Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Quite frankly what I see so far I cons9der to be an outright abuse of the system, which is exactly what I expected to see. I say nothing more nor will I give details.

Skip

You have, of course, the right to dislike the system. I even think it is a positive attitude to criticize an existing system, explaining the observed problems and proposing improvements. It is how every system, or rules, can become better, taking in account all the aspects.

But I think it is a really negative attitude to hide behind insinuations, and we may think that if you don't want to give any detail means that you do not have many interesting things to state.

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:
Sorry, Surfeur, but I think that post of yours was just an example of the messages we should rate negatively. Nothing personal.

I saw Skip's post as a perfect example of a post that should get a negative rating.  It offered nothing constructive and seemed to be a veiled attempt to simply 'stir the pot'.  I did, however, resist the urge. 

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
I saw Skip's post as a perfect example of a post that should get a negative rating.  It offered nothing constructive and seemed to be a veiled attempt to simply 'stir the pot'.

I don't know, but even if so, I think Surfeur's choice of words was not really justified.
You've just showed there are ways to criticize someone's alleged nastiness without becoming nasty yourself 
IMHO.

perhaps it would be useful to remind everybody that the system is just testing at the moment.

I have just been playing at it since I know all the ratings will be reset on Monday.

So lets all relax shall we?

And no comments about pink elephants floating past the window.

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:

I don't know, but even if so, I think Surfeur's choice of words was not really justified.
You've just showed there are ways to criticize someone's alleged nastiness without becoming nasty yourself 
IMHO.

I don't really want to justify myself, but I have some comments:

As I wrote we may think, and not we can think, I thought I choose the words not to be "nasty".

Your post clearly says that I am nasty, but I will not give you any negative vote for that 

I do not think the reputation system is made to avoid any discussion. We can criticize system, we can even criticize other users posts, as soon as we explain why, in a constructive way. What I wanted to show through my post is that critics which are not documented are not the best way to make things improve themselves.

Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:
Quoting surfeur51:

Quote:
Quoting EnryWiki:

Quote:

I don't know, but even if so, I think Surfeur's choice of words was not really justified.
You've just showed there are ways to criticize someone's alleged nastiness without becoming nasty yourself 
IMHO.

[...]

The bold formatting in that quote is not my formatting.

I enhanced them so that you can see exactly to which of your words I answered.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Skip, if you were referring towards people giving good votes for things such as me asking for people to vote for me or EnryWiki's total trump by offering free popcorn, keep in mind that this is a test phase.  Can't test something without using it.

Just in case I am missing something...

I wanted to reward a particularly good contribution made where a whole TV series cast and crew had been accuratley profiled, nice scans etc etc.
But I cannot see how I can leave a positive 'point' for a particularly good contribution?

Am I just Mr Magoo or can we not give positives for contributions?