freemankind Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Something I have noticed as a new member is this forum reputation system. I see a lot of (great) info in FDR against democracy and what a ridiculous way to solve social problems it is... but then when it comes to solving social problems here that's basically what you guys use?? I don't see the difference between a post and a truth statement. It might have some noise, a certain style or even some fallacies, but it might also contain valuable statements—let alone true statements. So truth statements here get voted down or up in the same way they do at the societal or collective level in your average democracy... That's pretty amazing. That's basically saying that the owner (admin) prefers to use the criterion of a random sum of his visitors' valuations in ascertaining truth and justice inside the house; all in the light that he—supposedly—knows how to determine these better than the average person, and has suffered the same kind of collective ostracism for it, which he denounces. Or are there any indications I may be unaware of that people who sign up here make good judges in terms of the content of a post, which is what matters in relation to its truth value? If Stefan went to congress, wouldn't he be censored and voted down too by a majority? Would they not try to silence his rational arguments—which to them sound like pure insults and blasphemy—in the same manner, by appealing to the form not the content? It seems to me they would... I am speaking from my experience on this thread (Stefan's lack of integrity with Chomsky interview) but I guess it must happen all the time here. There are other aspects of the forum I have found very positive, and kudos for that, but this one is pretty disappointing.
aFireInside Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 wrong, democracy involves force everything here is voluntary. If obama got elected I'm still subjected to his rule even if i didnt vote for anyone. No one is forced at gun point to participate in this community , can you say the same about democratic governments ?
PatrickC Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Something I have noticed as a new member is this forum reputation system. A reputation system being new for you. Come now, did Facebook, YouTube or countless other forums allude you.
JamesP Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 The reputation system is not a tool for determining the truth value of a post. It is a way for the invested community to provide feedback on the content of users' posts.Long-term users have by and large expressed their approval of this system, which was newly installed in the middle of 2013. The only tool prior to the upgrade of the board was a ban. Now, we have reputation and the ability for users to ignore other users' posts in addition to the standard admin tools. This lowers the need for admins, which is a great thing as the board community grows. It is also much easier on the admins if the community is the one to say, "We don't care for what this person is saying." The concept of reputation is also very much in keeping with the concept of a free society. It helps tell you if the person that is posting is considered by others to post good/helpful posts, or bad/unhelpful posts. Lastly, I have not yet observed massive downvotes on posters which make good arguments but contravene some accepted conclusion. In this, I think you have jumped to a conclusion. I may not say it enough, but if anyone thinks that a person is being downvoted unfairly, please let me or MMD know. So far, I have only heard from one person who thought so and my judgment was that it was fair.
dsayers Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Something I have noticed as a new member is this forum reputation system. I see a lot of (great) info in FDR against democracy and what a ridiculous way to solve social problems it is... but then when it comes to solving social problems here that's basically what you guys use?? There's a difference between the majority voting to force private companies to not allow smoking in their places of business and a homeowner saying I do not allow smoking in my house. The fundamental difference is ownership. This forum is a privately owned service and its rules/methods only purport to bind you during your use of that service. In order for this to be analogous to democracy, the majority of people in the geographical area you live in would have to own you, your home, your occupation, etc.
MrCapitalism Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I can still see posts from users with a bad reputation if I want to.
aFireInside Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I can still see posts from users with a bad reputation if I want to. Exactly, I do that myself. And its always something extremely trollish or illogical.
freemankind Posted January 9, 2014 Author Posted January 9, 2014 wrong, democracy involves force everything here is voluntary. If obama got elected I'm still subjected to his rule even if i didnt vote for anyone. No one is forced at gun point to participate in this community , can you say the same about democratic governments ? I can sure see that. But it's not what I'm talking about; I'm talking about the criterion for determining truth (see the example of congress), not its enforcement (regardless of a country being a legitimate dominion, Obama can also tell you to leave the country if you don't like it). Now, your reply is fallacious, and you can see it got better votes than my original post. That makes the perfect illustration of what I'm saying. @JamesP The reputation system is not a tool for determining the truth value of a post. It is a way for the invested community to provide feedback on the content of users' posts. So, if you get a majority bad philosophers signing up, then you will get negative feedback on posts with a positive truth value, will you not? But this is a forum on philosophy. How do you know the quality of this invested community will honor the purpose of this forum at any given point, or is the truth not the purpose of the forum? The concept of reputation is also very much in keeping with the concept of a free society. It helps tell you if the person that is posting is considered by others to post good/helpful posts, or bad/unhelpful posts. Freedom is, primarily, individual; is that not the main thesis espoused here? As I said, letting anyone into your community does not guarantee freedom because you don't know if they are free (philosophical). A free community is made up of free individuals. If the individuals you accept are not free then you will have a non-free community, and that's what the votes will reflect. "Helpful" is not a synonym for "good" in terms of philosophy. Obama would find Stefan extremely unhelpful in congress... Lastly, I have not yet observed massive downvotes on posters which make good arguments but contravene some accepted conclusion. In this, I think you have jumped to a conclusion. I may not say it enough, but if anyone thinks that a person is being downvoted unfairly, please let me or MMD know. So far, I have only heard from one person who thought so and my judgment was that it was fair. I just saw it on that thread I mentioned. I can understand the OP's style was not the most appropriate, but the central argument was sound, and I did not see Stefan or anyone refute it appropriately. What happens is that people don't like the argument, and start attacking its presentation or secondary things, in order to bury it. That is anti-philosophical behavior, and it is what this system encourages. If the OP's post was so bad as to receive so many bad votes, then why did it get so many replies? Were perhaps those negative votes given by the people who replied? Why do people bother replying to something that isn't worth reading?
dsayers Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 So, if you get a majority bad philosophers signing up Bad philosophers take up jobs in government and media where they get special privileges and good money for easy work. They don't go to a message board that attracts the minds most able to see through rhetoric. If the OP's post was so bad as to receive so many bad votes, then why did it get so many replies? Were perhaps those negative votes given by the people who replied? Why do people bother replying to something that isn't worth reading? This paragraph begins with you implying that something gets replies because it is popular and/or worthy of support, but end it with acknowledging that there can be any number of UNKNOWN reasons for replying.
aFireInside Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 I can sure see that. But it's not what I'm talking about; I'm talking about the criterion for determining truth (see the example of congress), not its enforcement (regardless of a country being a legitimate dominion, Obama can also tell you to leave the country if you don't like it). Now, your reply is fallacious, and you can see it got better votes than my original post. That makes the perfect illustration of what I'm saying. No, Obama can't tell me to leave if i was born here. I didnt choose to be here. (i have everything here) And when i leave ill leave to another tax farm. You where not born in this board. ---------------- I think the rating is also to determine assholes . which that is a perfect example of it up there . --------- and only because your question gets rated down doesn't mean other people don't read them ,... i read them all the time.
Kevin Beal Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Concern Troll: "A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending." - Urban Dictionary
aFireInside Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Concern Troll: "A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending." - Urban Dictionary Right on point .
Freedomain Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 I can sure see that. But it's not what I'm talking about; I'm talking about the criterion for determining truth (see the example of congress), not its enforcement (regardless of a country being a legitimate dominion, Obama can also tell you to leave the country if you don't like it). Now, your reply is fallacious, and you can see it got better votes than my original post. That makes the perfect illustration of what I'm saying. Free Troll Tip: Maybe your posts get downvotes because you're kinda being a dick.
Armitage Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Did you guys ever give someone positive points for disagreement? Just curious. I mean, people surrounded by yes-men have such a rich personal growth.
PatrickC Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Did you guys ever give someone positive points for disagreement? Just curious. I mean, people surrounded by yes-men have such a rich personal growth. Your 'concern' is noted..
zippert Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 The reputation system does not equal a true/false determination. So you have to think for yourself. The system can help you to identify certain type of arguments that are disliked by the community members.
Marcus Clarke Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I just saw it on that thread I mentioned. I can understand the OP's style was not the most appropriate, but the central argument was sound, and I did not see Stefan or anyone refute it appropriately. What happens is that people don't like the argument, and start attacking its presentation or secondary things, in order to bury it. That is anti-philosophical behavior, and it is what this system encourages. If the OP's post was so bad as to receive so many bad votes, then why did it get so many replies? Were perhaps those negative votes given by the people who replied? Why do people bother replying to something that isn't worth reading? To say that the style was not "appropriate" seems like an attempt to rationalize and defend how FreeEach switched to a bullying demeanor after you found potential empirical evidence for FreeEach's argument. This is not a "secondary thing", and it is a part of the presentation of the argument. However, when people start to bully, they are repeating this childhood terror of angry reasoning such as "my reasoning + my evidence + my conclusion = you are an inferior stupid ignorant animal of a child, and I can now expose you to your friends/siblings as a stupid idiot and gain the respect of all because I know so much compared to you". The moral way to teach people is to be kind, present your argument, present your evidence, and answer questions about your argument without trying to project pain onto people (pain might result from truth, but you should not use name calling in a discussion in order to produce pain in someone else). So, after I saw abuse being used instead of argumentation, I did point it out. I do reject the assertion that this was brought up because I was trying to "bury" the argument. I spoke about it because when people are abusive, they need to see it to have a chance at not doing it again.I did find the original argument interesting, I honestly think that anyone could kindly talk about the original topic again by starting a new forum post. I think that I would even be interested in that participating in the discussion.
Armitage Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 The reputation system does not equal a true/false determination. So you have to think for yourself. The system can help you to identify certain type of arguments that are disliked by the community members. What does that tell us about the community members? If I was a donator, I wouldn't give negative points. I'd be ashamed of giving negative points anonymously and without justification, because that would feel cowardly to me. I'd tell the person what I don't like or let him be. I'm on another forum on which people can grant positive and negative points, but it's not anonymous and they need to write some comment on what's for. And it works, if there are jerks, they get a plenty of neg rep, most people get a plenty of positive support.
zippert Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 What does that tell us about the community members? That fact alone tells us nothing specific, I guess. In the last week on this forum I focused on what kind of posts get voted up and voted down, because I was voted down 3 times in a single thread. It is generally posts which have some form the community dislikes. So there where arguments for statism not voted down. Arguments containing some kind of ad hominem attack, even if just underlying, get voted down on a regular basis. Really interesting is for me what kind of posts get voted up: short comments, that the community aggrees on not in form but in content. Long arguments tend to not get voted.
freemankind Posted January 10, 2014 Author Posted January 10, 2014 The moral way to teach people is to be kind, present your argument, present your evidence, and answer questions about your argument without trying to project pain onto people (pain might result from truth, but you should not use name calling in a discussion in order to produce pain in someone else). So, after I saw abuse being used instead of argumentation, I did point it out. I do reject the assertion that this was brought up because I was trying to "bury" the argument. I spoke about it because when people are abusive, they need to see it to have a chance at not doing it again. Well, on this thread so far I have been already called an asshole an a dick by "the community" (including staff) in posts that got positive or zero votes. I also see some similar behavior in other posts that are meant to hurt feelings and ostracize, not address any arguments... That's all I need to see, really. It's not me who is defending the principle of good manners and not hurting "childhood feelings"... I wouldn't reject a post containing valid arguments because of these things, because I know I have something to gain from it. Doing so and arguing that "your feelings are hurt" from having been bullied as a child is an equal form of defense; none of it has anything to do with the arguments that are already there, and certainly someone who can fallaciously negate the truth can also do so after a well-presented criticism. Being a "community" has never been about the truth, but about sheltering together from it in the illusion of having achieved it.
PatrickC Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Well, on this thread so far I have been already called an asshole an a dick by "the community" (including staff) in posts that got positive or zero votes. I also see some similar behavior in other posts that are meant to hurt feelings and ostracize, not address any arguments... That's all I need to see, really. It's not me who is defending the principle of good manners and not hurting "childhood feelings"... Being a "community" has never been about the truth, but about sheltering together from it in the illusion of having achieved it. So let me understand you. You make a claim that a reputation system is anti philosophical and therefore the whole community (other than yourself I presume) is anti philosophical. You get told you're being a bit of a 'dick' and you feel insulted.. Riiigghhtt.
Kevin Beal Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 A person coming in and telling me that I'm anti-philosophical, hypocritical and all in a condescending tone. I'd rather be called a dick, personally.
Josh F Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Does the reputation system prevent people who are negged from posting new topics? If not, it totally should. To the trolls: This is a microcosm where we practice holding people to a higher standard. Welcome to the higher standard. Let me say, I'm truly sorry you weren't properly prepared for it. God knows I wasn't 4 years ago.
freemankind Posted January 10, 2014 Author Posted January 10, 2014 A person coming in and telling me that I'm anti-philosophical, hypocritical and all in a condescending tone. I'd rather be called a dick, personally. Do you have any interest in the truth value of those adjectives--and their refutation--or is philosophy really all just a matter of name-calling for you? I suppose if you agree with--perhaps voted for--Xelent's mischaracterization of what I said, you would interpret I addressed you in particular; because if that is not the case then I don't understand how you could interpret I was calling you those things. Ah, wait... perhaps you interpreted I am addressing you because you recognize yourself in the kind of behavior I described.So, summing up this thread, basically one could make a post that only says "Stupid!" over here, see his post voted down, and be replied to by people who claim: - They are not stupid. - The word stupid could never be a truth statement. - The OP is stupid. - Calling people stupid is bad (universally). I hope calling this the "summit of inconsistency" will still be allowed by majority vote.
Armitage Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Does the reputation system prevent people who are negged from posting new topics? If not, it totally should. To the trolls: This is a microcosm where we practice holding people to a higher standard. Welcome to the higher standard. Let me say, I'm truly sorry you weren't properly prepared for it. God knows I wasn't 4 years ago. Posting or banning is not the question here. The reputation is. Anonymous reputation gives people power without responsibility and as such it is commonly abused. I would not call that a higher standard. Actually it seems more of a lower standard to me. People don't even have to think about why do they give negative reputation, don't have to write a justification, they just click.
wdiaz03 Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Posting or banning is not the question here. The reputation is. Anonymous reputation gives people power without responsibility and as such it is commonly abused. I would not call that a higher standard. Actually it seems more of a lower standard to me. People don't even have to think about why do they give negative reputation, don't have to write a justification, they just click. I can agree with you here, And I was about to give you a positive vote, but I wasn't sure if you had a goal of -100 or something. I mean how do you get -93? and by doing nothing wrong, people just picked on you for no reason I guess.
Josh F Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Posting or banning is not the question here. The reputation is. Anonymous reputation gives people power without responsibility and as such it is commonly abused. I would not call that a higher standard. Actually it seems more of a lower standard to me. People don't even have to think about why do they give negative reputation, don't have to write a justification, they just click. The day a troll actually looks at his own behavior as the cause of his negging, thats the day they'll begin to get positive feedback. And think about it... I don't have negative points and you do, but I'm subjected to the same chance of being abused as you are by anonymous people. Feedback is good, ignoring it is not.
Armitage Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 I can agree with you here, And I was about to give you a positive vote, but I wasn't sure if you had a goal of -100 or something. I mean how do you get -93? and by doing nothing wrong, people just picked on you for no reason I guess. I was foolishly doing what Stef is doing. I was upsetting people exactly the way he is upsetting people. Remember how he talked about the dream of the tsunami wave? We, who introduce powerful ideas to unprepared people are like that wave crashing on them. Stef is not the only philosopher out there, not the only one doing his defooing and searching for his true self for some years. And he's not the only one upsetting people. Of course, my reputation and troll's reputation doesn't show any difference. The day a troll actually looks at his own behavior as the cause of his negging, thats the day they'll begin to get positive feedback. And think about it... I don't have negative points and you do, but I'm subjected to the same chance of being abused as you are by anonymous people. Feedback is good, ignoring it is not. What if I am a gadfly of Athens, not a troll? I listen to Stefan much more than he or anyone listens to me. And I agree with him more than he or anyone agrees with me. And I hold anarcho-Capitalism in very high esteem, it's just that I can reflect about it in more ways than most people can, because I am curious about alternatives. As the philosopher Karl Popper said, when you think that a theory is the only possible one, then you don't understand the theory, nor the problem it was supposed to solve. If anyone's reading this and it's upsetting them, take it as a red flag on your side. If you don't like my posts, don't expect I'll know what you don't like from a negative number, tell me with words. Imagine I'm fresh from the Stef's podcasts on self-esteem (which I am) and i see this as a bullying and I won't respond to bullying.
dsayers Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 The day a troll actually looks at his own behavior as the cause of his negging, thats the day they'll begin to get positive feedback. Are you sure? In the Justin Bieber topic, I pointed out that a topic on the pop star in the philosophy forum of a board with the largest concentration of philosophers in the world was getting more replies than topics of epistemology, self-ownership, peaces, etc combined. I got my first downvote. The cause was that it hit too close to home of somebody that lacks self-knowledge and blames me for being honest. What lesson am I to learn? Is the lesson of self-erasure for the purpose of conformity valid? In this place? It made me take a quick look at my current overall rating and where the positives came from. Almost all of the positives came from posts where I was full bore deconstructing sophistry. The kind of thing that if you were the author of the sophistry and lacked self-knowledge, you'd really consider to be a personal attack. The lesson with this positive feedback is that I should use my usually razor-sharp capability for spotting inconsistencies with disregard to how such implementation might land for others. This is a problem because the nurturing I received my first couple years paved the way for an excellent intellect. Then the abuse of the next few decades left me with a brain that was lacking emotion, empathy, was highly logical, to the point of seeing greys as black and white, etc. In regards to my own personal growth, the encounragement of this behavior would actually be detrimental. I guess the bottom line is that the rating system is subjective so suggesting there is objective information that could be derived from it is false.
Kevin Beal Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Are you sure? In the Justin Bieber topic, I pointed out that a topic on the pop star in the philosophy forum of a board with the largest concentration of philosophers in the world was getting more replies than topics of epistemology, self-ownership, peaces, etc combined. And why is that a problem? Epistemology is often really boring. Justin Bieber, not as much. It's all philosophy even if it isn't metaphysics. I'm interested in disagreement. That's more interesting to me. I'm sure there is plenty of stuff for me to learn about epistemology, and in which case, start that thread and draw people in showing why it's so interesting or worthwhile. Perhaps your post was downvoted because the implication you are making is that it's shallow or trivial or something along those lines, to talk about Justin Bieber. When it's not. At least not simply because you vaguely imply it.
Josh F Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 I was foolishly doing what Stef is doing. I was upsetting people exactly the way he is upsetting people. Remember how he talked about the dream of the tsunami wave? We, who introduce powerful ideas to unprepared people are like that wave crashing on them. Stef is not the only philosopher out there, not the only one doing his defooing and searching for his true self for some years. And he's not the only one upsetting people. Of course, my reputation and troll's reputation doesn't show any difference. What if I am a gadfly of Athens, not a troll? I listen to Stefan much more than he or anyone listens to me. And I agree with him more than he or anyone agrees with me. And I hold anarcho-Capitalism in very high esteem, it's just that I can reflect about it in more ways than most people can, because I am curious about alternatives. As the philosopher Karl Popper said, when you think that a theory is the only possible one, then you don't understand the theory, nor the problem it was supposed to solve. If anyone's reading this and it's upsetting them, take it as a red flag on your side. If you don't like my posts, don't expect I'll know what you don't like from a negative number, tell me with words. Imagine I'm fresh from the Stef's podcasts on self-esteem (which I am) and i see this as a bullying and I won't respond to bullying. So negative 91, and you just dont know how it happened? Cmon man. Big difference to the other guy talking about a neg vote one time. One neg vote from an idiot is likely nothing, I've gotten some I'm sure, but 91 means something, right?
_LiveFree_ Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 How bad are things when you have to use a message board to set up a situation where you get to play the victim?....again. How bad will things have to get for you before you decide to stop repeating this behavior pattern? Is playing the victim something that you want to do your whole life? If you're right in your positions, what strategy are you employing to correct the wrongs? Is this strategy working? Do you have evidence that it is?
Armitage Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 So negative 91, and you just dont know how it happened? Cmon man. Big difference to the other guy talking about a neg vote one time. One neg vote from an idiot is likely nothing, I've gotten some I'm sure, but 91 means something, right? I know what happened, I'll say it again through a metaphor. I am trying to bring to the table what I see is missing from the table. People at the table however seem to think their table is complete, good as it is and that it's the only table worth taking from and that they know well enough what's on the other tables, what table am I from and what to think about people who partake on the other tables. Add to it the trouble that the foods on the tables may be named similarly, but their contents may vary, so names do not necessarily correspond. And then imagine, that any single slip of etiquette at the table earns you a few negative points from all bystanders. If I was an ethnologist I'd already be roasting over a fire. I am being a jerk, hoping to show so much merit that people will start questioning their impression of a jerk and will wonder if perhaps I am not a jerk after all and start being curious. But there's no avoiding it, every philosopher seems a jerk to non-philosophers. And when it comes to the issues I deal with, almost nobody here is a philosopher. The economic stuff. As Karl Popper wrote, if you see a theory as the only possibly true one, you don't understand the theory, nor the problem it was supposed to solve. A true philosopher is curious about new things, other theories or solutions. But nobody pays attention to jerks, they get psychoanalyzed away. If I wasn't a jerk, I'd get taken more seriously, but I also couldn't bring anything radically new. Curiosity is one of great virtues. I'm here because of curiosity. If I wasn't curious, I'd hang out with people who think that you are the jerks.
Josh F Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 im voting you down right now. Do you know why?
Recommended Posts