Negative Reputation

[regevdl]

Even in a government election we make bad voting decisions....what chance do we have in these forums to get it right.  lol  I agree.  My point of view (and this includes FB) is that I don't censor ANYONE.  On my page, I do encourage ppl to 'tone down' name calling but I don't threaten them.  I just make the point that if they want to be heard, name calling hasn't proven effective but they can do whatever they want.  

 

What I noticed is that people then start censoring themselves!  lol  They delete comments that are unfactual or that make them look like total AHoles.  it's great!  It was the best experiment I have ever done.  haha

 

So this upvoting/down voting is trivial.  Sure there are pros and cons but I think it's best when pepole are responsible for their own words and act or refuse to act accordingly.  

 

Because if a thread becomes hostile, the 'onlookers' can still learn something.  Maybe it's reactions and language they used themselves and can see how stupid it makes ppl look.  But if the computerized system blocks them then it's a lost opportunity in my opinion.

 

Afterall it's a voluntary forum. 

I love the reputation system, just the way it is.  If you think capitalism is a good system, then you must agree that the reputation system will provide the community with content of the highest possible quality.  To think capitalism is good, but the reputation system is bad, is a logical contradiction.

I slightly disagree.  I posted a separate comment about this (before I saw your comment, sorry for redundancy) but I feel that people naturally censor themselves when they go way too far and it's on record rather than an automated system censoring them.  

 

My example was my FB page.  I don't censor anyone and I had a few people who went crazy, name calling, provoking, posting ridiculously unfactual things, etc.  I left it, debunked most of their posts when threw them in a tizzy and I had the upper hand.  

 

 In the end they spun out of control and deleted their comments, blocked themselves, unfriended and I didn't have to do a thing.  One instance I simply told people if they were going to post graphic photos or videos to at least title it 'graphic' so no one opens it at work or in front of children and the other suggestion I gave was to avoid name calling as it proves not to convince anyone of your point but they are welcome to use the tactic.  lol  

 

Then....what happened was the 'onlookers'...those not actively involved in certain discussions read on and would send me private messages about how they had the same viewpoints of a person until they started name calling and acting crazy and it caused them to consider the viewpoints I presented since I remained tactful and in the end my presentations 'convinced' them!  

[JamesP]

It's not been my experience that people who don't have a commitment to good behavior will censor themselves.

[adaywillcome]

I do not tolerate shit-talkers in my home.

If I allow shit-talkers in my home I am at least partially responsible for the experience of any reasonable people in my home.

[J-William]

 

I don't know about censoring yourself... there can be an element of watching how you're saying something, if you're intending to communicate well.

 

I was posting some stuff over on that thread started by the Israeli guy to defend the genocide in Gaza, and I noticed I had a down vote on a few posts and it caused me to pause for a minute and reflect on whether I was being too hostile. If someone is going down a road of being irrational or hostile, maybe the points can help.

 

The down votes continued after I decided to limit my hostility and just focus on facts. So pretty much confirming that it was the Israeli guy who was doing the down voting.

 

Even that I'm not worried about because the system limits the damage that one person can do to your reputation.

 

Oh, and I wanted the negative threshold to be even higher (lower?) in that thread, because I was tired of seeing defenses of genocide. So an ignore button would be a great addition, but I do like the communal aspect of the point system. I like that I can see my FDR friends are looking out for my sanity by saying "yeah, here's a real nutbar you can safely ignore"

[PatrickC]

I agree with J William about the mindfulness they can provide. But mostly I remember the wild west days of the fdr boards when a troll thread just expanded to ludicrous proportions. And when the said troll was eventually banned, the uproar resonated for weeks in the community, months sometimes.

 

Now they either attempt to regain their rep or they slink away.

[J-William]

I agree with J William about the mindfulness they can provide. But mostly I remember the wild west days of the fdr boards when a troll thread just expanded to ludicrous proportions. And when the said troll was eventually banned, the uproar resonated for weeks in the community, months sometimes.

 

Now they either attempt to regain their rep or they slink away.

oh boy those were the days... 

 

I like the settled down atmosphere, and now of course if someone with -30 reputation gets banned it's hard to make the case that people were super interested in what they had to say and they were just shut down by "the man"

yeah, there is this jewish guy who got banned, (of course it was the Gaza/Isreal debate thread where he aquired -26 votedowns)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI9uN4WbOPs#t=13

 

He told me his account is blocked now and he cant make more posts. ,.., maybe for other reasons then his position in this thread, I read his posts ,i didnt find it trolling , he defended his opinion without any personal attacks.

 

Anyway,.., the website is Stefs private property and he can do what he wants.., he can take this feedback any which way.

Oh, hey I didn't see this earlier... it's giving me flashbacks to the days of "oh this guy was banned from the board, it's super unfair and we're busy chattering about it.

 

Also, come on... "without any personal attacks". he repeatedly called myself and others liars without providing solid evidence, he evaded and ignored evidence and arguments. If you look back at my first post in the thread and his response he takes my question and reframes it in a way he likes.

 

Everything he did was classic trolling. I think your judgement is flawed in continuing to support him and chat with him. But then I guess if you are trying to justify war it's not hard to justify a little trolling too.

 

a little side note: it seems that much of my negative reputation points from that thread are gone... pretty much confirming he was downvoting me cuz I disagreed. I think it's only just deserts if he got banned for disagreeing with Stef (but I think he got banned for trollin)

[PatrickC]

I like the settled down atmosphere

 

I agree. The boards have never been better.

 

And yea the guy in the Gaza thread was insulting people left, right and centre. That would take a mountain of armour to not see it.

[jacbot]

Everything he did was classic trolling. I think your judgement is flawed in continuing to support him and chat with him. But then I guess if you are trying to justify war it's not hard to justify a little trolling too.

 

I dont think calling someone intellectually dishonest/unfactual or selective (if he/she is indeed this) is trolling. Nobody is justifying any war its just the unbalanced selectivity that is repugnant.

I got downvoted for saying voting is a basic human right. (as it can be argued from first principles. property rights). I wasnt insulting anyone. but i guess it hits some kneejurk "mob rule" nerves.

 

Even my post bringing this to attention was downvoted aswell,.., no insults there, soo.. just asking a question,,.,sure, when you are with people who have been filtered then you tend to agree more with them, thats the way it is. If people are outright insulting thats one thing, but calling a spade a spade,.., thats quite another.

 

ANOTHER DOWNVOTE ON THIS PLEASE.)))) honer badges are cool. cmon..

[PatrickC]

I dont think calling someone intellectually dishonest/unfactual or selective (if he/she is indeed this) is trolling.

 

I agree of course it isn't. It becomes trolling (and breaks forum rules too), by not providing evidence of that dishonesty.

 

People are as free as a bird to criticise peoples arguments, so long as they can indeed provide a better argument or evidence to the contrary.

[jacbot]

==============

I agree. The boards have never been better.

 

And yea the guy in the Gaza thread was insulting people left, right and centre. That would take a mountain of armour to not see it.

 

#facts from the thread

 

#mreyallior Posted 21 July 2014 - 12:51 PM +1
--
mreyallior Posted 23 July 2014 - 05:30 PM -  4 (no insults were made)
#mreyallior Posted 21 July 2014 - 10:32 PM  +3
mreyallior Posted 23 July 2014 - 08:12 PM +1

#mreyallior Posted 24 July 2014 - 08:59 AM  (called labmath2 and waleed liars). -4
#mreyallior Posted 24 July 2014 - 09:38 PM -3 (called JUnlike you, I can't lie barefaced. )
#mreyallior Posted 24 July 2014 - 03:39 PM 0 no up/down vote.()
mreyallior Posted 24 July 2014 - 10:27 AM.-2 "Waleed, You lied,"
mreyallior Posted 24 July 2014 - 02:01 PM, -1, no insults given at all.
mreyallior Posted 24 July 2014 - 04:13 PM  -3 no insults, even promoted canada as a new homeland of the jews
mreyallior Posted 25 July 2014 - 05:39 PM -3 no insults, again promotes canada

 

So...,  -9 points (3 post out of total 11) where he gets emotional and calls people liars, bad bad.

So  -14 points for 4 post for no good reason and supports evidence for his views.

11 post total counted.

 

He wasnt calling people names left and right..., ..now about that mountain of armour blocking my view ....  I sell carbon gamma steel for 20usd per kg....

[PatrickC]

I get it jacbot, you have a lower standard for what you consider as evidence or insulting.

[jacbot]

I get it jacbot, you have a lower standard for what you consider as evidence or insulting.

 

I marked the post where he insulted as red text, and where he didnt left it as black,  were accourding to you was I inaccurate?

[PatrickC]

Well, it doesn't particularly matter where I think you are being inaccurate or not. It's not particularly relevant. None of us have any complete control over how people rep us. Some may consider a good argument I make deserves a -1 and others a +1 and still others who don't rep it at all. The people on that thread made their rep decisions as they saw fit.

 

There standards I gather are higher than yours. Insofar as you estimate that 11 out of a total 23 minus points were poorly given. But of course this is just your opinion. It's you that gets to decide what is insulting and what is a good or bad argument. Not individuals, as is the purpose of the reputation system.

[jacbot]

. Insofar as you estimate that 11 out of a total 23 minus points were poorly given.

 

I didnt write that,  I wrote 3 post out of 11 post  (not points, post!!)  , could be considered insulting (as he used the word "liar"  etc).

I clearly stated this.

 

You (not others) claimed  it was kind of hard to miss he was insulting. ( "And yea the guy in the Gaza thread was insulting people left, right and centre. That would take a mountain of armour to not see it.").

 

If people would have marked down the 3/11 post, it would say "yeah ok makes sense"  marking down post where no insults are made at all, ., has nothing to do with "higher standards".

[PatrickC]

I didnt write that,  I wrote 3 post out of 11 post  (not points, post!!)

 

I stand corrected, you estimated that 14 points out of 23 were poorly made.

 

If people would have marked down the 3/11 post, it would say "yeah ok makes sense"  marking down post where no insults are made at all, ., has nothing to do with "higher standards".

 

So we're back to where we started. So it's only you that gets to set the standard. Everyone elses standards are clearly wrong.

[jacbot]

"..I get it jacbot, you have a lower standard.."

 

You get to decide what my standards are?

 

I didnt bring the word "standard" into all this...for me its not so relavant to my question.

 

))Nor,.., its also not about me or "everyone else" ..(being right by majority opinion? ,...,democracy democracy))) ) 

 

You claim (your quote) " the guy in the Gaza thread was insulting people left, right and centre."

 

I went to all the effort to get his posts, timestamps and correlated markdowns/markups.  3 post out of 11 could be considered insulting. (calling people liars)

 

my question to you is (in light of the new factual  eveidence) do you ,still consider he was infact  "insuling people left right and centre"  with just 3 post out of 11, with just one word "liar"?

 

If this is your personal opinion,.., then ok...

[regevdl]

 

 

I don't know about censoring yourself... there can be an element of watching how you're saying something, if you're intending to communicate well.

 

I was posting some stuff over on that thread started by the Israeli guy to defend the genocide in Gaza, and I noticed I had a down vote on a few posts and it caused me to pause for a minute and reflect on whether I was being too hostile. If someone is going down a road of being irrational or hostile, maybe the points can help.

 

The down votes continued after I decided to limit my hostility and just focus on facts. So pretty much confirming that it was the Israeli guy who was doing the down voting.

 

Even that I'm not worried about because the system limits the damage that one person can do to your reputation.

 

Oh, and I wanted the negative threshold to be even higher (lower?) in that thread, because I was tired of seeing defenses of genocide. So an ignore button would be a great addition, but I do like the communal aspect of the point system. I like that I can see my FDR friends are looking out for my sanity by saying "yeah, here's a real nutbar you can safely ignore"

 

That's a fair argument.  I can see that as a benefit.  I do like the ignore button Idea for sure because it's an individual censor rather than censoring it automatically from everyone.  To take it a step further (if no one has suggested it already) that the poster can see the number of ppl who ignore (not names of course) so they too are aware that ppl are turned off.    Anyway, thanks for sharing your experience, it gave me food for thought.  

 

Oh yes.  and I too feel like I am being trolled by retaliation (not by you) but your example of your down votes resonated with my recent experience, but also I am not worried.  .  anyway, thanks again!

[JamesP]

"Censor" is quite inflammatory. I don't think the auto-hide feature qualifies. The content isn't removed; you can still see the content if you choose, and certainly many people do, as evidenced by those who continue to engage with auto-hidden users.

 

And you can ignore users. You have to go into your profile to do it, but it's very possible to ignore them.

 

And for Pete's sake, people... you don't get banned for disagreeing. You get banned for being a jerk.

[Freedomain]

I get it jacbot, you have a lower standard for what you consider as evidence or insulting.

 

PatrickC continues to be fucking awesome in his contributions...

[bitcoin]

True that. I got banned for opposing GMOs on the chat, these people were saying stuff like "If you dont support GMOs, you support world hunger". Anyways after getting attacked verbally for a while (which I should have left) from 3 or 4 people who didn't have a single argument. I got upset and said "Look, the purpose of this show is to question things; not think you are somehow questioning things by listening to others (Stef) rationalize things like anarchy." and then I called them non-thinkers. As I was leaving the chat later that night, which happend to be the call in when I was leaving, pretty angry still, I said somthing passive agressive to these people as I was leaving (can't remember exactly what) and I got banned. 

 

I still think it is incredibly sad that I get banned for this kind of thing (though I take full responsibility for my passive agressive / agressive comment), these people are the ones who were attacking me, calling me names, bullying me (literally) and nothing (as far as I know) happend to them. 

 

A huge flaw in FDR is people who call themselves "anarchists", etc. But at the very root, don't truly understanding what that means. In my opinion, anarchy is as much of a philosophy as it is somthing to implement. 

 

These people, from the start of our conversation were being very aggressive and mean and i felt I wanted to "fight back", though calmly and respectively; which ended up angering me even more as it just gave them more of a "victim". 

 

Hope this makes sense.

 

Jake

[Kevin Beal]

[...] and I got banned. 

Or maybe not. The chat sometimes kicks people, seemingly at random. I think it happens when you are browsing the boards while chatting.

 

But you said that you got kicked for doing something passive aggressive. You don't mention what it is, but passive aggression is reason enough for a kick. You said you take full responsibility, but I don't know what that means. I don't think that coming onto the boards and blaming everyone else for the situation is taking responsibility for anything.

 

If anarchism is a philosophy, it would surely include something about avoiding ascribing characteristics to collectives, but you said:

 

 

 

A huge flaw in FDR is people who call themselves "anarchists", etc. But at the very root, don't truly understanding what that means.

 

What a few people do is not representative of FDR.

[bitcoin]

Or maybe not. The chat sometimes kicks people, seemingly at random. I think it happens when you are browsing the boards while chatting.

 

But you said that you got kicked for doing something passive aggressive. You don't mention what it is, but passive aggression is reason enough for a kick. You said you take full responsibility, but I don't know what that means. I don't think that coming onto the boards and blaming everyone else for the situation is taking responsibility for anything.

 

If anarchism is a philosophy, it would surely include something about avoiding ascribing characteristics to collectives, but you said:

 

 

 

 

What a few people do is not representative of FDR.

 

 

Well what I mean is that I acknowledge and know why I got banned and am not trying to fight it... I dont remember exactly what I said, though I am certain that my intention was a big "fuck you" to the people. What I mean by taking ownership is not blaming and being accountable. As far as I know, i simply explained the situation which involved a few other factors. I am not trying to lessen the extent to what I did or anything. 

 

I didn't say all FDRers ascribe or I feel they ascribe to those characteristics and I am in full agreement with that, though my experience with a few of them are those things. 

 

I was not attempting to speak negatively about FDR, just certain individuals that I came across. 

 

My attempt (and it seems like and is possible you dont want me on "your side") was to promote what I feel FDR is. Thought-provoking to get people to question other things, rationalize, have conversations even though they may not "sit well", etc. 

 

Though, again, there are topics, like GMOs which seems like a certain side has not observed; and especially from a holistic perspective. For example, healthy plants do not get diseases or "pests" because they can fight off those diseases and pests, and insects can only feed on unhealthy plants. (this is a studied and scientifically proven fact -- they also emit EMFs when they are unhealthy -- and a simple example of this is in the wild). This is why I try to promote organic permaculture, which is a solution to all agriculture problems, promoting biodiversity, happy and healthy plants, no weeds, no pests, etc. 

[J-William]

 

And you can ignore users. You have to go into your profile to do it, but it's very possible to ignore them.

 

You are correct, there is an ignore feature!

 

It's a bit hidden, but if someone is really bugging you it can be done.

[cynicist]

I still think it is incredibly sad that I get banned for this kind of thing (though I take full responsibility for my passive agressive / agressive comment)

 

This is contradictory. (and no I didn't downvote you, I actually agree that hypocrisy happens even in this holy place)

[Freedomain]

Well what I mean is that I acknowledge and know why I got banned and am not trying to fight it... I dont remember exactly what I said, though I am certain that my intention was a big "fuck you" to the people. What I mean by taking ownership is not blaming and being accountable. As far as I know, i simply explained the situation which involved a few other factors. I am not trying to lessen the extent to what I did or anything. 

 

I didn't say all FDRers ascribe or I feel they ascribe to those characteristics and I am in full agreement with that, though my experience with a few of them are those things. 

 

I was not attempting to speak negatively about FDR, just certain individuals that I came across. 

 

My attempt (and it seems like and is possible you dont want me on "your side") was to promote what I feel FDR is. Thought-provoking to get people to question other things, rationalize, have conversations even though they may not "sit well", etc. 

 

Though, again, there are topics, like GMOs which seems like a certain side has not observed; and especially from a holistic perspective. For example, healthy plants do not get diseases or "pests" because they can fight off those diseases and pests, and insects can only feed on unhealthy plants. (this is a studied and scientifically proven fact -- they also emit EMFs when they are unhealthy -- and a simple example of this is in the wild). This is why I try to promote organic permaculture, which is a solution to all agriculture problems, promoting biodiversity, happy and healthy plants, no weeds, no pests, etc. 

 

For what it's worth, you were repeatedly (I recall at least four times) warned about a certain behavior in the chat room and continued that behavior.  Thus your chat privileges were suspended.

[tjt]

I think it's a good idea for a community to have a built in reputation mechanism. However, I also think that maybe the rep system here needs a bit of adjusting. It seems to me that people who have donated more are far less likely to abuse the rep system. Why not make it available to only gold or diamond donators and up? This would add a lot more credibility to reputation. It would also reduce the amount of undue negative and positive rep accumulation. 

 

Hi Nathan, what evidence or rationale do you have to support your theory that big donators are wiser voters than lower level donators?

How about when you click downvote, it just lists possible categories for downvoting which may include spam, ad hominem, repetitive, vulgar, and maybe a few others. Thus "I don't like the opinion of this person" is discouraged as a reason for downvoting.

 

I understand where you're coming from, Wesley. To me, it doesn't make any sense when someone engages in a drive-by downvote... it seems to defeat the purpose of this forum. I don't mean to speak for everyone, but I thought people take part in the FDR forum to improve their philosophical skills and also grow their self knowledge. Yet, it displays a total lack of empathy when someone down votes without explanation. If I am, like the down voter, here to improve my philosophy skills and grow my self knowledge, but according to the down voter I'm doing it wrong, yet he refuses to explain why and just gives me a down vote, how am I suppose to learn and improve?

 

It reminds me of my dad mercilessly conditioning me to self attack. The whole, "oh, you know what you did wrong, now go in your room and think about it." Or when a cop pulls you over... "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Just freaking tell me! It makes me a little upset that people feel strong enough to use one of their five votes for the day for down voting and don't take the time to explain why.

 

So, even though I agree with your rationale, I don't believe a survey question is the solution. Just be decent, empathetic and curious and explain to the poster why you downvoted. And if not everyone follows this suggestion, so be it. Their foregone explanation would have probably been bad anyways. Voluntarily skipping out on a chance to practice their curiosity, logic, and communication skills harms the downvoter more than it harms me.

[PatrickC]

It reminds me of my dad mercilessly conditioning me to self attack. The whole, "oh, you know what you did wrong, now go in your room and think about it." Or when a cop pulls you over... "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Just freaking tell me! It makes me a little upset that people feel strong enough to use one of their five votes for the day for down voting and don't take the time to explain why.

 

This is an interesting strawman you are constructing tjt. Comparing the likes of downvoting to actual abuse. That is a pretty bold claim if you will reconsider. And probably deserves some further reflection.

 

You see many people that get downvoted have often already been told the error of their thinking. But rather than go,'oh yeah, you got a point'. They rather double down on their error still further. I for one have zero interest in explaining my voting decisions (if I make any) to individuals such as that or to any third party for that matter.That said, there will always be individuals that will use the voting system to punish people for disagreements. This is unavoidable frankly. But as has been said in pains earlier throughout this thread and others on the topic. Compared to the previous board, the advantages have been distinctly positive overall. That may have been before your time perhaps, but still.

 

I would really ask the more thoughtful board members to read through this thread more thoroughly and others on the same topic if it really bothers them. Because it gets rather frustrating having to re-iterate the same points that have been made a number of times already. But also maybe, just maybe there could be something useful one might learn about oneself in the process. Peace.

[RuralRon]

As I recall from reading the info James posted about the rep system, downvoting is anonymous. Addressing tjt's and Wesley's input, it makes sense to eliminate the anonymity of the rep system.

 

What benefit does it provide to the FDR community as a whole to allow anonymous rep voting? The only benefit I can think of at all, is it makes the rep system easier to implement by not providing the means to track and display which users contributed to a member's rep value. But that seems like a minor consideration.

 

It seems rather cowardly, or at a minimum to be irresponsible for a downvoter to be unwilling to have their username associated with their contribution to members rep. The same is applicable to upvoters as well.

 

As for PatricC's assertion tjt's comparison is a strawman position, I disagree, it was a useful analogy. As tjt stated, this community should be focused on helping it's members improve their critical thinking, rhetoric and relationship skills. Why not utilize the rep system to provide the feedback it captures, and discourage "drive by downvoting" by eliminating the anonymity and encouraging responsibility? Wesley's idea is one way to add even more feedback by providing a reason (fixed set of choices) for the up or down vote. Granted, that takes more effort to implement a means of reporting that info, but it would be quite useful to all FDR members imo.

[adaywillcome]

Do you donate to FDR, Ron? This doesn't invalidate what you're saying necessarily, but if you care about the FDR community donating even $5/mo is the least you could do to show your support of the community. If you're not doing that, I, for one, am not particularly interested in what you have to say on the matter. It's about credibility.

[Kevin Beal]

It seems rather cowardly, or at a minimum to be irresponsible for a downvoter to be unwilling to have their username associated with their contribution to members rep

Is it cowardly or does it just "seem" that way?

 

You keep dropping some serious charges, but always qualify it with "seems". I don't know that's necessarily cowardly, but it sure isn't courageous.

 

If you have concluded that things are some way, then stand behind it!

 

If you believe that hiding people's posts who have a threshold of downvotes is censorship, then make that case. If you believe that not wanting your name on your downvote is cowardly, then make that case. I don't see how either one is true, but since you have made no arguments to back up your claims(?) then I have nothing really to respond to.

 

I'm not aware of any service showing downvotes where they say who made that vote. Even services that show who made the upvote hide the downvote like Google+ and Disqus. Most do not show any of that information. Maybe that's for a reason. I can imagine that it could provoke flame wars, even. People downvoting each other because that person downvoted them.

[cynicist]

I wouldn't mind having my name attached to my votes. It would probably lead to flames like Kevin mentioned but there is a chance to provoke some interesting discussion there too.

[tjt]

This is an interesting strawman you are constructing tjt. Comparing the likes of downvoting to actual abuse. That is a pretty bold claim if you will reconsider. And probably deserves some further reflection.

 

You see many people that get downvoted have often already been told the error of their thinking. But rather than go,'oh yeah, you got a point'. They rather double down on their error still further. I for one have zero interest in explaining my voting decisions (if I make any) to individuals such as that or to any third party for that matter.That said, there will always be individuals that will use the voting system to punish people for disagreements. This is unavoidable frankly. But as has been said in pains earlier throughout this thread and others on the topic. Compared to the previous board, the advantages have been distinctly positive overall. That may have been before your time perhaps, but still.

 

I would really ask the more thoughtful board members to read through this thread more thoroughly and others on the same topic if it really bothers them. Because it gets rather frustrating having to re-iterate the same points that have been made a number of times already. But also maybe, just maybe there could be something useful one might learn about oneself in the process. Peace.

 

Reflecting now, Patrick. Let me get back to you.

[RuralRon]

I have not yet donated, but I am accumulating funds to do so. I've commented on that elsewhere.

 

Is it cowardly or does it just "seem" that way?

 

You keep dropping some serious charges, but always qualify it with "seems". I don't know that's necessarily cowardly, but it sure isn't courageous.

 

If you have concluded that things are some way, then stand behind it!

 

If you believe that hiding people's posts who have a threshold of downvotes is censorship, then make that case. If you believe that not wanting your name on your downvote is cowardly, then make that case. I don't see how either one is true, but since you have made no arguments to back up your claims(?) then I have nothing really to respond to.

 

I'm not aware of any service showing downvotes where they say who made that vote. Even services that show who made the upvote hide the downvote like Google+ and Disqus. Most do not show any of that information. Maybe that's for a reason. I can imagine that it could provoke flame wars, even. People downvoting each other because that person downvoted them.

 

You put a great deal of emphasis on the word seems. I agree with you "seems" is wishy-washy, non-committal language. I think more accurately it's passive aggressive, so I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

 

As to whether hiding posts for posters below a threshold is censorship, I don't believe it is. That's a far less important aspect of the rep system behavior imo, than feedback and accountability about the voting. My first post in this thread made a point about the banning of the topic of determinism as censorship, but acknowledged it is within Stefs rights to do so.

 

But rather than just reiterate the reasons (my previous post, last paragraph) why I think accountability and feedback (two separate items) is a good thing to have, I'll ask: do you think the opposite behavior of rep voting without accountability is responsible and courageous? Are there people who have a fear their voting record will reflect poorly on their own rep, or reveal a pattern unfavorable to certain members? Please, do tell how that's courageous!

 

As to other services (google+, discus etc) that may or may not behave as I am suggesting, who cares? Aren't you interested in making the FDR forums better? Then say why you believe anonymous rep voting helps to encourage personal growth and responsibility, or how accountability (non-anonymous voting) for one's actions is bad or detrimental. How are the standards of any other service better than FDR to warrant such a comparison?

[cynicist]

But rather than just reiterate the reasons (my previous post, last paragraph) why I think accountability and feedback (two separate items) is a good thing to have, I'll ask: do you think the opposite behavior of rep voting without accountability is responsible and courageous? Are there people who have a fear their voting record will reflect poorly on their own rep, or reveal a pattern unfavorable to certain members? Please, do tell how that's courageous!

 

Another thing to consider is that people who are voting are doing so in order to avoid typing their disagreement, and that making their names known would lead to them being called out in the forums and in messages to explain their reasons, which would defeat the purpose of having it in the first place. (as a convenient way to express yourself)

[RuralRon]

Another thing to consider is that people who are voting are doing so in order to avoid typing their disagreement, and that making their names known would lead to them being called out in the forums and in messages to explain their reasons, which would defeat the purpose of having it in the first place. (as a convenient way to express yourself)

 

Granted, anonymous is convenient. But is convenience really the purpose of the rep system? Surely you must believe it goes far beyond that, at least I hope so. Given how much I've relied on the rep system I'd hate to think convenience is an important factor in it's reflection of a member's virtuous qualities, especially since it can be used (as evidence) to ban a member. That's pretty serious.

 

I can envision that removing anonymous rep voting may reduce the number of votes, but the ones expressed will be higher quality if the voter can be challenged to defend their vote. I see that as a good thing, but it's clear not everyone agrees. Someone appears to disagree rather strongly, tho I'm not sure why