Quoting Rico:

Quote:
Confusion seems to exist as very few good stars seem to be occurring at the "Gen Discussion" while negative stars are cast, because well I don't like him/her & disagree therefore I'll give a negative star.

Take Care
Rico

Actually I wouldn't expect many positive votes to be cast in the general discussion - I would more likely expect these to be shown when someone makes a real effort to help someone with a problem or tries to reduce tension in a thread etc.

I appreciate your humourous posts in the general discussion but I would expect that someone like Goodguy who goes out of his way to produces really useful plugins would get more positive stars - purely because he is helping to make everybodies life easier with dvd profiler.

Hi Guys,

I've had 3 negative stars removed from 3 different threads, so individual negative stars have been erased. So if they find it it can be removed, point it out, sorry!

As I stated not enough time was given to defining good & bad stars & what merits there giving. We can only wonder if the stars designer, intended for greater emphasis, to be placed in one forum versus another. If I gave bad stars, you would have gotten one for your "Agreed" to the collateral damage thing, Paul.

The time honored system for policing forums (cause it works) are moderators. Policing by committee/stars, results in innocents (collateral damage) being hurt.

Take Care
Rico

I understood the video when I watched it.  You are the one who needs to learn your facts.  It was a British judge who ordered the disclaimer.

Quoting pauls42:

Quote:
Quoting Lord Of The Sith:

Quote:
An inconvenient truth has already been proven as bull by some of the top scientists in the world.  The film is so bad that in some theaters in England there is actually a disclaimer at the beginning, that evidence does not point to the films conclusions. There is one other thing the video leaves out.  I do not have a degree in climatology, but I do possess degrees in both Social Services and Psychology.  I know for a FACT that a GLOBAL DEPRESSION that dwarfs the 1930's will also breed armed conflict that will make WWI and WWII combined look like a picnic.  When people are starving and their children are crying because their bellies are empty, they will do anything for food, including kill their neighbors who they used to be friends with. 

what a load of crap. The overall message of the film has not been 'proven as bull' by some of the top scientists. Instead it has been agreed that the overall message is correct but that some of the minor details are still unknown.

It's only scientists bought by the great polluters in the US who are trying to deny global warming. Thankfully the rest of the world knows that action must be taken - what a shame that the US president was bought off with the use of campaign contributions and has so far avoided making any contribution to the work being done by other nations.

You should play the video again, you don't seem to have understood it after the first viewing.

Quoting Lord Of The Sith:

Quote:

All in all, I believe that some investment is necessary and that we need to figure out some solutions.  I do not believe that we need to bankrupt the world economy or dump ever penny into a fund  to fix what may be the natural course of things.

If the investment in making the necessary changes had been done in 1980 - when this was first discussed then the cost would have been marginal.

But naturally it was seen as politically inconvenient to spend anything by governments - much better to leave it to the next govt to fix..

We have now run out of time.

Quoting Rico:

Quote:
Hi Guys

Quote:

War and a DVD forum are hardly comparable.

Indeed! However it is never acceptable behavior to have an innocent suffer, while going after bad behavior. 

Take Care
Rico

As has been explained, several times,  nobody will suffer from the odd negative vote.  Only people who get multiple negative votes, on a single post, will feel the effect.

Quoting Rico:

Quote:
Hi Guys,

I've had 3 negative stars removed from 3 different threads, so individual negative stars have been erased. So if they find it it can be removed, point it out, sorry!

As I stated not enough time was given to defining good & bad stars & what merits there giving. We can only wonder if the stars designer, intended for greater emphasis, to be placed in one forum versus another. If I gave bad stars, you would have gotten one for your "Agreed" to the collateral damage thing, Paul.

The time honored system for policing forums (cause it works) are moderators. Policing by committee/stars, results in innocents (collateral damage) being hurt.

Take Care
Rico

why would you have given me a negative star for my agreeing that we can sometimes receive unwarranted negative stars and that we should just accept this since we want the positive effect?

Quoting Rico:

Quote:

...it is never acceptable behavior to have an innocent suffer, while going after bad behavior.

Since this was posted in response to something I wrote, I'll reply even though Unicus and Martin's already addressed the same point:

There's no innocent suffering going on here. Individual negative votes do not impact your score. There needs to be an onslaught of them for them to mean anything.

KM

Quoting northbloke:

Quote:
I think it's the phrase "collateral damage" that Rico is objecting to because it has it's origins as a military term.

I already suggested using a different term, but he didn't comment on that, so I suspect it's not the term but rather the overall philosophy of "unfortunate side-effects" that he is objecting too.

Like northbloke's already said, correct me if I'm wrong.

KM

GoooooD Morning Invelos,

Comparing the the pain involved is not my point (Iraq death to Invelos negative star) what we strive for as civilized people, is to do the right thing. We punish bad behavior & reward good, I find it unacceptable to go after wrong doer's, knowing that innocents will be harmed. Okay! Now you say no harm was caused by the negative star, that's your assumption, of others. Quite unfair! How about this for another example. Tuna fisherman constantly snare dolphins in there nets. Just a little collateral damage. The correct action of the fisherman, would be to throw 'flipper' the mammal back into the water, & not have tuna/dolphin sandwich.

If you can justify 'Collateral Damage' this time, does it become a little easier next time to also justify? Another question you might ask yourselves, when is it ok to lie. Is it ok to lie if its a little lie, vesrsus a big lie (you get to act a judge now). Or just when is it acceptable to lie?

Next how one dark star, adversley affects the Invelos community!

Take Care Amigos
Rico