Reputation?

[DoctorHarte]

Or people are just too polite to say something along the lines of "You are an idiot and every post you write makes my neurons scream at the injustice of the world".

Note that the above does not necessarily reflect my opinion.

Maybe so, but reputation doesn't do anything to me as a member and I encouraged some to do it. It's all in good fun as I see it, not a serious "You're an idiot" type of dislike.

[ó Broin]

I'm more interested to know how I can give others reputation. Seems I don't meet what ever the requirements are just yet.

[DoctorHarte]

You don't see the "Applaud" and "Dispraise" options under a user's Reputation? Perhaps you need to be a Freeman or higher rank to do so.

[ó Broin]

could be that, could be I need a certain total time logged in, or perhaps I need to receive a certain amount of good rep before I'm allowed to do it.

[DoctorHarte]

I'd put my money on posts. I was able to see them far before I had any reputation.

[ó Broin]

Seems that way. I just made Freeman and can now give rep to everybody. NEGATIVE REP FOR ALL

[DoctorHarte]

Seems that way. I just made Freeman and can now give rep to everybody. NEGATIVE REP FOR ALL

Psh, I should get positive rep for helping out a newcomer 

Though I seem to have made some forum-enemies already. They just fail at having fun 

[ó Broin]

Perhaps being you Forum enemy is fun for them.

[DoctorHarte]

Perhaps for a few, but one of them thinks I'm a big idiot or something along those lines. They just can't grasp the logic and reasoning I put into my posts. Then again, I am a stoner.

[De-Legro]

The reality of reasoning and logic is that it is subjective. Sometimes no matter how obvious you think your train of thought is, it just doesn't gel with someone else. I would think the bigger issue is that when you have a disagreement with this person, you tend to be mutually antagonistic, rather then just accepting that you have very different opinions.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Recognition of differences in opinion does not necessarily lead to cessation of antagonism. That involves compromise, and there are times when recognition indeed necessitates compromise, and other times when such is not required, or not possible.

[De-Legro]

Rubbish. You can have a difference of opinion without antagonism. After all Antagonism is Antagonism is hostility that results in active resistance, opposition, or contentiousness. It is your choice to be hostile in response to a different opinion.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

And I will have to disagree on that. I'm sure you can find some cleverly constructed arguments bot for and against such a position, courtesy of the many philosophers who passed before us and who are our contemporaries. But, I think that would in fact deviate way too much from this thread, about reputation. This doesn't seem to be a place to discuss past and present arguments about the nature of antagonism and whether it is under conscious control, and so on. It will inevitably lead down a long place into which we (at least I) don't desire to venture too deep.

[DoctorHarte]

And I will have to disagree on that. I'm sure you can find some cleverly constructed arguments bot for and against such a position, courtesy of the many philosophers who passed before us and who are our contemporaries. But, I think that would in fact deviate way too much from this thread, about reputation. This doesn't seem to be a place to discuss past and present arguments about the nature of antagonism and whether it is under conscious control, and so on. It will inevitably lead down a long place into which we (at least I) don't desire to venture too deep.

As OPer I will give you the go ahead to deviate from this topic and discuss this philosophical point of view.  I believe that it's too hard for internet-personalities to truly connect. You only read the text with no emotion, personality, motions, eye contact, tone of voice, etc. As the player who tends to disagree with me and give up trying to explain yourself I would like to see your point of view on this whole matter as I am curious as are others.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

There seems to be two things asked of me here: The conversation about the nature of perspective/arguments/hostility/opposition, and how it applies to me. To the latter, I will say now that I will almost never reveal my actual viewpoints on any subjects online. Sometimes in person and in private, but otherwise, it should not matter what I really think about any topics. Maybe I'm being serious, maybe not. Maybe it's like some people think that I'm only here for attention. Maybe I'm just here to say whatever comes to mind about any topic on a whim. The fact is that I won't say confirm or deny any interpretation, and I really don't think I'm interesting enough of a member for anyone else to care.

As for the former, if one is really interested, I'm sure there are some members here who have extensive backgrounds in philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. While I could dig up some articles on sites such as Stanford's philosophy encyclopedia, I really don't have the interest in doing so.

And I have a feeling that someone out there might be tempted to call me out on that, saying I can't just make some claim and not support it. To that potential individual who at this moment is only formed in my mind, I say that I don't care. I generally try to remain civil, and at the very least refrain from using any profanities or other vulgar languages or actions on these public forums. Beyond that, I'm not big on arguing things, and I believe I only gave a mild implication of an insult in one instance to one member who was really annoying me (Not only on the forums either). Apart from that, sometimes I don't like it when posts go into meaningless directions, sometimes I like it, sometimes I try to discourage it, sometimes I contribute myself. There is no set algorithm for sorting the human mind, and I certainly won't try.