1) Are you suggesting I do. I was making a point of principle, based on the consistent application of set standards. Why do you have to interpret that as something petty?
2) TBH, I'm not really sure to say about that. On the one hand, I haven't actually seen it so can't comment on it's inherent
craziness or otherwise. On the other hand, for nine posters to <DISAGREE> with you on one post on a ratings thread does actually suggest that there was something outlandish or unreasonable about it in some way that you have failed to recognise. I could be wrong, of course...if you give me a link I will have a look and see if I can make sense of it for you.
3) That is slightly different to my meaning. If one person gave you a neg in a way that seemed unreasonable, then I would say, for the sake of the consistent application of the agreed standard, maybe you should have done. But for nine posters to do so, again, suggests that it was something more than you saying
Player X had a good game when it was only average. The main part of my point being that if you get one unreasable neg then, in my opinion, as it is a <DISAGREE> over a reasonable subjective opinion, it is apparent that you disagree with the negger, also, and it is only fair to apply the same standard for consistency sake. But if you get lots of negs on one post you do look kinda pathetic negging everyone that negged you because it doesn't show up much for them, whereas it does for you, and you look like a feeble child shaking your fist at the teachers for giving you an F on your report. And, again, for nine (NINE) posters to neg you over one ratings post suggest that you didn't just state a bare opinion on performance as Omar did in his post, here.
4) I disagree. There is nothing childish and petty in ensuring an agreed standard is adhered to. To me, what is petty is the giving of negs, ever, on subjective opinions about players when you could discuss them, instead, and this is, after all, a place for discussion.
5) Meaning? I've took far more than <DISAGREE> on the chin in my life, you aren't a superior being or holding any moral ground jsut because you didn't make yourself look foolish in negging nine (NINE - can't get over that) posters in retaliation, for what seems to have been something that must have riled people in some way.
6) Well, if all you did was gave a fair assessment of the game, they should have explained why not, and I would have been the first to defend you on those grounds. If all you did was list players and grade their performance, or stated that player X, Y or Z had a good, bad or indifferent game, even if I totally disagreed with your assessment, I would ahve said it smacked of cyber-bullying for so many members to neg you at the same time. But, again, I can't really say whether it was a wholly outlandish post or not, because I haven't seen it. Bearing in mind, of course, that there would be a big difference between you saying Dembele earned a 5, and just average, against Reading if I thought it was more like 7, on the one hand, and you saying he was an anonymous

and giving him a 1 (in which case I would probably grade it <DUMB>, too, as being totally outlandish).
7) Was it? Why was it? Was it because you
did say something totally outlandish? Or because you don't see that the whole system
will actually become something petty and childish if it isn't applied consistently?
8) And I comment, on that basis only, to explain why it is problematic doing so, without any background information. Shock horror. Now, if it transpires that your post that got nine (NINE

) negs was wholly outlandish, whereas there is nothing outlandish in Omar's post whether you disagree with it or not, I would say my point stands - there was no reason to give Omar a neg. If, on the other hand, you said nothing outlandish and yet still got nine negs, I would again say it seems a bit like cyber-bullying.
9) I explained in the post you quote why it is problematic. I also suggest you visit the thread discussing the rating system where you will find a debate discussing these issues, and more, in detail.
10)
A: If your only reason for rating Omar's post as <DUMB> when it clearly wasn't was because he rated your post as such elsewhere, then you are being a bit more vengeful than you pretend. Especially if there is nothing <DUMB> about his post (I can't see anything) but there was something outlandish about yours (the one that got NINE negs

).
B: Sorry, but that doesn't actually make sense: he gave you a neg there (earlier on the linear time scale), in
response to something you did
here later on the linear time scale?
11) Neither am I, are you implying I am? I've argued the piont on a range of issues here, where I was virtually the only one taking a given line. But the key point word here is
argued - I am happy and willing to debate my viewpoint, I don't see the need to give negs to every single subjective opinion that disagrees with mine.
12) See 11, above - are you suggesting I
am only here to
blow smoke up anyone's arse, or have it blown up mine? I have taken a stance on some issues when seemingly the whole forum disagreed with me. I just don't see the point in distorting and potentially destroying the forum by misapplying the rating system. It is much more conducive to harmony to give a positive to someone who does agree with your viewpoint, if that was all that was at issue, here, than to indulge in petty vendettas.
13) I agree. You don't seem to have done this here. And, as suggested in 12, above, if everyone just rates every single, simple subjective opinion they disagree with as negative the place will soon descend into a chaos of petty vendettas and confrontations.
Again, I would suggest you check out the ratings thread, and take your discussion there...or, if you did say something utlandish elsewhere (to earn NINE negs on one post) then finally just accpet that, rather than carrying a righteous anger at everyone who pointed this out to you, into other threads.
Sorry, Bear, to intrude on a personal disagreement, but the fella was agreeing with me, and I never said that Naughton had some kind of
perfect game, just that he was one of many who I would put on a similar grading (perhaps reflecting how much of a team game it was last night), and on that basis I would give him MOM largely because I think there is too much crap being spouted on this forum about a young player appearing in the team for the first time and playing out of position, who has played reasonably well. And this is something that has carried over from the season before last, when certain posters where, basically saying
crap, sell/will never make it as an EPL player, when they could hardly have seen him play and therefore have any idea of how good (or otherwise he would be).
You might disagree with making him MOM on that basis, which is fair enough, or even that he was one of several players on similar grades, which, again, is fair enough, but there is nothing
mental about it at all.
Also, he may have hung back on occasion (do you know what instructions he was given?), but it is just not true that he didn't get forward or that he was ineffective when he did.