For those of you that don't care about the issue between Jim_Mich and I, you need not waste your time reading this.
Unless you're curious about the finer details. :-)
===== ===== =====
All 3 of your statements are true. Both of my quoted statements are true.
In case you missed it; you'll find in his PM reply, that my running a poll was his idea.
and then jim_mich wrote:And the pole ran only about one day, a time I consider way too short.
First part - Technically, not true. The poll is still running, it's still accepting votes.
It was about 40 hours after I authored this thread that Scott posted that he had made his changes. HIS changes.
NOT the changes that I proposed and the majority had voted for.
Landslide result, I might add. . . . . <---- that's a joke. You know, ha ha (?)
Second part - Actually, Jim, I agree with you. I feel that Scott should have waited at least one or two weeks before taking action, to allow enough 'occasional log-ins' to see the poll and participate.
and then jim_mich wrote:And it is obvious many of you have hit me with red dots.
I have never punched anyone's red. Tempted? Oh, yeah. Punched? Never. Yet.
[funny - they're called greenies, but not red-ies]
and then jim_mich wrote:It takes only three green dots to become Acknowledged.
[Assuming that the figures on the Statistics and FAQ pages are correct]
No rep = 986 - 1010 points -- give 4 points for punching greenie - take 3 points for punching red
33 members at Acknowledged = 1011 - 1040 -- 5 greenie - 4 red
6 members at Appreciated = 1041 - 1070 -- 6 greenie - 4 red
1 members at Respected = 1071 - 1110 -- 8 greenie - 6 red
No members with a Well Respected rating, as I write this.
and then jim_mich wrote:And I know I've been given many more than three green dots, So it is the red dots that busted me back down to Reputation none.
First part - I am curious how you would "know" that you've been given more than three - and I presume you mean greenie punches? "Dots", I believe, refers to the actual rep bar representations, doesn't it?
Second part - Logical. And, like I said before, not my doing.
and then jim_mich wrote:Do you honestly think Scott would have changed and reset the Rep system without you making the request?
Jim, that can be taken at least 2 different ways.
[I swear, you are the Master Of Splitting Hairs when it comes to your writings. I oughta call ya Jim_mosh :-D]
First - If you are saying; if I hadn't run the poll, Scott wouldn't have made changes because of it, that's true. Of course.
But that does not eliminate the possibility that he might have - at any point in time - made the same or other changes, right out of the blue. Unlikely, yes. Impossible, no.
[and now for the one that ticks me off, and makes me waste my time creating this post]
Second - If you are insinuating that I had ANY INFLUENCE with Scott's decision making process, you are wrong.
The two changes that he made were his choice.
Scott wrote:As a starting point, I like the idea of preventing zero post members from using the reputation system.
That was suggested by other members, NOT ME.
Scott wrote:... all reputations have been set back to zero.
NO ONE requested or even suggested neutralizing everyone's reputation. It was a surprise to me, just like everybody else. He made that decision unilaterally, despite telling me in his PM reply that he didn't like doing so.
Now, you've mentioned my three year old PM with Scott a couple of times. I get the feeling that you suspect that I'm hiding some detail. If that's the case, you are dead wrong. The only interaction that I've had with Scott is by posts that I've made here on the Forums of this Board, and via PM.
Below, is a copy and paste of the message that I originally sent him [and his reply, for your convenience]. If I could forward you the actual message that's still in my Savebox, I would. This will have to suffice. It is all of, and the only, PM exchange between Scott and I that discussed sockpuppets or the rep system.
N.B. - The ONLY thing deleted from it is my last name from the signature. That is fact.
