26 May 05
Originally posted by WulebgrHey Wooly Dude!
I've been a paying member here for under one month, yet nearly half of my recs in the forums have come in that time.
How many folks refuse to give a rec because the poster is a cheapo free member?
I don't think it's a matter of elitism.
Some like me just snicker at cheap "Chimp Credits".
Others take them seriously, and measure their rank in the tribe of chimps based on implied support as indicated by "Rec Count".
What kind of world is that?
I hate to get them. They indicate that I have not "righteously made indignant" enough average chimps.
But have one on me. I will give all your posts a rec in future. Will that mean anything?
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by WulebgrI kind of think of recs like that Drew Carrie show "whose line is it
If all thought as you, I might not have joined.
anyway?" where the players like Brady act out an impov and get
points where Carrie says, "the players get points but they mean
absolutely nothing" At least with the rating points you kind of
know how you stand on the chess pecking order but the rec points?
Someone says, I like that post, I'll give it a rec. So what. Does
your membership go up one month longer if you get ten rec's or
something? If not, whats the big deal?
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by sonhouseI care more for my recs than I do my rating.
I kind of think of recs like that Drew Carrie show "whose line is it
anyway?" where the players like Brady act out an impov and get
points where Carrie says, "the players get points but they mean
absolutely nothing" At least with the rating points you kind of
know how you stand on the chess pecking order but the rec points?
Someone says, I like ...[text shortened]... mbership go up one month longer if you get ten rec's or
something? If not, whats the big deal?