In terms of
Sauce's concern over "energetic" reppers, it should be remembered that there is a limit on the number of reps that can be given out in any 24-hour period, so it is not as if there were carte blanche on the 'ballot stuffers'.
And, also, no post can be repped twice by the same username. It isn't quite "vote early, vote often" !
However, there is that old chestnut about justice: not only must it be done, but it must be seen to be done and I think here I share some of Sauce's concern. The operation of the repping system must be seen and understood and it should particularly be recognised that not all reppers have the same repping weight. My analogy to democracy really breaks down here, as some votes here do carry more weight than others. I suppose
Estelyn's analogy to surveys fits more properly, although our system hardly has the statistical controls of good surveys.
Quote:
Lhunardawen posted:
Has anyone else noticed that most of the top rep givers are also the top rep receivers? Does it help improve your reputation, then, if you keep on giving well-deserved reps with your name signed, ceteris paribus (i.e. keep on posting sensible posts)? Just wondering...ignore me.
|
We never used to include our names with the rep until Piosenniel made her very well-received point about anonymity. Maybe there are some who develop a 'reciprocity' habit; I can't see into the minds of people here and know their intentions, just as I believe we cannot know in its entirety an author's intention (What?--an allusion to that C-thread?
). What is it that accounts for 'presence' on an internet forum? After all,
SaucepanMan apparently has a fan club, but I don't.
Quote:
Fordim posted:
I tend to be a rather streaky poster, however.
|
Streaking, Fordim? Now, are you asking to be stalked?