Neocodex Ranks for Dummies
#51
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:33 AM
Ninja'd
#52
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:33 AM
I'm still confused.
Just answer this if you could, if I don't like a member's posts because of his/her attitude, am I allowed to vote no and explain my reasoning in the comment section (as has been the case for a long time), or do I now need to automatically vote yes because this user has 500 non-spam posts?
You can always vote however you would like, and explain that vote if you so wish. That is the point of a voting system in the first place.
However, voting no on a nominee who has met the stated requirements of the rank because you don't like their posts would be a shame.
#53
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:36 AM
Well, there are certain people I don't like and said I didn't like them, but voted yes anyway cause it felt selfish to vote no just cause I think they're dumber than a box of rocks.Just answer this if you could, if I don't like a member's posts because of his/her attitude, am I allowed to vote no and explain my reasoning in the comment section (as has been the case for a long time), or do I now need to automatically vote yes because this user has 500 non-spam posts?
#54
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:36 AM
You can always vote however you would like, and explain that vote if you so wish. That is the point of a voting system in the first place.
However, voting no on a nominee who has met the stated requirements of the rank because you don't like their posts would be a shame.
But if 500 non-spam posts are the only requirement, why even offer a vote and cause potential "unfairness"?
#55
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:37 AM
But if 500 non-spam posts are the only requirement, why even offer a vote and cause potential "unfairness"?
For the reasons that I have stated at least twice already.
#56
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:38 AM
But if 500 non-spam posts are the only requirement, why even offer a vote and cause potential "unfairness"?
BRB nominating everyone that has 500 posts.
#57
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:40 AM
For the reasons that I have stated at least twice already.
Then I suppose it won't hurt you to explain it again to the 3+ people here who are having difficulty grasping exactly what the point of voting is if we're not supposed to use our own opinions of a member.
#58
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:40 AM
THERE'S NO ONE TO NOMINATE CAUSE EVERYONE THAT HAS 500+ POSTS ALREADY HAS ADVANCED+. WHAT A JOKE.
#59
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:41 AM
Outstanding early contributions and staff might miss spammers.Then I suppose it won't hurt you to explain it again to the 3+ people here who are having difficulty grasping exactly what the point of voting is if we're not supposed to use our own opinions of a member.
Although it seems pretty easy to give a cursory glance to posts and check if they're regularly spamming or not.
But I don't care because I never vote anyway.
#60
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:43 AM
But I don't care because I never vote anyway.
People died so you could have the vote! For shame...
#61
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:43 AM
Although it seems pretty easy to give a cursory glance to posts and check if they're regularly spamming or not.
Clearly not if it requires a minimum of 10 people and 3 days of deliberation to figure it out.
#62
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:44 AM
#63
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:45 AM
Did Strat grow a small beard and let his hair grow out a little?
#65 Guest_Kate_*
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:45 AM
I think a problem we're running into is that people have different interpretations of what spam is.
#66
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:46 AM
Guess you should start looking for people with less posts @Futurama
There are people with less than 500 posts that are deserving, you're not one of them. I still love you though.
-edit-
I found someone to nominate, he/she has more than 500 posts, brb.
Edited by Futurama, 28 May 2014 - 08:47 AM.
#67
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:46 AM
Did Strat grow a small beard and let his hair grow out a little?
the guy in that gif looks more like you actually.
#68
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:46 AM
People died so you could have the vote! For shame...
I maintain that feminism means I have the right to do things, not that I have to do them. I shall spend the rest of my days barefoot in my country kitchen, avoiding non-gypsy slugs, baking for a man. BECAUSE I CAN.
#69
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:48 AM
the guy in that gif looks more like you actually.
I don't see it o.o. Guess I'll have to start spiking my hair.
#70
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:48 AM
I agree with this statement.I think a problem we're running into is that people have different interpretations of what spam is.
#71
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:50 AM
I shall spend the rest of my days barefoot in my country kitchen, avoiding non-gypsy slugs, baking for a man. BECAUSE I CAN.
You know that to most people this statement makes you look completely mental, right?
#72
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:51 AM
You know that to most people this statement makes you look completely mental, right?
Completely and utterly. But not to you. Or not because of that at any rate.
#73
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:55 AM
Completely and utterly. But not to you. Or not because of that at any rate.
I'm going to be honest, I never understand the conversations you and Waser have, I just get confused.
Boy, did I call that shit out or what?
#74
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:55 AM
I think a problem we're running into is that people have different interpretations of what spam is.
I guess that's another thing that the vote and discussion is there to cover.
#75
Posted 28 May 2014 - 08:56 AM
I'm going to be honest, I never understand the conversations you and Waser have, I just get confused.Boy, did I call that shit out or what?
I highly doubt you're the only one.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users