It has been my experience, that when people follow the simple requirements of the Terms of Service, there are few problems. It is when they start to make personal, or ad hominem attacks, that tempers flare.
If you look at what Susan wrote in the "Reputation Rules," I think this is apparent:
Reputation should only be given to reward exceptional posts, and I mean posts which are really above and beyond the fold. Smites should not be used unless a post clearly violates the rules, policies of the site, or the spirit of the community at Susan's Place. Being awarded reputation should be a relatively rare event, and something to treasure. All reputation is reviewed, and any reputation that was given for inappropriate reasons will be removed. Inappropriate smites will result in warnings and other penalties being given.
(Emphasis mine)
I tend to give many "applauds," because it is a way to encourage community spirit here. Since the reset of the reputation counter, and the clearing of the "smites," I have given 279 applauds. I think every single one of them was deserved by the recipient. In three years I have given out three smites. One to a troll who was plagiarizing posts from other websites; one to a former staffer who has since been banned; and one to a transelitist who posts terribly derogatory screeds. For me, they are indeed rare.
Along the way, I have accumulated about a dozen smites. Two of them on my current record are from the above-mentioned banned former staffer (who gave me five total), and the other three are from that banned person's allies.
Smites are hurtful and often hateful. They should never be given in retaliation. If a member feels a smite has been given contrary to the rules of the site, they can appeal to the Forum Administrator.
