Look, I do NOT agree that the ratings I earned up til now -positive OR negative - are devalued becasue of the cost of a rating point.
When someone gave me a point because they appreciated something I did for them, I didn't do the math and say to myself "Look, someone loves me a whole buck's worth!"
I didn’t carry myself any differently before than after the increase. 100 ratings is NOT 100 Lindens worth of ratings. It’s 100 times another person said “Hmmm. That’s a Good Thing.”
I never went to rating parties (except for my unwitting attendance at that neg-rating party in Jessie where I was apparently guest-of-honor), or rated someone to get them to rate me, or even gave someone three points when I was really rating behavior. So, I’m a bit alarmed to hear people say my ratings are now “worth” less. If I wanted my ratings to have a monetary worth, I’d have handed out cash – which, by the way, I have done on occasion!
Maybe people should have been more honest about the ratings they gave out before. I tried to be. But, even if they were not honest, why should MY ratings be devalued?
I’m beginning to wonder if this is a clever way of destroying the rating system completely. Not that I would miss it, but I’d prefer an open, clean axe more than a gradual sabotage. If the Lindens have decided that there be no artificial boost to socialization, then they should send the rating system the same place as the points-for-calling-cards went.
I’d much prefer some sort of tax (yes, we used to have taxes) than to have the rating system monetarized.
Kill the system dead, or leave it alone. I see NO justification for comparing prior ratings to current ones just because the Lindens chose to meddle in the system for their own – UNRELATED – economic purposes.
When someone gave me a point because they appreciated something I did for them, I didn't do the math and say to myself "Look, someone loves me a whole buck's worth!"
I didn’t carry myself any differently before than after the increase. 100 ratings is NOT 100 Lindens worth of ratings. It’s 100 times another person said “Hmmm. That’s a Good Thing.”
I never went to rating parties (except for my unwitting attendance at that neg-rating party in Jessie where I was apparently guest-of-honor), or rated someone to get them to rate me, or even gave someone three points when I was really rating behavior. So, I’m a bit alarmed to hear people say my ratings are now “worth” less. If I wanted my ratings to have a monetary worth, I’d have handed out cash – which, by the way, I have done on occasion!
Maybe people should have been more honest about the ratings they gave out before. I tried to be. But, even if they were not honest, why should MY ratings be devalued?
I’m beginning to wonder if this is a clever way of destroying the rating system completely. Not that I would miss it, but I’d prefer an open, clean axe more than a gradual sabotage. If the Lindens have decided that there be no artificial boost to socialization, then they should send the rating system the same place as the points-for-calling-cards went.
I’d much prefer some sort of tax (yes, we used to have taxes) than to have the rating system monetarized.
Kill the system dead, or leave it alone. I see NO justification for comparing prior ratings to current ones just because the Lindens chose to meddle in the system for their own – UNRELATED – economic purposes.
Kathy, yes, I agree, If your ratings are actually earned, and not whored (not implying yours are), then yes, they are still meaningful.
However when I see a two month old resident with 600+ ratings I have to wonder.
