But are rep pts issued on here because one is
respectful? Or because one makes statements/posts that agrees with (gets in step) with how someone else believes the game should be played and evaluated?
That's my problem with the rep system. Over time, I've really come to know some posters on Reds Live (via chat) who seem to be pretty level-headed and common sense fans. We don't always agree, but via our discussions, I see where they would be valuable additions to the forum.
But they voice their frustration, after being on Reds Live for quite some period of time, in not getting rep pts. And if rep pts is the only way one gets access to ORG, then what do they have to do to get them?
If we are gonna utilize a rep system, and if so many on ORG believe in it, then they are, IMO, responsible to use it. If it is because of apathy or indifference that one is not, then we, as a forum, are basically screwing some over, and keeping them "trapped", because they are
relying on us to evaluate/promote them.
They have no other means available.
In the past, I have not been very good at issuing rep pts. So I am guilty. I've never negged anyone, and never will. That's just me.
But I have begun to issue rep pts - and not based on that poster making statements that agree with GAC, or how GAC thinks the game should be played; but more in-line with getting to know that individual(s), and seeing that they can/will contribute to the forum, regardless of their viewpoints (agreeable or disagreeable).
If (and I emphasize "IF") ORG posters are withholding rep pts because they disagree with one's thoughts/ideology on the game of baseball, and that their "wrongness" (not a lack of respect or approach; personality) is the reason why they shouldn't be allowed admission to ORG, then I find that wrong, and almost an air of elitism that I find distasteful.
I don't think that is the intent/purpose of this forum... "get in line, and we'll allow you in".
Diversity is good.
