DKellis

Close: I mentioned poster registration date, which makes the argument more "if post count and poster history don't matter, then neither should reputation", with the assumption on my part that poster registration date is directly linked to poster history.

The premise may be utterly broken, but since I don't know why, I'm just going to file it away as "agree to disagree" until it's brought back out to be rehashed.

The point of all this is that yes, you may be partly the reason for the "Forum Cartel" title, but I don't see what bearing it has on anything other than an academic study of the history of the forum. The original negative rep comment "Look, if you like WoW so much, go play that and stop trolling our boards" is indeed rude and in my opinion uncalled for, but the response you gave in public here of "Does no one remember their history?" implies to me that you expect this history to be self-evident without elaboration on how it applies to the argument at hand.

You did mention that these are not "your" forums, just as it is not "their" forums. I interpreted this as saying that these forums are somehow "more" yours than theirs, because you named the 10k posts title. Which, since postcounts are supposed to be irrelevant, makes it seem like an odd justification.

Which doesn't really prove much. Certainly not to the point of the question "Does no one remember their history?" What history is this in particular, and why should it matter?

After countless arguments on the (old) forums about the irrelevance of post counts and forum registration dates, I would assume that the history of various posters would also not be relevant to any meaningful discussion.

No stranger than news being on the forum instead of the main site.

What, really? What criteria for "good" are you using?

Back Alley Brawler seems to think so.

EDIT: Dammit, Zikar.

People with zero rep either way have a lighter grey than people who have turned off their rep.

Unfortunately I don't have an example screenshotted or some such.

Why?

I keep expecting this sort of thing to be answered by "yes, Friend Computer..."

I think it was the one at the beginning of the first game. The one which went something like "oh, We appear to have been on a drunken bender, and We broke the stars... but it felt s-o g-o-o-d. *heart*"

Well, I laughed.

Reading through the posts about the new forums and the rep system, I've noticed that the people who would have otherwise gotten a lot of negative rep (mainly through being less than polite when posting) have already disabled theirs, so anyone with actual negative rep is likely not actually a bad poster, but has just been neg-repped for no real reason.

This is actually one of the vague suspicions I have about the whole "new forum account is current game account" thing.

A runner-up for awesome forum feature for me would be a much easier way to obtain the link for individual posts.

"Post is devoid of meaningful communication", perhaps? I see it as akin to reporting a glitched blank/empty post: the poster wanted to say something, but circumstances prevented them from communicating the message effectively. They are always free to try again; meanwhile, the mods can clear away the deadwood.

I've seen several. Usually they start something like "judging by your post count", and depending on what that post count actually is, may branch into "you need a life" or "you're too new to know what you're talking about".