then complain that the SYSTEM is screwed up. When an ass like me can have 2800 rep points, the system is clearly fine. I've had more than my fair share of neg-rep, and I'm fine with it.

[Anthasu1]

Originally Posted by SuperflyTNT

This is the dumbest argument EVER. Don't you think that 99.999% of people who are neg-repped will go to their "accuser" and neg-rep them back? People who get told they're wrong don't agree with the accuser because they posted the opinion in the first place, so they'll always feel slighted! Can't anyone see that?

What is all this damned conversation about the rep system lately, anyhow? It is NOTHING MORE THAN A POPULARITY CONTEST!!!! You cannot be all things to all people all the damn time!

Furthermore, this kind of post here WILL get you negative rep. Nobody likes someone who whines about getting neg-repped. There is no better sure-fire way to get neg-repped than to publicly complain about neg-rep, call it unjustified, and then complain that the SYSTEM is screwed up. When an ass like me can have 2800 rep points, the system is clearly fine. I've had more than my fair share of neg-rep, and I'm fine with it.

I'm with what he said. Whining about it does nothing. You got neg-repped. Shut up, move on, and post some meaningful topics if you want it back. It's not that important.

[Lord Pyre]

Hey, rep has made me rethink some potentially stupid posts.

So I guess it does promote censorship, to a point. But there's less stupidity, so I'm glad!

[Bonecrusher]

Xotli has said multiple times he would prefer all rep wasn't signed and I agree. Rep means nothing. If someone negged me for a difference in opinion, I would read what it said, listen to it if it was good advice, or ignore it. There is no way I am losing sleep over my rep.

[SuperflyTNT]

There's a difference between censorship and having some discrimination. Censorship is telling you you can't say something or you'll be imprisoned or fined by the authorities. Discrimination is being able to say what you want, but living with the fact that you may come under fire for it.

Censorship: I can't drop F bombs or I'll be kicked from the site.
Discrimination: Saying that all <insert racial epithet here> people suck, and having my peers tell me that I'm a bigoted moron.

See, there's a huge difference. One is having the powers that be tell you that you CAN'T say something, one is having your peers disapprove.

Let's take your avatar, RJ. What some people see is that "you don't like the new master set." What others will see is "Man, you just told Truth, Skyknight, Gungebob, and the other playtesters that they suck, have failed, and that you think they're retarded. You got to say it, but man, it's at your own peril.

[Jim]

RetroJunky,

Let's say that you received a neg rep. The reason why it was given was there, and it was signed. Now let's say that you received the exact same neg-rep with explanation, only it wasn't signed. Would you do anything different with one over the other? If so, why?

Jim

[Cavalier]

Here is a very legitimate reason, in my opinion, not to sign rep:

USERXYZ neg reps CryBaby for something that USERXYZ feels, legitimately, is worthy of it. The next post in the thread is:

"WAAHAHHAAA, I just got neg repped by USERXYZ!!! He is such a meanie, WAHAAAAHAAA!!!"

Response by anyone who thinks USERXYZ is a meanie: "Let's all go neg rep USERXYZ for being a meaning to CryBaby."

Yes, it has happened in pretty much that way.