Change Winner Rating back to Vouch

[Ilxsiion]

Since Mick is owner I was hoping he would change back a mistake Verringer made. A Load of people use Winner as Vouch anyways and it is the closest it gets to a rep system on here atm. Since winner realistically is bary used for its actual purpose and is used as vouch can we please change it back to vouch? K ty.

-Ilxsiion

 

[Helloimrex]

What's wrong with Winner?

It's often used as an insult, for example, "We've got a real winner over here" when someone posts something retarded. Having it also mean vouch is retarded so either change it to "Vouch" or to "Special". The second one is kind of offensive to retarded people since half the shit on this forum is stupider than anything anyone handicapped has ever said so I'd like to see it turned back to vouch.

Basically, having a rating being used for two opposite motives makes it kind of pointless.

 

[Ivain]

It's often used as an insult, for example, "We've got a real winner over here" when someone posts something retarded. Having it also mean vouch is retarded so either change it back to "Vouch" or "Special". The second one is kind of offensive to retarded people since half the shit on this forum is stupider than anything anyone handicapped has ever said so I'd like to see it turned back to vouch.

Since "winner" can be used as an insult, why not get rid of "funny" as well, since it can be used for similar purpose?

Point is, just because a rating can be misused is no reason to change it, by itself

 

[Helloimrex]

Since "winner" can be used as an insult, why not get rid of "funny" as well, since it can be used for similar purpose?

Point is, just because a rating can be misused is no reason to change it, by itself

Because funny is only used as an insult. The only ratings not used solely as insults are like, agree. Winner and are sometimes used as insults but the heart is sort of "Look at me, notice me, I'm subtly being annoying!" so its sort of okay that way. Winner isn't.

The other ratings are all only insults. Okay, maybe someone was informative once or twice, but over 90% of the time it just means "No shit sherlock".

 

[Ilxsiion]

Because funny is only used as an insult. The only ratings not used solely as insults are like, agree. Winner and are sometimes used as insults but the heart is sort of "Look at me, notice me, I'm subtly being annoying!" so its sort of okay that way. Winner isn't.

To be honest imo funny should also be removed as it gives no benefit to threads and encourages shit posting and attempting to farm funny ratings, in what aspect is funny ratings even beneficial or good?

 

[Ivain]

"only ratings not used solely as insults are like agree winner and ?
What of useful and informative? I've seen those around plenty of times, being used sincerely. I've also never seen winner used sarcastically. I guess it depends on which section of the forums you're active in

 

[Helloimrex]

Since "winner" can be used as an insult, why not get rid of "funny" as well, since it can be used for similar purpose?

Point is, just because a rating can be misused is no reason to change it, by itself

Idk, you'd never call someone a winner unless you were insulting them. It's too condescending to be used in speech any other way. The fact you are on a playing field where you can just throw out if the person is a winner and implicitly also a loser if you want means you think you are better than them. The rating might mediate that, but it doesn't change how English works.

 

[Ilxsiion]

REDACTED

No they really don't, if you look at reputable people's threads you might notice when they post a sale their thread has a crap load of winner ratings on the first post.

 

[Mick]

A conclusive decision with this is that the Vouch rating will not come back. When Verringer first introduced the change I strongly disagreed with it, but as time has gone by and after he told me his reasoning I agreed with him just like I hope l you will agree with me about this.

What he said to me was that ratings are not reputation, but simply just saying your opinion on a post by "rating" it. The problem with the vouch rating it made people believe that ratings are reputation which is not and has never been the case.

 

[Helloimrex]

A conclusive decision with this is that the Vouch rating will not come back. When Verringer first introduced the change I strongly disagreed with it, but as time has gone by and after he told me his reasoning I agreed with him just like I hope l you will agree with me about this.

What he said to me was that ratings are not reputation, but simply just saying your opinion on a post by "rating" it. The problem with the vouch rating it made people believe that ratings are reputation which is not and has never been the case.

He did it out of impulse and spite against something stupid kman said. I don't really care if it goes back to vouch, Verringer was right that specific name caused problems, but the rating "winner" is just inherently ambiguous. Less ambiguous ratings would be nice overall. Change it to "Support" or "Fuck You". Having it be something in between is just bad and I really doubt that's what was intended.

You know, I actually have a good idea of what it could be changed to. Change it to "GLWS". That would solve two problems on this forum.

 

[Mick]

He did it out of impulse and spite against something stupid kman said. I don't really care if it goes back to vouch, Verringer was right that specific name caused problems, but the rating "winner" is just inherently ambiguous. Less ambiguous ratings would be nice overall. Change it to "Support" or "Fuck You". Having it be something in between is just bad and I really doubt that's what was intended.

Changing the what was once a vouch rating to something else such as a fuck off rating would mean that people who were once reputable would now turn into reviving hundreds of negative ratings now. Sounds fun!

 

[Ivain]

I smell so much salt in the post 2 above me.

Seriously, arguing with staff this way isn't going to help in the least, why are you even trying still?
(for that matter, why am I trying to argue with you? its equally futile, albeit for different reasons)[DOUBLEPOST=1449042884,1449042786][/DOUBLEPOST]

T

The post above you? Me? Awkward timing at its finest!

I know right, where's the "new posts have arrived, view them? " when you need it?
didnt wanna quote, but it seems like that might be the safe option after all

 

[Helloimrex]

Changing the what was once a vouch rating to something else such as a fuck off rating would mean that people who were once reputable would now turn into reviving hundreds of negative ratings now. Sounds fun!

Well, what about "GLWS" then. That's what it should be used for anyway as it can only support sellers without making it seem like they are reputable just from the rating. Also, people don't spam glws all over the place anymore.

 

[Mick]

Well, what about "GLWS" then. That's what it should be used for anyway as it can only support sellers without making it seem like they are reputable just from the rating. Also, people don't spam glws all over the place anymore.

That can only be used on very specific types of threads which are selling things, while the rest of the ratings can also be used in all situations.

 

[Helloimrex]

That can only be used on very specific types of threads which are selling things, while the rest of the ratings can also be used in all situations.

I think it is mostly used sarcastically anywhere else partly because it overlaps with agree. If they aren't selling something why not just agree with them? I don't know, the idea is out there and I've spent too much time thinking about this. It sounds like you want it to mean strongly agree so maybe that, I don't know, that's my last idea.

 

[Ilxsiion]

REDACTED

Is that why they say vouch on the thread then straight away give them a winner rating?[DOUBLEPOST=1449044769,1449044737][/DOUBLEPOST]

That can only be used on very specific types of threads which are selling things, while the rest of the ratings can also be used in all situations.

Can you just reach a conclusion about this proposition please?