# Turning on e-rep in off topic



## Desecrated (Sep 1, 2008)

Now when the 100k thread is gone, can't we turn on the e-rep function in the off-topic section, with so much happening in the mccain debate there is a shitload of funny posts that needs to be rep'ed.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 1, 2008)

Yeah... ah, I don't think that's gonna happen.


----------



## Chris (Sep 1, 2008)




----------



## Desecrated (Sep 1, 2008)

hahahaha, nice pictures.


----------



## Josh Lawson (Sep 6, 2008)

tytiiiore said:


> banned spammer.


What the fuck is wrong with this A-hole?


----------



## Shannon (Sep 6, 2008)

Josh Lawson said:


> What the fuck is wrong with this A-hole?



No worries. He has felt my wrath.


----------



## Scott (Sep 6, 2008)

What happened to Desecrated?


----------



## Lee (Sep 6, 2008)

Scott said:


> What happened to Desecrated?



I was wondering the same


----------



## Scott (Sep 6, 2008)

I don't care what _you_ were wondering!


----------



## Lee (Sep 6, 2008)

Scott said:


> I don't care what _you_ were wondering!



Yeah, well screw you!


----------



## Shannon (Sep 6, 2008)

Desecrate was bad & he left. Account soon deleted. RIP.


----------



## Josh Lawson (Sep 6, 2008)

Scott said:


> What happened to Desecrated?


I was privileged to see his final diatribe. He posted a rant that was VERY DEROGATORY to Chris and the rest of the Mod Squad. The rant lasted all of about 4 minutes. I'd link to it, but the rant is gone so there is no point. This is what it was replaced with. It was kind of amazing....amazingly stupid. I liked Desecrated very much, but he fucked up something real proper. At least he went in a major blaze of glory.


----------



## Scott (Sep 6, 2008)

Damnit. Wish I would have TeVo'd that..


----------



## Josh Lawson (Sep 6, 2008)

Scott said:


> Damnit. Wish I would have TeVo'd that..


It really was incredible, I couldn't believe my eyes!


----------



## Josh Lawson (Sep 6, 2008)

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/off-topic/66424-mod-team-cowards-assholes.html

The title of the thread would be enough, but there was more BELIEVE ME!!!!


----------



## Shannon (Sep 6, 2008)

Ok guys, returning to the e-rep at hand....


----------



## Josh Lawson (Sep 6, 2008)

Shannon said:


> Ok guys, returning to the e-rep at hand....


So what do you guys think about auto-signing all e-reps, neg. and pos.?


----------



## ZeroSignal (Sep 7, 2008)

Josh Lawson said:


> So what do you guys think about auto-signing all e-reps, neg. and pos.?



I am absolutely 100% for it. I do it to all of mine already so it's no big deal to me.


----------



## Zepp88 (Sep 7, 2008)

It might discourage random douchebaggery if they're all automatically signed.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Sep 7, 2008)

I'm a little ambivalent about auto-signing all e-reps for the simple reason that it will most likely lead to e-repping wars over trivial things. The mods can already see who left rep, so if there's ever any left that's especially unfair and/or abusive they can deal with it.


----------



## Zepp88 (Sep 7, 2008)

Romeo has a point here.


----------



## TomAwesome (Sep 7, 2008)

I don't think OT posts need to be reppable. 



Josh Lawson said:


> So what do you guys think about auto-signing all e-reps, neg. and pos.?



If I had to guess, I'd say they're not signed automatically to avoid things like unfair repercussions for neg rep. Then again, it's so rare that we have a problem with real douchebaggery here, and even then it's usually some new guy with no rep and thus no power to affect the rep of others anyway.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Sep 7, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> It might discourage random douchebaggery if they're all automatically signed.



Exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## Josh Lawson (Sep 7, 2008)

TomAwesome said:


> I don't think OT posts need to be reppable.
> 
> 
> 
> If I had to guess, I'd say they're not signed automatically to avoid things like unfair repercussions for neg rep. Then again, it's so rare that we have a problem with real douchebaggery here, and even then it's usually some new guy with no rep and thus no power to affect the rep of others anyway.


In court, you face your accuser. Being a man or woman means taking responsibility for your actions, and accusations. To me it just seems like the right thing to do.


----------



## Zepp88 (Sep 7, 2008)

I don't think many of us take an internet forum as seriously as a court room.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Sep 7, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> I don't think many of us take an internet forum as seriously as a court room.



No but it can be pretty damn irritating.


----------



## Josh Lawson (Sep 7, 2008)

I really think that most folks would do what I have done in the past with signed neg reps, I PM that person and asked them why they did that if I didn't understand. Sometimes, I get a little to comfortable here and step on people's toes. I offended Drew once, he neg repped me, I PMed him and he told me why he was offended. We had a dialog about it and his point made sense. I just think that autosigning all repping would really help people to converse with each other and get to deeper understandings. If this process was abused, the Mods and Chris would still ultimatly be able to deal with the abusive offender. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is just how I see it.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Sep 7, 2008)

Repping is futile.

Prepare to be assimilated.


----------



## playstopause (Sep 7, 2008)

What?!?


This discussion is still goin' on?


----------



## TomAwesome (Sep 7, 2008)

Josh Lawson said:


> I really think that most folks would do what I have done in the past with signed neg reps, I PM that person and asked them why they did that if I didn't understand. Sometimes, I get a little to comfortable here and step on people's toes. I offended Drew once, he neg repped me, I PMed him and he told me why he was offended. We had a dialog about it and his point made sense. I just think that autosigning all repping would really help people to converse with each other and get to deeper understandings. If this process was abused, the Mods and Chris would still ultimatly be able to deal with the abusive offender. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is just how I see it.



Not everybody on internet forums can be expected to handle things with that kind of thought, though, even if this is the most generally respectful and civil internet forum I've seen.


----------



## Popsyche (Sep 7, 2008)

I liked Des's threads a lot, and I missed the rant, but there is never any reason to be disrespectful of the folks that babysit this site.( And I mean babysit). 

I'd still like to see the rant, though!


----------



## Josh Lawson (Sep 8, 2008)

TomAwesome said:


> Not everybody on internet forums can be expected to handle things with that kind of thought, though, even if this is the most generally respectful and civil internet forum I've seen.


If folks abuse the system, they are dealt with. Maybe it would cause lot more "he said, she said" BS that the Mods don't care to deal with, which is totally understandable.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Sep 8, 2008)

Popsyche said:


> I liked Des's threads a lot, and I missed the rant, but there is never any reason to be disrespectful of the folks that babysit this site.( And I mean babysit).
> 
> I'd still like to see the rant, though!



Me too. I was sorry to see him go, but he was severely out of line with that final thread.


----------



## Chris (Sep 8, 2008)

Yes it's a sad day when I have to ban someone who tees off on the mod team and spews a bunch of vile bullshit about them. 

Josh, you have been a member of my site for two months. Do me a favor and keep the suggestions to yourself for awhile, or better yet use the search feature. This has been answered a dozen times by me and every other mod at this point.


----------

