"Don't trust X" threads.

[Ally]

The General Discussion forum is currently rampant with "don't trust this user x" threads. There should be a reminder at the top of the forum or new post section reminding users it's not allowed afaik;

1. Rule 1.5, dunno if it covers it but it should
2. Reputation system is there for a reason.

 

[jxhdvn]

Don't get what's wrong with these types of threads if you can fully support everything you've said with evidence, and you don't go about it in an attacking manner. That isn't slandering or trashing

Adding onto that "1.5.2 Do not publicly criticize unless in a thread dedicated to the content or the reputation system."

Why would they have the "in a thread dedicated to the content" part if these threads weren't to exist

 

[Justis]

Don't get what's wrong with these types of threads if you can fully support everything you've said with evidence, and you don't go about it in an attacking manner. That isn't slandering or trashing

Adding onto that "1.5.2 Do not publicly criticize unless in a thread dedicated to the content or the reputation system."

Why would they have the "in a thread dedicated to the content" part if these threads weren't to exist

"unless in a thread dedicated to the content" is meant to allow users to criticize the products and services a user is offering within the thread where the user is offering them. It is not meant to allow the creation of threads solely created for degrading a users’ image. The reputation system should be used to express any ill-feelings one has for another user.
I’d be in agreement with a rephrasing, since this isn’t perfectly clear.

 

[Ally]

I dissagree mainly because they may have lots of postitive reputation, fun reading and plus its a warning, for other people who dont read rep.

I'm sorry but threads are not only decentralised but they are also significantly more difficult to navigate than reputation is. Reputation is there for a reason. Threads clutter up the section they're posted in and they generally only lead to drama too. Reputation is centralised, purposeful, can be disputed which doesn't lead to public drama. It can be fun reading but if you're that desperate for dramatic content, maybe the scam reports section is for you.

I’d be in agreement with a rephrasing, since this isn’t perfectly clear.

Yeah I had to double check this rule was a thing and even then I was hesitant to list that rule as a reason because of that.

 

[wild]

I dissagree mainly because they may have lots of postitive reputation, fun reading and plus its a warning, for other people who dont read rep.

Agreed 100%. I typically don't read rep if their average is atleast above 75%. Those type of threads are very useful.

 

[Mick]

I’d be in agreement with a rephrasing, since this isn’t perfectly clear.

Please work out an elegant way to rephrase this for me, master rule man.

I'll move this to pending, thank you ma'am