Author Topic: Karma is back?? (Read 24024 times)

TucTom · « **on:** July 28, 2015, 11:57:12 AM »

I couldn't help but notice the Karma feature is back. Is this on purpose?

gryphon · « **Reply #1 on:** July 28, 2015, 01:58:16 PM »

Don't know, but if I find out who re-enabled it I'm going to give them bad Karma.

TucTom · « **Reply #2 on:** July 28, 2015, 02:45:46 PM »

Dan I will cheer you just for the news articles you post. Ah heck, I'll cheer you again just because you still use the forums!

TeMpTiN · « **Reply #3 on:** July 28, 2015, 09:59:01 PM »

Interesting,

autosurgeon · « **Reply #4 on:** July 28, 2015, 10:15:36 PM »

It's a way for people to like things without having to post or to show agreement

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

CitizensHaveRights · « **Reply #5 on:** July 28, 2015, 11:31:44 PM »

I just destroyed Pat's perfect balance for the Unemployment Office story.

EDIT 7:00AM : Now he's 143/143, somebody Jeered him already.

autosurgeon · « **Reply #6 on:** July 29, 2015, 01:14:06 AM »

ROFL

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

part deux · « **Reply #7 on:** July 29, 2015, 11:58:45 AM »

Quote from: CitizensHaveRights on July 28, 2015, 11:31:44 PM

I just destroyed Pat's perfect balance for the Unemployment Office story.

EDIT 7:00AM : Now he's 143/143, somebody Jeered him already.

huh?

CitizensHaveRights · « **Reply #8 on:** July 29, 2015, 12:09:24 PM »

CV67PAT had 142 cheers and 142 jeers when karma came back.
In searching for forum topics about Karma to see why it went away in the first place, I stumbled across his Unemployment Office post:
https://forums.miopencarry.org/index.php/topic,1910.0/all.html

So I cheered that post, raising him to +143/-142 and upsetting the balance.

By 7am, somebody had jeered him to restore the balance at +143/-143.
Must be one of those sock puppets, eh, Pat? (LOL)

gryphon · « **Reply #9 on:** July 29, 2015, 12:11:01 PM »

Quote from: CitizensHaveRights on July 28, 2015, 11:31:44 PM

I just destroyed Pat's perfect balance

He's the reason I have -77. He didn't much like me I don't think.

gryphon · « **Reply #10 on:** July 29, 2015, 12:13:20 PM »

Quote from: autosurgeon on July 28, 2015, 10:15:36 PM

It's a way for people to like things without having to post or to show agreement

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Except it doesn't work that way. There's no way to know that the "cheer" is attached to any particular post or even a thread. It's an overall "I like you, you said something good one time in the last six years" or "You're an a-hole."

CitizensHaveRights · « **Reply #11 on:** July 29, 2015, 12:57:06 PM »

At Arboristsite, which uses a different forum software package, they disabled 'dislikes' a couple of years ago, but underneath each post it names the users who liked it.

Like this:

robfromaz1977, stillhunter, Stihlasaurus and 3 other persons like this.

mikestilly · « **Reply #12 on:** July 30, 2015, 01:06:54 PM »

I found the following remarks interesting: "Just like my rights to lawfully use property I lease isn't affected by the property owner's edicts, the State's right to establish or maintain it's own laws doesn't change when it leases property." ~Pat

Unfortunately you are bound to the lease agreement and rules of the owner of the property. When you lease a property everyone is bound by the same rules that is set by the property owner. If you lease property and the property owner chooses to ban firearms from the premise you have 2 options 1.) lease and follow the rules or risk breaching the lease agreement or 2. Find a firearm friendly place to lease property. The same can be said about any private property as private property rights prevail.

With that said as it comes to the unemployment office its run by the Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA) operates Michigan’s unemployment insurance programs which a government entity and is subject to preemption. I'm curious as to what happened as the final result or was it just them blowing smoke. It looked like blowing smoke.

I posted this here to avoid bringing the old post up from the dead, as I couldnt reply back then.

TheQ · « **Reply #13 on:** July 30, 2015, 02:21:05 PM »

Quote from: mikestilly on July 30, 2015, 01:06:54 PM

I found the following remarks interesting: "Just like my rights to lawfully use property I lease isn't affected by the property owner's edicts, the State's right to establish or maintain it's own laws doesn't change when it leases property." ~Pat

Unfortunately you are bound to the lease agreement and rules of the owner of the property. When you lease a property everyone is bound by the same rules that is set by the property owner. If you lease property and the property owner chooses to ban firearms from the premise you have 2 options 1.) lease and follow the rules or risk breaching the lease agreement or 2. Find a firearm friendly place to lease property. The same can be said about any private property as private property rights prevail.

With that said as it comes to the unemployment office its run by the Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA) operates Michigan’s unemployment insurance programs which a government entity and is subject to preemption. I'm curious as to what happened as the final result or was it just them blowing smoke. It looked like blowing smoke.

I posted this here to avoid bringing the old post up from the dead, as I couldnt reply back then.

I agree with everything you said -- except, State Agencies aren't governed by preemption (at least not 123.1102) as they are not LUoG.

mikestilly · « **Reply #14 on:** July 30, 2015, 04:32:22 PM »

Quote from: TheQ on July 30, 2015, 02:21:05 PM

I agree with everything you said -- except, State Agencies aren't governed by preemption (at least not 123.1102) as they are not LUoG.

Thank's for the info Q I wasn't aware of that. Which really put's Pat's complete post into question as they can ban whatever they want if they're not bound by preemption.

linux203 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 30, 2015, 06:05:58 PM »

Quote from: mikestilly on July 30, 2015, 04:32:22 PM

Thank's for the info Q I wasn't aware of that. Which really put's Pat's complete post into question as they can ban whatever they want if they're not bound by preemption.

They would have to be granted the authority by statute and then implement a rule / regulation. If a bureaucrat wants to prohibit firearms, they find a statute that supports it (or can be construed to support) and creates a rule.

Preemption isn't needed where power isn't granted.

gryphon · « **Reply #16 on:** August 29, 2015, 12:01:37 AM »

Quote from: autosurgeon on July 28, 2015, 10:15:36 PM

It's a way for people to like things without having to post or to show agreement

It's a way for people to abuse the forum. Ask NorthOfNowhere or TheQ why they implemented a 6 hour wait between abusing the system, er, clicking on a karma link. Because it was being abused.

It should be disabled. (Besides, an actual good karma system only allows + votes. See INGO for how it should be done if you want it).

TheQ · « **Reply #17 on:** August 29, 2015, 09:01:26 PM »

Quote from: gryphon on August 29, 2015, 12:01:37 AM

It's a way for people to abuse the forum. Ask NorthOfNowhere or TheQ why they implemented a 6 hour wait between abusing the system, er, clicking on a karma link. Because it was being abused.

It should be disabled. (Besides, an actual good karma system only allows + votes. See INGO for how it should be done if you want it).

I think this one can be configured positive only.

jgillmanjr · « **Reply #18 on:** August 30, 2015, 12:28:32 AM »

Derrr...

I tweaked things. Now it just shows the additive.

gryphon · « **Reply #19 on:** September 01, 2015, 12:22:11 AM »

Quote from: jgillmanjr on August 30, 2015, 12:28:32 AM

I tweaked things. Now it just shows the additive.

I'll keep "jeering" you until you realize your mistake. Also, you deleted my 44+ karma points. So which is it?

News:

Author Topic: Karma is back?? (Read 24024 times)