[MrHappy0]

When someone replies to your thread (topic) you can give a mole snack or take a mole snack. What does this refer to?

[Arkcon]

Any member can give or take a mole snack to anyone's post their reading, once per day.  They can do this for any reason -- usually judging your post in general, or how well you follow the rules.

[MrHappy0]

So for instance.. you have -68 mole snacks. Does this mean their are 68 times that someone reflected negatively on a post from you?


Might be a dumb question...

[Borek]

So for instance.. you have -68 mole snacks. Does this mean their are 68 times that someone reflected negatively on a post from you?

That's true.

Note that senior members sometimes help in moderation, and moderation never helps in popularity contests.

[AWK]

calculate ratio of + or - snacks to number of posts - this better explains idea of snacks

[cheese (MSW)]

Anonymous -ve "mole snacks" have no place on an open forum discussing science.  If you disagree with me have the courage to say so. That's how science progresses.
As it is, I have no idea why I received my two -ve snacks almost as soon as began making contributions to this forum.  My answers were correct

[Arkcon]

So for instance.. you have -68 mole snacks. Does this mean their are 68 times that someone reflected negatively on a post from you?


Might be a dumb question...

Actually, I always thought it DID, despite what everyone else has said.  For a while, I was greater than 50% negative snacks to positive snacks.  And it really pissed me off, because that's a standard I'd had set for myself on this fourm.  Made me decide to ignore this forum for a while.  But of course, I couldn't really stay away forever.

[cheese (MSW)]

If you think it is acceptable for some troll to hide behind anonymity and dish a –ve “mole snack” and not even give the post the snack applies to then go right ahead and continue to contribute to the forum.  I don’t have to.

[Arkcon]

You've had some bad luck, but sometimes, I have tried to engage in a discussion, but if someone insists on spouting pseudoscience, for example, I will take a snack away for each rambling, illogical, unscientific post -- if only to warn the new people on the board of the general content of that person's contributions.  I've seen people with an innocuous post, a bunch of negative snacks, so I read their older posts and ... sure enough that person was stubborn, or rude, or pushy and demanding.  And then I knew, just to ignore their new posting.

I've lost dozens of mole snacks when I given some of my best responses -- this thread here: http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=24568.0 caused me to 19 or so, simply because I didn't give away as many answers as these kids wanted.  Or maybe that wasn't it -- maybe, trying to help the people learn for themselves, I was too obtuse, and made the regulars become annoyed.  It all balances out, in the end.