One more dogma to add to the rest.

[mordant]

OK, thanks, must have this site confused with another one, probably The Thinking Atheist, where I know I've downvoted idjits.

Yes. And I bet that made you feel better. We don't have negative reps. If you don't have anything positive to say about a member don't. Simple.

Now, how my good friends over TTA run their site, it is none of my business. Is the rep system of all that importance?

TTA is where I landed when I was fed up with City-Data's Atheism & Agnosticism and Religion & Spirituality forums and needed a break. I find the rep system to be very useful if properly designed. C-D's was not, and it's about half the reason I was frosted with them (the other half being a Stoopid change in moderation rules in the R&S forum). You can't upvote individual posts, and there's some obtuse formula that makes less than zero sense for giving reputation to others. Basically, once I give, say, you reputation, I can't do it again until I've given it to some ridiculous number of other people (and regardless of the passage of time). What people do there is they go over to a forum they don't give a shit about, like the forum about Chester's Hole, Vermont, and give everyone reputation, so that they can go back to forums they actually participate in, and give reps. It's insane. If the system is designed to spread reps around evenly, what meaning do reps have and why would you even do it?

So yeah I like TTA's system. I like the system here nearly as much, don't agree with disallowing negative reps as I've seen no downside to it, but ... it isn't that big a deal, either.

Thanks for the explanation and sorry for my brain fart. I honestly thought, since your'e using the same software as TTA, it would work the same.