Continuing the discussion, let's have a serious conversation.

Valhalla, in my personal opinion, is one of the functions of the reputation system – reducing spam. The forum is full of messages like "yes, you're right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" or "of course, that's how everyone does it," and so on. So, if an adequate user agrees with a post and has nothing to add, they'll give it a plus, and everyone will understand that they agree. Another supposed function is to indicate the degree to which forum members agree with a user. However, there's been a trend of giving pluses in "congratulations" threads, "forum members of the month" threads, and some other similar threads. As a result, many active forum members have a significant portion of their reputation points coming from these threads, and the meaning of the reputation system has somewhat lost its significance (I'm not suggesting that we should now remove all pluses from these threads or accusing anyone; I think it's a normal phenomenon, and I even participate in it myself). Negative reputation is a slightly different matter. Personally, I don't give minuses, even if I completely disagree with someone. I prefer to state my own position and try to argue it as convincingly as possible. First, because everyone can make mistakes, and second, because everyone has their own personal opinion, and that opinion should be respected. This is a sign of a civilized society. And most often, minuses arise as a result of arguments and flame wars, not the other way around. I've never seen an argument arise because of a negative reputation. It's silly to argue about it, even if the minus is unjustified. Other forum members will understand that the minus is unwarranted, and someone might even give a plus in response, even if they don't agree with you 100%. And because of a couple of minuses, no one has suffered yet, or is it a terrible tragedy and disappointment for someone?