cynicist Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 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 you do. Why? If it's not convenience, what other reason would there be for the rep system?
PatrickC Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 RuralRon's commentary is a classic example of doubling down. Not listening to anyone other than (what I presume are) his own inner voices. Responding only to them via the immediate comments of others. I seriously say take a step back bro and rethink your position for just a minute.
Kevin Beal Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 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. Oops. You are totally right, I mistakenly lumped the two things together. 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! I didn't say it was courageous. And I don't understand what you mean by "accountability" here. My purpose in my challenge was to question the accusation of cowardice. It certainly is possible that cowardice could be happening, but the implication was that anyone who downvotes must be doing so cowardly because their name is not attached. And that's crazy. Almost nobody on the boards uses their real names, and some are critical of other people, sometimes without argument or the truth on their side. Are they then cowards? You've charged people with cowardice and censorship and I have no idea at all who you are. Does that make you a coward? Not necessarily. There may be good reasons for you not to use your real name, I have no idea. Maybe there are good reasons not to show who's voting. Again, I don't know. 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? I never actually said that we shouldn't show people's names next to votes. The reason I brought up other examples was to show that there is a precedent, and being myself in the business of designing online experiences like this, I tend to see what's currently being done. And it strikes me as significant that even services which show who made positive votes do not show negative ones. I wonder why that is. I don't actually know what the right solution is, but I do know that you've brought multiple serious charges down now that you haven't really made much of a case for, if at all. I don't think you are in a position to challenge me when you haven't really made your case yet. It's kinda like arguing about what you could have meant, and I don't want to do that.
JamesP Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 I think we should let this thread die a peaceful death again. Some people really like the idea of adding reasons to the rep system but I can tell you that this is non-trivial and is very likely to increase the administrative burden. I'm somewhat neutral on making reputation votes public but I am rather put off by the odd accusations of cowardice and irresponsibility. What would make the boards better is not technology. It is people calling each other out on their bad behavior. The reputation system is a tool to that end. And, sure, like any other tool, it can be abused. That is the main reason the tool is limited to donators. This doesn't guarantee that those who donate won't be jerks in their voting, but rarely does jerky behavior come in only one form. Somebody unphilosophical and broken-brained who has donated and then gets triggered (without curiosity as to their trigger) will likely cancel their donations after the tide of opinion turns against them... and this is how it should be. We don't want jerks to say that they like Freedomain Radio.
adaywillcome Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 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)This is an excellent point. I've learned a lot recently of the shit James has to put up with in modding. Deanonymizing the reputation system now opens everyone who reps + or - to the quite negative consequences of modding. People who never asked to be mods become reluctant to rate posts and then the whole system crumbles and then modding just gets harder again.A follow-up question for Ron (for you to ponder on your own or with friends, given James's post above): Why do you mistrust the members of this community so much?
RuralRon Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 Oops. You are totally right, I mistakenly lumped the two things together. I didn't say it was courageous. And I don't understand what you mean by "accountability" here. My purpose in my challenge was to question the accusation of cowardice. It certainly is possible that cowardice could be happening, but the implication was that anyone who downvotes must be doing so cowardly because their name is not attached. And that's crazy. Almost nobody on the boards uses their real names, and some are critical of other people, sometimes without argument or the truth on their side. Are they then cowards? You've charged people with cowardice and censorship and I have no idea at all who you are. Does that make you a coward? Not necessarily. There may be good reasons for you not to use your real name, I have no idea. Maybe there are good reasons not to show who's voting. Again, I don't know. I never actually said that we shouldn't show people's names next to votes. The reason I brought up other examples was to show that there is a precedent, and being myself in the business of designing online experiences like this, I tend to see what's currently being done. And it strikes me as significant that even services which show who made positive votes do not show negative ones. I wonder why that is. I don't actually know what the right solution is, but I do know that you've brought multiple serious charges down now that you haven't really made much of a case for, if at all. I don't think you are in a position to challenge me when you haven't really made your case yet. It's kinda like arguing about what you could have meant, and I don't want to do that. There are a number of points that I need to respond to here Kevin, but let me begin by saying I feel some personal hostility. Perhaps I deserve it, I'm open to that. If I have been too strong in my choice of words or my position poorly worded I'll take ownership of that and apologize. Kevin, I didn't say that your position was that posting anonymously was courageous, I was asking a counter question of how it could be courageous, and you didn't answer that. I also never said or implied that "anyone who downvotes must be doing so cowardly". The key there is the extra word "anyone" you supplied, not me. I fully agree with you, that donvoting anonymously is NOT always an act of cowardliness. That's not what I said, that's not what I intended, and if that is the implication the words I used conveyed to people it was my mistake, and I analogize. My point is: it takes more courage to cast your downvote if your username is tied to it than if it's not. I can't be any more clear than that. Accountability is taking responsibility for your actions, in this case the action we're talking about is voting in the rep system. I also never raised the issue of real names. I have nothing to say about that other than I didn't raise, talk or imply anything on that. Maybe there are good reasons not to show who's voting. Again, I don't know. Who does know Kevin, isn't that why we discuss it here, to flesh out the merits, the pros and cons? That's my reason for posting here. And if the participants feel my position about anonymous rep voting has no merit, I've yet to see it discussed, at least not in any significant way. Instead I see alot of resistance to the idea, and it puzzles me. I'll also add, that if the consensus of the participants here wish to ban me from this discussion I will bow out right now and let the discussion carry on without me. If my input is not of any value to people here why should I stay? I won't. And it strikes me as significant that even services which show who made positive votes do not show negative ones. I wonder why that is. Good, a question! I don't know why that is either, but I will repeat what I said earlier: does it matter? Let's reason through what FDR wants to do and why, other boards have different standards of value. FDR's values should be the yardstick, not what other forums / services do. If the values coincide, great, no conflict, happy happy joy joy. My focus is on personal growth and the philosophy of freedom. ...but I do know that you've brought multiple serious charges down now that you haven't really made much of a case for, if at all. This is a serious accusation in itself Kevin. Pls tell me if I'm missing anything: 1) censorship and 2) cowardly / irresponsible behavior. Does that about cover it? I believe I've addressed the second one here, and the first in my previous post, and you acknowledged that with your "Opps" comment. Just to be clear on censorship. Banning the discussion on determinism is censorship, as would be banning any topic. But I completely agree Stef is perfectly within his rights to do so. I never committed one way or the other as to the ban being right or wrong, only that banning it was inconsistent with keeping the topic of atheism. The disagreement I voiced at the end of my first post in this topic was poorly worded and inflammatory. Given that I concede it's within Stef's rights to ban a topic it was an unnecessary comment. I offered it in part to provide some balance and support to why it should not be a banned topic for the sake of freedom of speech, not for any merits or support of determinism. If an apology is warranted for saying banning any topic is inconsistent with freedom of speech I won't apologize. But I do apologize for saying Stefan "is a bit hypocritical" for making the choice to ban the topic of determinism.
Kevin Beal Posted August 11, 2014 Posted August 11, 2014 There are a number of points that I need to respond to here Kevin, but let me begin by saying I feel some personal hostility. Perhaps I deserve it, I'm open to that. If I have been too strong in my choice of words or my position poorly worded I'll take ownership of that and apologize. What you sensed was irritation, not personal hostility. Personal hostility is what you've suggested downvoters do: act out their rages at other people, especially unjustly. And it was not your choice of words that I take issue with. I told you what I take issue with. Do you remember a time where you could not win? Where you protest, but are not listened to? Where it drags on and on and on? Where the reasoning is specious and it doesn't matter how logical your objections are? With someone you can't get away from? I am not even irritated anymore. I'm sad. Tired. Tired of arguing with you. I've stopped caring about what's the logical and virtuous position. And that makes me sad. What a strange thing this is: arguing with you about buttons. This is not how I want to be spending my time...
RuralRon Posted August 17, 2014 Posted August 17, 2014 Those are all very good points Compos, which I have taken to heart, especially the last sentence. So this will be my last post in this "discussion".
greekredemption Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 The reputation system seems to have worked, as I don't bother to offer contrary views any more. There's no point as nobody sees the post. So... well done, Internet voting system.
cynicist Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 The reputation system seems to have worked, as I don't bother to offer contrary views any more. There's no point as nobody sees the post. Seems as though you enjoy the dark, since you just keep burying yourself deeper...
Freedomain Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 Starting now, I'm going to vote down everybody who posts in this thread or who ever brings up this subject again... I think half a dozen threads and well over a hundred posts are enough.
greekredemption Posted August 18, 2014 Posted August 18, 2014 Seems as though you enjoy the dark, since you just keep burying yourself deeper... edit: not worth it, move along!
Recommended Posts