Originally Posted by Cado
The problem is the quality of the feedback that comes through the neg reps. Nobody's advocating the elimination of criticism (though I may have made the mistake of framing it like that; I'll have to re-read my earlier posts) but rather the removal of a means by which mostly low-quality feedback can be delivered.
Gubb was right. We can come up with a better solution without neutering the dialog on these boards.
I have one neg rep in my queue right now, and this is what it says:
"I would be one of them. It doesn't matter if you agree with him, he's making his case so poorly that he's an embarrassment to your side."
Do you think that that is poor quality? (Think before you answer this because you and I both know who sent it.
Funnily enough, for all the neg reps that I've gotten (the serious ones that is), they've actually been decent quality. Because usually when someone neg reps you, it's probably because you pissed them off in some way. And never is clarity so beautifully defined than in anger.