In addition to above points I would like to make following points
1. By Thursday evening PCH quarterly reports out and was heated discussion on the forum on that. It is not a secret that in which anti-PCHs got + rep and pro got -. Thus, by Monday (locking date of rep), it is reasonable to expect that anti-PCHs got higher reps. In this context by locking by Monday has effectively awarded domination of the forum to anti-PCHs.
This is unfair, as I believe
i. Everyone should have fair privileges if it is a good forum.
ii. Opinions may be right or wrong. Thus there might be a day our current thinking is proved to be wrong (I still think PCH is overvalued).
2. This is like asking hints form thief's mother (horage ammagen pena ahanawa wage). Those with negative reps continue to have negatives and positives with positives.
3. Getting one top poster many negatives prior to locking is not a valid argument to continue locking. As a top poster may be disliked by community. Number of posts is not equal to reputation. Further respect is drastically different from reputation which should be earned.
4. To prove some of these points, look at profiles of top posters. There is one among top five posters who has given 237 negative reps compared to 134 positives. My question is to where this positives went and most importantly to where the negatives went.
Do you want to make this another investnow?
My suggestion is to give quota of 5 reps (either positive or negative) per day for every member. So that they will use scarce resources wisely.
Last edited by Academic on Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:13 pm; edited 4 times in total (Reason for editing : interchanged pro and anti. Corrected a typo as pointed out by npp. And added per day in the final sentence. Inserted "some of" to 4th point. Now read as "To prove some of these points".)