Ser Scot A Ellison

Xray, Thank you very much for this list. :) I now have my favorite Emoticon back. :shocked:

If I remember correctly originally Slynt was hung from the top of the wall by 100 ft. of Rope. Someone mentioned after the reading at Technicon that would rip off Slynt's head. As such the change makes sense.

LC, I think the feature would cease to be cowardly but I still don't believe it adds much. As I stated earlier I've always been impressed by the quality of debate here. The post voting feature removes the need to actually say something. Even if you know who's voting you down you don't know why. You have to take the time to call the downvoter out which will clutter the board with such threads or posts. I think, at the end of the day, we are better off without this system. However, if it is kept, I prefer it not be anonyomous and that it not create "reputation scores".

LC, I call it bullying because there is no possibility of a response due to its anonymous nature. If someone flips you the bird you can respond in kind or ignore it, but, you have the ability to respond. Not here because you have no idea who flipped you the bird. See my earlier post for more on why I compare anonymous neg voting to bullying.

LCOTNW, If it remains I sincerely hope your changes are adopted.

Brady, It's not bullying in the physical sense. It's bullying in the metaphorical sense. Anonymously dinging someone without opening yourself to a respose or retort is cowardly in a sense similar to targeting a child too small or too weak to fight back is cowardly hence the comparison to bullying.

Brady, I would say bullying is the wrong way to correct that behavior. Particularly when the person being bullied has no way of knowing why such bullying is taking place.

Wastrel, I disagree on your belief in the system's utility. Up thread you were touting your positive rep score. If the negative votes are meaningless why was that worth mentioning? Further, the negative votes are so arbitrary, it is my opinion that only two things result from them hurt feelings or that they are ignored.

Kalbear, I think we are in complete agreement regarding the facts of using this system but have diametrically opposed views as to the utility of that system as a result. A ding can be perceived as an attack. Hence, some hurt feelings and bruised egos. I sincerely believe it makes things less friendly. I've always enjoyed the quality of debate here. I think the reputation feature damages that debate as you can't respond to dings.

Mya, Okay, how do you know? How do you know why you've been dinged? It could be for any or no reason. Further, there is no way to respond, correct, or debate the person who's anonymously dinged you. It doesn't add anything.

Kalbear, And here I thought personal attacks and insults to boarders were things we weren't supposed to tolerate. Now it can be done with perfect anonymity, without the ability to respond to the attack, and without consequense to the attacker. Lovely.

Malt, The fact that some perceive this as "a bit of fun." Does not mean everyone is going to agree. The fact that the down rating is hurtful to some is a reason to eliminate it as I don't see anyone really saying the system adds anything to the board. In my opinion, your fun shouldn't come at someone else's expense.

Kalbear, No, I'm not saying I'm seriously hurt by the system. However, other's have been. See Chataya's reaction to be targeted for having the temerity to suggest the system be removed. The fact that you, and others, don't care about it's use suggests the system adds nothing but the ability to hurt some people's feelings. Therefore, why should the system remain?

Wj, I think you've set out why I don't support the system. It adds very little and has show itself to be subject to rather nasty abuse. Regardless of how trivial some perceive the system to be or how neging people is all for the "lulz" its presence has been used for primarily juvenile teasing. It's unwelcoming for newbies. I'd like to see it to go the way of the dodo.

Thank you for the thread and a hearty "break a leg" to the entire production. It would be helpful if you could let us know any alterations between the book characters and the screen characters. For example are they Stark children (and Jon) going to be older than they are portrayed in the books? Will anyone be dropped outright due to time considerations? Thanks

I thought of another compairson between Jon and another Character. His threat to Gilly's child is rather reminicent of Jamie's threat to kill Edmure Tully's child if he didn't surrender Riverrun. Jamie being on a road of attempted redemption while Jon is dealing with the hard realities of the impending fight agains the Others makes the compairson interesting. I wonder if they will continue to parallel?

I don't see why Wights couldn't be subject to control and capable of independent action that furthers the goals of the Others who have raised them from the dead. It would certianly be useful to have them retain there memories so they will be capable of inside attacks like that on Castle Black. The direct control is useful when they are doing mass attacks like that on the Fist of the First Men. This is [i]magic[/i] after all.

Odie, Well it appears my grand conspiracy was simply a continuity error. Thank you for the correction.