SBRFS

Well, you seem to have made a wonderful strawman, criticized him as being a collectivist monster, and then soundly defeated him. All in one line, too! Criticizing hyperbole... on FDR...

Kevin, the mechanism may vary slightly, but the theme and outcome are the same: a public reputation (be it a score or just word of mouth), damaged perhaps to the point that sanctions are applied (either by automatic mechanism or by human assumption), and possibly accomplished without provision for correction or restitution (depending on the nature of the implementation, such as courts or forums). So again, anonymous and consequence-free downvoting to a person's reputation in a public space like the Internet is not just a harmless expression of preference.

OK, this somewhat off-topic conversation that I started has now gotten me all riled up, so here goes... Let's look at downvoting in "real life": You may remember that movie that comes on TV once in a while, about the teacher who was falsely accused of molesting his students. When it went to court, his accusors recanted and he was cleared of the charges. Even so, he continued to receive death threats, couldn't get a job, and was basically given the evil eye wherever he went. It drove his mother to the grave, and he ended up killing himself. That was just one of many such incidents where people have found themselves ruined because of a bad reputation, deservedly or not. So please don't suggest that anonymous and consequence-free downvoting to a person's reputation in a public space like the Internet is just a harmless expression of preference.

This is the second time today you seem to have twisted my words into something sinister.But to answer your question, it depends on your perception of what the downvote button is for. If it is indeed as you say, expressing a preference about a particular message, then why do user profiles keep a tally of downvotes? Furthermore, why would too many accumulated downvotes in one's profile cause one's messages to be hidden from all users by default, rather than just the user(s) who downvoted them? The intent is clear: this is a system of "virtual" ostracization, and with it being both anonymous and at-will, it offers potential for a ridiculous amount of abuse.Being able to put a black mark on someone's public record, without even the slightest requirement for evidence or explanation? Are you kidding me? Perhaps I lump all willful malignance in together as "injustice", and that confuses the issue.P.S.: Sorry, MyShadow, if I derailed your thread!

I understand that, and I hope you know that I wasn't saying there was. However, if you care about the person, and there's a chance they are amenable to change, then it is in the best interest of all involved (and to some extent, society at large) to put in the extra effort that might nudge the person into greater understanding and better behavior.

I detest the term "sausage fest". <--- There ya go!

Tsk! Men! (storms off in a huff)

As Songbirdo implies, Person B is free to withdraw at any time. The only solution is to not invite him to further meetings. However, there is a delicate balance between explaining to him why his behavior is unacceptable, and just dumping him. Perhaps you can instead explain to him how it makes you feel when he doesn't follow through, and then if he shows no interest in how you are adversely affected, you will have your answer.

Does the board have a polling feature? Maybe we can find out if that's correct. I answered your question. Perhaps you would like to answer mine, before posing another one to me.

For the same reason I care about somebody getting beaten up in an alley, or being accused of misconduct by an anonymous source, or any other number of tragedies or injustices. Because I have some sense of justice or fair play, and also because I either know, or can imagine, how it feels to be victimized by hidden faces that can't be confronted. I try to stand up against such abuse when I notice it, not just because of personal feelings, but also as a matter of honor. How can anybody not care?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization_disorder

I feel that I'm still not understanding your view, so I'll withdraw from the conversation now. Thanks for the discussion.

As of the time of this writing, that post was rated negatively by two points. I'm curious as to why. My best guess is that somebody didn't like the fragment "He is just catering to his audience which is mostly men", yet failed to pair that with the second half of the sentence ("he told us that a few times"). I, too, recall Stef mentioning that latter part in one or more of his shows, so obviously the negative rating cannot be a claim of baseless assertions. The second and third sentences do not appear to be inflammatory, as one just states a mild opinion about whether significant interest does or does not exist, and the second is naught but friendly encouragement to seek out and post the relevant information. What good is a reputation system if there's no clear way for people to know what it is about their posts that is liked or disliked? That just leaves the poster guessing, perhaps afraid to speak out, and certainly vulnerable to baseless sniping. (A while back I wrote to Mike, asking if there was a way to improve the system by requiring that an explanation be required for each rating of a post. He seemed to agree. Presumably, though, the code for the forum does not include such a feature, and it may be some time before it can be implemented.) I would like the raters to explain, specifically, why they down-voted the aforementioned post.

I think the idea you propose is OK, as long as the show's description does not lead people to believe that it provides answers it doesn't. At best, the tactic uses sarcasm to get people thinking, though perhaps at the expense of giving FDR a reputation as being a hit-or-miss source of information; at worst, it unrepentantly wastes people's time when they're looking for genuine advice.

If we only had waterproof keyboards... or maybe just audio recorders?