Quote:
|
Originally Posted by horn
ok because above, you were saying the only measure of validy was whether the repper took the time to rep you or not.
|
No, that wasn't what I was saying.
I did say that you could consider the actual presence of rep as a sign of validity, considering your post would already have made enough impression to convince someone to give out rep. However, the only real measure on whether you can consider rep to be valid is if there is a reason given that allows you to see whether there is some logic behind the giving of rep, or whether it was just random for no good reason.
And no, knowing who gave you rep - be it with or without comment, does not help you determine this anymore other than for the assumption that someone is giving you neg rep out of spite, which does not need to be the case. I've gotten both positive and negative rep from the same people, and have likewise given positive and negative rep to the same people in the past.
I've read it. Your argumention in that post is nonsensical, given the fact that it relies on other people seeing what reputation has been given to a certain post. This implies that people are actively checking each post to see what reputation has been given to it, which simply doesn't happen.
So far your entire argument seems to boil down to "I want to see who neg repped me so I can disagree with that ****er's reason because he just dislikes me and lied about his reason to neg rep me, the twat", which is exactly why the rep system should remain anonymous, if anything.