Originally posted by mosquitorespectI have to admit as read through Rag's countdown thread I begun rec'ing Richard Whitely. I was in stitches at the game, Rag hosted it brilliantly, hence he generated 4 or 5 recs from me. Far better to be generous than laugh out loud and move on regardless.
What I don't understand is these people with 400+ recs. How much time do you have to spend posting for that? Or is the rumour true that some clan members routinely rec each other? Or are they just bloody interesting/provacative posters? I've probably posted about 40 times and only got two recs 😕
Originally posted by mosquitorespectLook how long they have been subscribed too, there are a few who seem to get recs non stop for no reason (check out a certain person in the preaching business...) and there are others who have earned them. I guess you just have to keep to your own standards. I would hope only to get a rec for a post that deserved it and in turn I onl rec posts that I think deserve it. By your rating I would have had to post about 5000 times and thinking about it that's probably ture 🙂 D@mn! I spend way too much time in here 😞
What I don't understand is these people with 400+ recs. How much time do you have to spend posting for that? Or is the rumour true that some clan members routinely rec each other? Or are they just bloody interesting/provacative posters? I've probably posted about 40 times and only got two recs 😕
Originally posted by StarrmanYeah, that "person in the preaching business" is such a self-righteous bigot. I get angry when I read what rubbish he spews out
Look how long they have been subscribed too, there are a few who seem to get recs non stop for no reason (check out a certain person in the preaching business...) and there are others who have earned them.
Originally posted by invigorateerrr, 2 at my count, but numbers were never my strong point, but I always found words to be great pun.
I have to admit as read through Rag's countdown thread I begun rec'ing Richard Whitely. I was in stitches at the game, Rag hosted it brilliantly, hence he generated 4 or 5 recs from me. Far better to be generous than laugh out loud and move on regardless.
*beams at own wit*
Unfortunately Chunnel 4 are thinking of cutting the Countdown game, due to lack of participation, so if YOU want to see more of the man nicknamed 'Twice Nightly Whiteley', although I prefer to refer to myself as 'Once Yearly , Nearly', then you better get your thinking caps on.
R
Originally posted by rhbWell if we can rec a post because we agree with the ideas contained in the post, why can't we also anti-rec it to show that we completely disagree with it?
I think the concept of Recs AND Anti-Recs is getting a bit carried away.
An alternative solution might be to display the number of Recs a thread has got against the thread title and do away with the rec counter against individuals profiles (to remove the element of competition at a profile level).
D
Originally posted by RagnorakBecause it would flaw and complicate more the actual rec system.
Well if we can rec a post because we agree with the ideas contained in the post, why can't we also anti-rec it to show that we completely disagree with it?
D
By the way,who cares if a guy has a lot of unjustified recs or if a guy recs a lot of posts?
Recs are not a rating,recs are opinions of agreement expressed by other people and therefore subjective and therefore pretty meaningless.
I may think a post is great and rec it,but someone other an think it's crap but so what?
The world has always gone this way,if we were always agreeing on everything,what a boring world would be?
An anti-rec system would only add chaos to the forums:there would be groups who anti-rec atheists posts (just to make an actual example) so atheists would start to rec more to counter attack the anti rec ,and on and on..................
Better leave things as they are.
Recs are not fundamental on a chess site.
Originally posted by RagnorakI get your point (it's like applause, silence, or boos), just feel it would exacerbate the rec problem - anything that can be used in a negative way against posts would be far more overused/abused than the current rec only system.
Well if we can rec a post because we agree with the ideas contained in the post, why can't we also anti-rec it to show that we completely disagree with it?
D
Could you imagine the mess in the Sprituality forum? A 'believer' would start a thread which would be met with some anti-recs from the 'non-believers', the other 'believers' would then match the anti-recs with counter-recs and on it would go. There'd be recs flying everywhere!
Originally posted by Ravelloyou beat me to it! man, I shoudl rec you for having such a great thinking mind, only I don't know if I should...
Because it would flaw and complicate more the actual rec system.
By the way,who cares if a guy has a lot of unjustified recs or if a guy recs a lot of posts?
Recs are not a rating,recs are opinions of agreement expressed by other people and therefore subjective and therefore pretty meaningless.
I may think a post is great and rec it,but someone other ...[text shortened]... ...............
Better leave things as they are.
Recs are not fundamental on a chess site.
Originally posted by rhbI ws quicker than you,I was quicker than you,nanananananaaaaa
I get your point (it's like applause, silence, or boos), just feel it would exacerbate the rec problem - anything that can be used in a negative way against posts would be far more overused/abused than the current rec only system.
Could you imagine the mess in the Sprituality forum? A 'believer' would start a thread which would be met with some anti-recs f ...[text shortened]... en match the anti-recs with counter-recs and on it would go. There'd be recs flying everywhere!