|
|
Post by dana on Oct 12, 2005 11:32:02 GMT -5
and i thought robs posts couldnt get any worse
|
|
|
|
Post by C a r l a on Oct 12, 2005 11:32:12 GMT -5
Robb dont make me hate u
|
|
|
|
Post by shelli on Oct 12, 2005 11:34:50 GMT -5
its not about the quality of your posts, its about the popularity contest going on between the people who seem to do nothing with their lives but frequent this site. NOW SMITE ME!! Maybe I'm wrong, and I probably shouldn't get in the middle of this, but does popularity not usually equate to how nice a person you are??  Popular people = well liked ppl = nice/kind/interesting ppl Peoples post usually reflect their personality, which people either like (which makes them popular) or dislike (which makes them unpopular), Therefor the quality of your posts is directly affected by your popularity. |
|
|
|
Post by C a r l a on Oct 12, 2005 11:37:58 GMT -5
i think the point dana is trying to make is dat u dont give a shit bout being involved in a popularity contest which is obviously gonna be dominated by the ppl who are on here the most.
For example i know that it only took maybe 2 ppl and their secret alias on here to smite me 14 times yesterday.dat doesnt mean im unpopular or unliked it means i pissed 2 ppl off or maybe even just 1 and the other followed like a sheep?
|
|
|
|
Post by dana on Oct 12, 2005 11:38:23 GMT -5
i think my posts are quite good quality though, dont you? i enjoy 'em anyway!
|
|
|
|
Post by C a r l a on Oct 12, 2005 11:39:53 GMT -5
and they definately keep the masses entertained my darlin
|
|
|
|
Post by shelli on Oct 12, 2005 11:41:19 GMT -5
i think the point dana is trying to make is dat u dont give a shit bout being involved in a popularity contest which is obviously gonna be dominated by the ppl who are on here the most. For example i know that it only took maybe 2 ppl and their secret alias on here to smite me 14 times yesterday.dat doesnt mean im unpopular or unliked it means i pissed 2 ppl off or maybe even just 1 and the other followed like a sheep? Aha, so something you posted pissed sumone off, so the content/quality of your post lost you karma points? |
|
|
|
Post by dana on Oct 12, 2005 11:43:24 GMT -5
im gettin confused now.....
|
|
|
|
Post by C a r l a on Oct 12, 2005 11:45:05 GMT -5
i think the point dana is trying to make is dat u dont give a shit bout being involved in a popularity contest which is obviously gonna be dominated by the ppl who are on here the most. For example i know that it only took maybe 2 ppl and their secret alias on here to smite me 14 times yesterday.dat doesnt mean im unpopular or unliked it means i pissed 2 ppl off or maybe even just 1 and the other followed like a sheep? Aha, so something you posted pissed sumone off, so the conent/quality of your post lost you karma ponts? na i pissed sum1 off and they were pathetic enough to take it out on my karma and think id care and whoever their sidekick was decided that because they couldnt think of anything better to do theyd just follow suit |
|
|
|
Post by dana on Oct 12, 2005 11:48:20 GMT -5
not trying to be a bitch or anything but you all have to admit the karma was getting out of hand. look at fiona sure. now my excellent game shall prove a peaceful solution!!
|
|
|
|
Post by shelli on Oct 12, 2005 11:48:56 GMT -5
OK, but my original post made no referance to wether or not you cared about your Karma
Dana made a point that Karma points are a popularity contest and nothing to do with the quality of posts, I simply disagreed saying that you cannot seperate the 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by C a r l a on Oct 12, 2005 11:50:06 GMT -5
yeah this way it cant be used as a hurtful thing.those who are insecure enough to care can have their karma and those who dont get free drink if they are good enough or sud i say bad enough?
|
|
|
|
Post by dana on Oct 12, 2005 11:52:10 GMT -5
they are and they're not, i suppose... i mean if you have mates on this when you join you're gonna get loads more points than someone who signed up knowing no-one (like i knew no-one but Shell and Tom, but everyone else knew each other ages etc.)
|
|
|
|
Post by C a r l a on Oct 12, 2005 11:52:19 GMT -5
OK, but my original post made no referance to wether or not you cared about your Karma Dana made a point that Karma points are a popularity contest and nothing to do with the quality of posts, I simply disagreed saying that you cannot seperate the 2. but the point is even if we are happy to participate in a popularity contest its nt a fair 1 wen ppl have alias and cant think for themselves on who to vote for and use other ppls reasons and wen sum ppl spend all day everyday on this thing their views are gonna have more impact then other ppls,especially if they just decide to be vendictive like with fiona |
|
|
|
Post by dana on Oct 12, 2005 11:54:28 GMT -5
the game takes the hurtful element out of it! everyones a winner!
|
|
|
|
Post by C a r l a on Oct 12, 2005 12:01:52 GMT -5
and i get a scrouge like dana buying me drink at the end of it ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by shelli on Oct 13, 2005 3:51:35 GMT -5
[ but the point is even if we are happy to participate in a popularity contest its nt a fair 1 wen ppl have alias and cant think for themselves on who to vote for and use other ppls reasons Someone has to have a reason in the first place, and of course their friends are gonna back them up. If you don't even know someone your not gonna smite them for nothing, only if they post something you dont like, same goes for exhalting. Again, your popularity on the forum is based on your posts. |
|
|
|
Post by tom on Oct 13, 2005 3:55:12 GMT -5
We need a new tread
|
|
|
|
Post by C a r l a on Oct 13, 2005 3:57:43 GMT -5
sounds more like ppl who cant think for themselves to me,but hey dats just my opinion |
|
|
|
Post by shelli on Oct 13, 2005 3:57:59 GMT -5
Aw, I haven't had a good debate in ages!
|
|
