I think since you can give reps for good finds and such, you should have a feautre that allows you to give people bad reps for things, like people who call in for deals etc....
:woot:

The feature is called thumbs down.

SD used to have nerping. It is no more.

sometimes it's not the OP's fault for the crappy deal or the company did not come thru, etc..

The feature is called thumbs down.

the OP is talking about a specific member and not about the thread itself.



Negative Reps were removed because people were taking advantage of them.

So is there any chance of sometype of nerping ever coming back? Such as, if one or more person would nerp the user, it would go down? Something that would be more affective, yet wouldn't be able to be abused, or help reduce abuse with it, because with almost anything there is a chance for this.

Maybe even offer it only to 150, 200, or 250+ rep pointers. So that there'd be less or a risk of it happening. Because it was a good feature to have, and instead of eliminating it all completly, being able to reduce the abuse, yet keeping the feature intact would be a more reasonable solution.

well... it was offered to 100+ back in the day when there werent so many 100+.... now there are so many 200+
and it was still abused....
they removed it just after I hit 100... didnt even have a chance to use it

well... it was offered to 100+ back in the day when there werent so many 100+.... now there are so many 200+
and it was still abused....
they removed it just after I hit 100... didnt even have a chance to use it

200 is yesterdays 100, so they're arent as many, and if you do have 200, you've most likely been here long enough to respect SD (usually...). I think it'd be a good idea to give it another shot, if at first you dont succeed...:lol: :cool:

I earned 200+ reps after being here for less than 3 months. It's really not that hard to accumulate a number of rep points if you have good posts/comments.

And it doesn't matter how many rep points people have, it was abused by many. And the "many" included seasoned (privileged) members. The mods & Mr. SD tried & discussed many different ideas on how to make it work, but most of the privileged members couldn't handle the responsibility, so it was revoked.

Just curious, what was really considered abusing? What was happening in general that caused it to be taken away?

Just curious, what was really considered abusing? What was happening in general that caused it to be taken away?


People ganging up on one person to nerp them to oblivion.

members were nerping others irresponsibly

People ganging up on one person to nerp them to oblivion.

If there was a higher required rep count that was needed to nerp, dont you think there would be a lesser way to "gang up" to nerp someone? Because, mostly in the Hot Deals, its made up of a lot of newer users, so having a "gang" wouldn't or couldn't really happen. Nerps would come from more respected SDers which could actually help to give the user advice as a post doesn't necessary cut it completly. I mean, I would hope someone with 200 (or whatever the count of reps would be) would be able to have some self-control to actually not start to start a riot, posting everywhere saying "NERP HIM! HE CALLED THE COMPANY!" etc. But, he would be able to send a little nerp his way and let him know for next time.

Why couldn't any user found trying to so to say "gang up" lose this ability? Such as you lose your nerping ability just as being banned. You abuse it, you lose it for a certain amount of time such as a week or so. Than it acts as a strike system. You get 3 chances, if you abuse it 3 times, its gone for good. Or something similar. Obviously you are going to have "some" abuse when you impliment a feature. You can guarantee that, but if you layed out the rules, set out guidelines, setup an abuse system, and where able to get it setup where you would have to be a certain set amount of rep points to get this feature, why couldn't it be put back into play? If you get 200 reps, you obviously either where able to put back into the SD community by posting a deal, and/or helping people out. And it all depends on the user.

I know Kel_Be you mentioned about it only taking 3 months to get 200 reps, but it took me close to a year. All users aren't going to be the same in the amount they achieve this, but EVEN in 3 months, you are able to learn a lot from SD and get an idea of the rules, guidelines, etc. I still think it could be setup in order to avoid abuse, but get it to actually work where it could be a very cool feature.

Obviously almost everything gets abused, thumbs up/down feature, rep points, etc, but if you just got rid of everything because it was abused, then your really not solving much, just eliminating the whole problem. Posting gets abused all the time, should we eliminate posting because of this? No, of course not. You find ways, (such as warning points, banning, etc) to work around it, while still keeping the feature intact. I think nerps should be a priviledge to hard working Slickdealers that should be available. :nod:

it wasn't just ganging up.

the point of nerps were to keep rep inflation down.

but that wasn't what was happening. people took a nerp waaay to personally, and in revenge nerped anyone who nerped them. then there were other users who made their own set of rules and nerped anyone who didn't follow them. there was also gang nerping, someone posts something in the lounge where someone says something stupid to a regular and posts a link. then the lounge has their back and all nerps said person.

it wasn't working the way we wanted to, and just causing more headaches than it was worth.

Gang nerping? Dang. Perhaps each person should be alloted the sum total of one allowable nerp a year. Make it count, as they say.

How about allowing nerps that are pre-qualified? Meaning, in order to leave a nerp, you would need to give your reason to a mod first? If the mod approved, you could submit it. If not...no nerp!

How about allowing nerps that are pre-qualified? Meaning, in order to leave a nerp, you would need to give your reason to a mod first? If the mod approved, you could submit it. If not...no nerp!
i don't think that the rep system has a moderation queue available, and even so, its hard to make a call without knowing the full story.

if its to the point mods need to intervene, id rather have users mod alert the posts. warnings and such for breaking rules is much more effective.

if its to the point mods need to intervene, id rather have users mod alert the posts. warnings and such for breaking rules is much more effective.
Not to mention, most of the "deserved" nerps should be getting warned vs being nerped.

i don't think that the rep system has a moderation queue available, and even so, its hard to make a call without knowing the full story.

if its to the point mods need to intervene, id rather have users mod alert the posts. warnings and such for breaking rules is much more effective.


Okey dokey :)

Some people want to add all sort of stuff to discourage people from posting deals. IMO people will stop posting deals for the fear of some backlash and there are some members who never ever post a good deal but just go around thrashin people who really post some deals in the good mind of helpin other people.

Some people want to add all sort of stuff to discourage people from posting deals. IMO people will stop posting deals for the fear of some backlash and there are some members who never ever post a good deal but just go around thrashin people who really post some deals in the good mind of helpin other people.

I know what you are saying...........I want NERPS back.........maybe one NERP allowed per 20 REPS given to you........

people who call on deals or even joke about calling on deals SHOULD BE gang nerped.

Negative Reps were removed because people were taking advantage of them.

I never did get to nerp anyone. I just didn't want to.

In the Lounge it was sugested that to nerp you had to give up a rep.

That would make you think twice if you had to give one up to nerp someone.

I would go for this.

In the Lounge it was sugested that to nerp you had to give up a rep.

That would make you think twice if you had to give one up to nerp someone.

I would go for this.


:iagree:

Or make it be a minimum of 300 reps to qualify..

<----- :cough: :cough:

WTF is a nerp?

WTF is a nerp?
Negative reputation.

50 Nerps should = 1 Nerp

A formula like that would cut way down on the abuse.

See....

it wasn't just ganging up.

the point of nerps were to keep rep inflation down.

but that wasn't what was happening. people took a nerp waaay to personally, and in revenge nerped anyone who nerped them. then there were other users who made their own set of rules and nerped anyone who didn't follow them. there was also gang nerping, someone posts something in the lounge where someone says something stupid to a regular and posts a link. then the lounge has their back and all nerps said person.

it wasn't working the way we wanted to, and just causing more headaches than it was worth.

But it was fun that way. Apple and I got into a squabble but it was no big deal.

Bring them back! at least for people with more than 500 reps. :D

But it was fun that way. Apple and I got into a squabble but it was no big deal.

Bring them back! at least for people with more than 500 reps. :D

..........or at least 437!! :lol: ;)

I nerp the idea of nerps.

Why such a huge empahsis on reps?

If people contribute, they'll gain reps, and if they don't, they won't. That's pretty simple.

You know what's worse than someone who posts a deal you don't like or says, "I called the store?"

It's the visitor who never posts - yet he'd never get a nerp.

The fact that some folks seem so emotional about reps/nerps lends credence to the fear that nerps would be abused. It sounds like there are people who really want to get their hands on a nerp tool so they can pound a few posters into submission.

Rep points are not really valuable, folks. Chill.

The problem with NERPs is that SD has a less mature audience than other boards that use something similar to a nerp or demerit.

Not ragging on SD, as I still like SD, but the fact is we have too many babies and A-holes.

I nerp the idea of nerps.

Why such a huge empahsis on reps?

If people contribute, they'll gain reps, and if they don't, they won't. That's pretty simple.

You know what's worse than someone who posts a deal you don't like or says, "I called the store?"

It's the visitor who never posts - yet he'd never get a nerp.

The fact that some folks seem so emotional about reps/nerps lends credence to the fear that nerps would be abused. It sounds like there are people who really want to get their hands on a nerp tool so they can pound a few posters into submission.

Rep points are not really valuable, folks. Chill.

Not trying to pick, but if reps are "not that valuable, why are yours enabled? I am just crurious :)

50 Nerps should = 1 Nerp

A formula like that would cut way down on the abuse.

See....
Can we call the formula the nerpul?

I nerp the idea of nerps.
You know what's worse than someone who posts a deal you don't like or says, "I called the store?"


I may have taken this the wrong way and I'm not trying to start anything because I like your views and opinions on most things, but is there really a problem with people calling the store about some deals? Sometimes it is beneficial to find out information....I know sometimes people bug the hell out of CSMs and such because they are impatient but if it is to find out if a deal is legit or something like that, then it wouldn't really be a problem. Sometimes I think people should call in some cases but never do because they are afraid they will lose out on a deal if the store knows they are looking for it.

btw, I joined post-nerp but I really don't see the point, the thumbs up/thumbs down gets abused enough without having someone giving bad reps just b/c they don't like that person, etc

Instead of something like this, why not just give constructive criticism in the post to help the OP figure out what was wrong and how to better their postings.

This is not fully intended at you, but at the OP too, Sorry