Chewett

Sending me one link a week isnt data, data is normally organised. Present your data properly DD and the community can review it. If you want help with that I can tell you further in a PM. But I guess you are not going to bother because you dont care. I have told you why I refuse to make the decision, becuase I cant. Just because one person neg repped you twice, after they re-read the post is not someone going through 200 posts DD. You are using the Fallacy of Multiplication to try and "prove" your point, and it reduces it. You insult me by saying I havent taken time to understand you. You were the one that said I spent time doing this again and again and thats why you will always be my friend. But sadly that wasnt true as you turned against me as I didnt favour you in this case and just insulted me. That really hurt me DD as I told you but you didnt care.

Post the data, You just send me individual links and the majority of them I agree at you making a stupid comment DD.

You cant force everyone to take your viewpoint in how the reputation system should be used. Some will give neg/pos rep more easily than others and thats just how it works. Im not going to dictate how people have to use the system nor should you when suggesting fixes. If your fix is "well people should use the reputation system like this" then thats not a fix, thats imposing your ideas on others.

No, because they are not SS or KC...

SS not signing things follow the logic that the council cant sign things. If SS could, then surely council can also.

I wouldn't logically reason that. SS cant because they are an entity that has been played by a number of people, like MoC. Surely a well established alt will have one owner and therefore can have someone sign them. I dont consider the situations the same.

ShadeSentinal isnt a real person, like council and therefore cannot sign it.

Azull is current leader with Peace (even if she isnt active atm) if I am correct. Also previosuly she used to be queen, so that was the logic I was using. I used the logic that, when you leave the position you hand it onto to someone else, and give them their title. Based on this example: "title": "Master Advertiser", "recipient": "BFH", "authorities": { "granting authority": "Muratus del Mur", "confirming authority": "Junior" } }, Where Junior confirms BFH title, effectively "handing it over" I think this logically makes sense, if we did it chronogically, Junior would have been given his title, and then he can award BFH. So handy would thusly have to award mine, me award Rheagar, etc.

No comments on my changes? Approved/not approved? Anyone alive?

{ "title": "Garden Keeper", "recipient": "Menhir", "authorities": { "granting authority": "Handy Pockets", "confirming authority": "Zleiphneir" } }, Why Z? { "title": "Gardener of MDA Garden", "recipient": "Kempiniukas", "authorities": { "granting authority": "Kyphis", "confirming authority": "Handy Pockets" } }, Why only one MDA leader? Surely it should be both or neither to make it fair? { "title": "Water Dowser's Leader", "recipient": "nadrolski", "authorities": { "granting authority": "Princ Rhaegar", "confirming authority": "Handy Pockets" } }, Why handy? is this based on "the last two leaders?" In which case it should be princ and me. { "title": "King of Marind Bell", "recipient": "Princ Rhaegar", "authorities": { "granting authority": "Muratus del Mur", "confirming authority": null } }, based on this, previous leader confirms, I should be confirming { "title": "King of Necrovion", "recipient": "Azull", "authorities": { "granting authority": "Muratus del Mur", "confirming authority": null } }, Same as above, Should probably be peace { "title": "Former Master Advertiser", "recipient": "Junior", "authorities": { "granting authority": "Muratus del Mur", "confirming authority": null } }, Should be confirmed by BFH as per current leader confirms previous { "title": "King of Golemus Golemicarum", "recipient": "Grido", "authorities": { "granting authority": "Muratus del Mur", "confirming authority": null } }, Confirmed by Yrth as per above { "title": "Leader of KoB", "recipient": "Rikstar", "authorities": { "granting authority": "Princ Rhaegar", "confirming authority": null } }, Could confirm by me as previous king { "title": "Concierge", "recipient": "Miq", "authorities": { "granting authority": null, "confirming authority": "phantasm" } }, Mur not phantasm ---- Remember to remove the comments before giving it to mur FYI, as it wont parse the JS.

On Pause for the moment due to most recent Ann, Saved to notebook all the details, thanks for applying

Is that a statement or a question?

It's a known issue with the code as it has always been there. Probably as you describe

I wont be performing any code changes RE the forums after the latest announcement.

I believe so.

On the post, to show the communities like or dislike for a specific post. On the profile to show a general agreement/disagreement of that persons posts.

Certainly not to judge if someone is a good or bad person.

I personally dont care what my overall reputation is. Generally people who have more posts have more reputation. Although those are also people more involved in MD and such. e.g. me grido dst (from the top of my head) I dont see what the use is to display it really.

There is a limit, currently 50 i think.

We could change the reputation system to positive only Or make it not shown on profiles, or...

So you would entirely ban someone from the forum if you dont like their point of view? The problem is here is that I dont like the idea of myself, or someone else, arbitrarily deciding what is allowed or not. What will happen is each time I will ask the person and they will, from experiance, give a reason of "X's post is stupid becuase Y". At this point you either just accept thats their point of view or you tell them their point of view is wrong, not allowed, and warn them. We then reach Rophs point of "removing those giving rep's based on their viewpoint". This is what people dont do normally, or in all the cases im involved in they just go "well X doesnt like me". There has been recent cases where someone has just gone through the list of posts and neg rep them. We have dealt with that and that was simple to do as it was blatent. Also the person admitted doing it and explained why (because they were upset with the person). Im not saying thats a good reason (or one that will stop you getting punished) but they were honest and I respected that. An interesting point of view, Again what does it matter in all honesty? If we removed everyone that had a complaint against someone else, most of MD would vote me out. If you wanted to do that fine, but I know im very much hated by MD but I have one or two friends here still so I still play. We would effectively remove the community to 0 if we had to remove everyone that once made someone else uncomfortable and I would be the first to go. So if person Y says they are being annoyed by neg repping and person X gives a reason why its valid. What can you do? It all falls down to arbitrarily choosing no? As above :) ---- I forgot to mention in the original post, if people want to give feedback privately feel free to PM me.

I always get asked to "deal with" people who repeatedly neg rep others. However there is only one case that I can properly deal with. Where someone has deliberately gone back over a large number of posts in a period of minutes and neg repped someone. This is where I remove their ability to give reputation. If someone is just neg repping you a lot, what can I do? What do you expect me to do? They could just say they think your posts are bad and Its then not fair to go "I dont agree, I will remove your ability" What does the community think I should do in these cases?

So... You didnt follow the process? Like I asked you to DD... Did you have a look on the forum to see if it was reported?

I could be the postman.