Armitage Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 im voting you down right now. Do you know why? Probably because I'm not searching for explanation for everything in problems with my parents, as everyone here have to do, in order to be taken seriously. You can't use psycho-analysis as the answer to everything. Answers that explain everything, explain nothing. You may be right in 90 % of the cases, but some day you might meet someone like me, who has issues and is honest enough to admit that, but also thoughtful enough to work on them for years and get into defooing ASAP. You have to take such a person seriously. You can't use the argument that people who aren't capitalists are somehow more damaged or less recovered than you, therefore they're wrong. (emotional, subjective) I actually studied Law & Economy at a Libertarian college. My teacher on the ancap courses was this man and I got straight A's from his courses. He changed lots of my opinions and taught me a lot. But you can't even consider that because that would mean you have to take me seriously. That would mean you have to see me as a person, not as my parents.
dsayers Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 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. That's the thing: I never said it was a problem. It was an objective observation and an accurate one. What you provided here could be the basis for a meaningful dialogue on the implication you perceived in my statement. Something a "-1... and that's it" does not accomplish.
PatrickC Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 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 I've heard my fair share of grandiosity on this board over the years, but this takes the Olympic gold frankly. I consider myself these days well versed in the kind of 'concern trolling' that goes on here. Politeness I have in bounds, but not for those that aren't interested in reasonable criticism on a board I've given plenty of personal time and financial investment in.Please accept my -100 reputation donation as a lesson in humility and try to be curious in yourself, rather than others for now.
FriendlyHacker Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 I vote for Stefan to be replaced by a bald sock puppet called Mr Grumpyballs. Show will feature Mr Grumpyballs cursing Richard Nixon for 3 hours and sharing his views about how hopelessly stupid today's kids are. Let's make it happen.
JamesP Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 How come y'all keep engaging with the uber-negative-rep dude?
Nerburg Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 As a new member here on the boards, this thread is kind of disappointing. This IS supposed to be a philosophy forum and the reputation system is certainly not pro-philosophy, because as a staff member JamesP pointed out, "the reputation system is not a tool for determining the truth value of a post." Of course, that isn't to say that a reputation system is anti-philosophical, or goes against the values which are rightly espoused here. Yes, everything here is voluntary so ethics aren't really what I'm bringing into question. This idea that anyone expressing concern is automatically a "Concern Troll" is absurd. That urbandictionary definition could easily apply to us from the statist perspective. As the OP pointed out, "[a post] may have some noise, a certain style, or even several logical fallacies, but it might also contain true statements". This is extremely relevant to a reputation system on a forum that is supposed to have it's roots in philosophy. There was a post on the first page that had excellent constructive criticism for how to improve the reputation system, which was to add a 'reason' field to up and down voting. That post was down voted into oblivion, while "concern troll" posts were elevated. That does seem to me, to indicate some level of groupthink which we ought to be suspicious of, no? Absolutely, a reputation system is a positive force in a voluntary community, but how is it not beneficial to have feedback along with the rep points? Look at amazon, for example. A product with 4 stars and no worded reviews is more suspect than a product with the same rating but also reasons for the rating. TL;DR: adding reason to reputation points is beneficial, constructive criticism is not trolling, and the vitriol in this thread was saddening.
JamesP Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 I think there is a significant difference between people who react emotionally to the reputation system and the reasoned requests for improvement. Also, maybe I missed it, but where did anyone say that requiring a reason for a downvote would be a bad thing? The only real obstacle to that request is technical, though I will admit I have not yet been sufficiently motivated so as to investigate whether this is feasible.
Lians Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 TL;DR: adding reason to reputation points is beneficial, constructive criticism is not trolling, and the vitriol in this thread was saddening. If I have the time or desire to point out why I'm up-voting or down-voting someone's post, I'll post in the same thread. If not, I'll cast my vote anonymously. Not everything on this board serves philosophy, but that doesn't make it any less useful. Constructive criticism, at a minimum, requires reason or evidence. This fellow equated an internet board to a democracy, refused to address his error and kept piling on fallacy after fallacy. He did all that while pretending he's concerned about the well-being of the community. This is why people called him a concern troll.
Nerburg Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Also, maybe I missed it, but where did anyone say that requiring a reason for a downvote would be a bad thing?Where did I say anyone said this? My point was that despite the poor communication and/or thinking of the OP and his compatriot on the first page, the excellent suggestion of adding a reason to the rep system has like a -92 or something, thus suggesting that the bullheadedness is coming from all sides, and is compounded by the blanket up/down system. For example, my first post in this thread, which is entirely constructive criticism and is not rude in any way has already been downvoted. I would be curious to find out why.Thank you for the response JamesP, the honesty of why things are or aren't is appreciated (it's rare enough) as is the work you do.Lians, I do not really wish to devolve into any arguments about what makes the accusation of 'concern troll' valid and who it applies to, I was only pointing out that the raw definition provided is sketchy at best.
JamesP Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Oh no no no, I think I see where the confusion might be coming from. Those numbers aren't per post. They are from all of the reputation assigned to that user. I hope that clears things up a bit.
dsayers Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Would it be more accurate to say that the number is per post until they fall beyond the threshold, at which point it's the user's total? That's how it appears to me anyways. I don't know how associated settings might alter this.
Lians Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 The reputation in your profile is the sum-total of all reputation points you have received for your posts on the board. The number at the bottom right of a post is the post reputation. OP got -6 for his post and has accumulated -30 in total. Nerburg, I don't know why you got down-voted and I don't think it's particularly important. To me, the most important bit in your post was this: the vitriol in this thread was saddening. Take my opinion for what it's worth, but if I were in your shoes, I'd examine the cause of this sadness before expecting others to change their behaviour.
Nerburg Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 The clarification of how the reputation system works is helpful, but, if anything, seems to support the notion that public feedback (even just a word: useful, funny, trollish) might be a good requirement for up or down voting. The fact that we can be irrational about some subjects and absolutely splendid on others bears this out.I may post the most ridiculous nonsense about quantum mechanics and how these new physics theories (somehow?) affect the ethics we talk about, and rightly(?) be -1'd into oblivion. Yet, why should that affect my other posts on other subjects, which I may actually be the most specialized in? This should be evident due to the diversity of discussion topics that are found here.So, I guess I'm not sure what the merit is of censoring (I know that this isn't the most accurate term, please forgive my word-brain) new posts based on the irrationalities of older posts, when we all recognize ourselves as fallible. Lians, you may not care why my post was downvoted, but I most certainly do! As my first reputation point ever awarded is negative, for a post that is perfectly respectful and reasonable (which is not the same as true), it seems like my constructive criticism may hold some weight!I also believe it is self-evident that I may be saddened by the conduct of "both sides", so to speak, on the first page of this thread. I'm not entirely sure what the insinuation there was, as I was simply engaging in RTR communication, though I'm fairly certain it has something to do with Stef's first question to distressed callers. Nor am I aware how that might affect the content of my postings, current and previous. I would prefer explicit communication rather than: I'd examine the cause of this sadness before expecting others to change their behaviour.
Lians Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 I wasn't saddened by the exchange in this thread, so I don't see the cause of your sadness as self-evident. I don't know what's causing you distress, so I can only prompt you to look into the cause yourself. Vitriol, devolve, censoring, insinuation. These are all words that you've used in your posts so far; words that carry an explicit negative and accusatory connotation. You are obviously feeling quite strongly about this topic, so I recommend you take some time to cool down before you continue on with the discussion. To quote the board guidelines: Please respect your feelings. If you find that a thread is becoming unpleasant, please disengage. If you feel your temper rising with someone, please stop responding to him. Anger and escalation will never lead us to the truth. The truth can only result from a positive and challenging mutual exploration of facts and principles. Escalation is the responsibility of both parties.
TheRobin Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 I think the reputation system is more aimed at giving the broad strokes of a person's posting quality. I too find myself disagreeing with certain up or downvotes, but if a person accumulates more than around 20-30 that's usually a very reliable sign.
Nerburg Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 Lians, I truly do not know how to respond to the notion that there wasn't poor behavior from multiple parties with multiple perspectives on the first page of the thread (my use of vitriol, disappointment, and sadness). Frankly, it reminded me of YouTube comments. Devolve was perfectly appropriate in the context of my post, as this thread is for discussion of the reputation system rather than 'concern trolls'. I apologized for the use of the word censorship in the very same post I used it in, as I recognized that it was not accurate to an appropriate degree. You seem to be taking what I'm saying out of context rather than addressing the issue in this thread, which I feel I have contributed constructive discussion towards, namely, a modification to the reputation system. I have striven to maintain neutrality of tone as well as rationality, so I'm not certain why you seem to be questioning my motivations. It's certainly false to claim I have expressed any anger and in posting a guideline which does not have any bearing to the context of the discussion, I must express confusion, for I do not think my communication skills are quite that poor. Your concern is appreciated but, rest assured, is misplaced.
JamesP Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 This will be my last word on this as I'm getting pretty bored with this discussion. Nearly all the points you are bringing up were considered in the implementation of this system. Being new here, you wouldn't know that the current system was a vast improvement over the previous system. There was no built-in mechanism for community feedback on a user. You also might not know that currently, only donators are allowed to up or down vote posts. Somebody who donates has found the show valuable and wants to see it succeed, so granting reputation is a perk given to them. It's also about trust--I trust that the people who have shown that they care about the show have good judgment when it comes to whether a post is valuable. The best predictor of future behavior is relevant past behavior. I don't necessarily disagree that per-reputation feedback might be even more helpful, but I really don't think it is absolutely necessary. I also KNOW that people will still complain about it being bad or insufficient... and it just gets really, really boring.
Kevin Beal Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 This idea that anyone expressing concern is automatically a "Concern Troll" is absurd. That urbandictionary definition could easily apply to us from the statist perspective. The definition doesn't apply to just anyone who disagrees. It's reserved for the type of behavior you often see where there is a condescending pretense at concern for other people, which is mostly or entirely wrong, trivial or irrelevant. The purpose of which could only really be to satisfy some end that has nothing to do with the content of their posts: hence the "troll" part. What it actually accomplishes if it's not seen for what it is, is that it shuts discussion down. So, you can see a standard emerging for how someone could be determined to be a concern troll. The fact that it's not a democratic process, is voluntary and compatible with the NAP and other values we and other ancaps share doesn't phase the OP one bit. Therefore it's safe to assume it's not actually about anything he's saying because even if it's disproved, it doesn't matter. Concern trolling is a very commonly accepted phenomena written about in many credible places like RationalWiki. I chose the UrbanDictionary definition because it best fits how I use the term and how I've understood others to use it. Of course if you see that a person's concern trolling as something sincere, of course you would sympathize with them. That's the point. And that's why it's a problem. It's deceptive and meant to trigger other people's insecurities. It's actually quite a fucked up thing to do once you really see it. You are totally free to demonstrate the assertion you've made above with some kind of evidence. That would be appreciated, otherwise I'm inclined to disbelieve that we are concern trolling regarding our interactions with statists. In contrast, here's a kind of concern that is actually about what is being talked about and justly directed at the appropriate people, meant to communicate actual understanding: 2006 – The First Wall Street Protest Manifesto! http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2006_first_wall_street_manifesto.mp3
dsayers Posted January 12, 2014 Posted January 12, 2014 I may post the most ridiculous nonsense about quantum mechanics and how these new physics theories (somehow?) affect the ethics we talk about, and rightly(?) be -1'd into oblivion. Yet, why should that affect my other posts on other subjects, which I may actually be the most specialized in? This should be evident due to the diversity of discussion topics that are found here. I understand what you're saying, but wanted to point something out. Philosophy is a method by which we can determine the truth value of objective claims. Math, science, physics, biology, economics, etc are all offshoots of philosophy. The likelihood of somebody engaging in good philosophy in one area, but faulty philosophy in other areas isn't high.
freemankind Posted January 14, 2014 Author Posted January 14, 2014 This will be my last word on this as I'm getting pretty bored with this discussion. Nearly all the points you are bringing up were considered in the implementation of this system. Being new here, you wouldn't know that the current system was a vast improvement over the previous system. There was no built-in mechanism for community feedback on a user. You also might not know that currently, only donators are allowed to up or down vote posts. Somebody who donates has found the show valuable and wants to see it succeed, so granting reputation is a perk given to them. It's also about trust--I trust that the people who have shown that they care about the show have good judgment when it comes to whether a post is valuable. The best predictor of future behavior is relevant past behavior. I don't necessarily disagree that per-reputation feedback might be even more helpful, but I really don't think it is absolutely necessary. I also KNOW that people will still complain about it being bad or insufficient... and it just gets really, really boring. Clearly, if people are new or don't know then it's worth telling them. You add nothing by repeating "it's boring" other than to contradict that this place has anything to do with personal truth--let alone serving customers.
Wesley Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Clearly, if people are new or don't know then it's worth telling them. You add nothing by repeating "it's boring" other than to contradict that this place has anything to do with personal truth--let alone serving customers. Personally, I would be a lot less bored if new members who may not be aware of things asked questions and showed curiosity as to why things exist the way they do, rather than attacking without this knowledge... ...and also when they finally realize they may have messed up and attacked before they knew things, they would not continue to attack in more subtle and passive-aggressive ways. I have found people on the boards to be extraordinarily helpful when asked for clarification or when curiosity is expressed. It would be impossible to try to tell new members about every possible little minutiae of what might be discussed or needs clarification. However, if new members asked questions about what they were unsure about, things would likely move more smoothly.
june Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 One thing that irks me the wrong way is how posters with lots of thumbs down get automatically hidden from threads and require and manual unblocking just to reveal their data. That does not seem right. I want to see all the input, and other users opinions/thumbs up and down shouldnt be able to block me out
PatrickC Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 One thing that irks me the wrong way is how posters with lots of thumbs down get automatically hidden from threads and require and manual unblocking just to reveal their data. That does not seem right. I want to see all the input, and other users opinions/thumbs up and down shouldnt be able to block me out Your first sentence contradicts your last one. You are not being blocked out of users posts, if you are able to unblock them with one mouse click.
june Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 @xelent apoligies if my phrasing wasnt clear enough for you
Kevin Beal Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 @xelent apoligies if my phrasing wasnt clear enough for you *apologies
freemankind Posted January 15, 2014 Author Posted January 15, 2014 Personally, I would be a lot less bored if new members who may not be aware of things asked questions and showed curiosity as to why things exist the way they do, rather than attacking without this knowledge... ...and also when they finally realize they may have messed up and attacked before they knew things, they would not continue to attack in more subtle and passive-aggressive ways. See, this is what happens with dogma. As I said before, I am not the one defending the principle that one must be universally "curious" or "respectful"--however this contradicts the fact that you will be very offensive indeed if you question anyone's truth. It's always the same: the narcissist uses a principle to defend himself, then breaks it to attack... Talk about things getting boring...
Ray H. Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 The only valid point about the voting, I see, is that posts are hidden at a certain level. That feature, unfortunately, serves to rile people up. It's led to this thread which is mostly a waste of time. The posts are still being read, since they continue to pile up downvotes. Perhaps, the hide feature should be abandoned, but once a user accumulates a certain number of negative votes the moderators then make a determination about that user's participation, i.e. are they breaking forum rules or are they simply being disagreed with. Maybe this is being done already. Other than that, I have no problem with the display of reputation. It's useful information. The suggestion to require an explanation would squelch a lot of readers' votes and would lead to more threads like this one, not fewer. freemankind, I haven't voted you down in either thread. I agree with almost nothing you've said. But you are skirting my personal threshold for civility. Are you trolling? I don't know. I've given you the benefit of a doubt, so far. Others have not. I have no problem with that. Perhaps, you could suggest solutions to the concerns you have, instead of only offering criticism and arguing over semantics.
Kevin Beal Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 The only valid point about the voting, I see, is that posts are hidden at a certain level. That feature, unfortunately, serves to rile people up. It's led to this thread which is mostly a waste of time. That's the seen cost, but the unseen benefit is to those who wish not to read that sort of stuff. I almost never read hidden content. It's actually really helpful to me. If it's been deemed to be so negative as to be hidden, then that tells me all I need to know.
june Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 That's the seen cost, but the unseen benefit is to those who wish not to read that sort of stuff. I almost never read hidden content. It's actually really helpful to me. If it's been deemed to be so negative as to be hidden, then that tells me all I need to know.personaly i cherish judging for myself what i deem to be negative or positive. Having others decide for me what gets hidden and what stays in view seems... off, for lack of a better term. As Ray H. above noted, complaining without suggestions is not really productive, so my suggestion here is to simply have every post always in view by default, and those that prefer to have posts hidden by decisions from others can enable such an option in their personal account settings. Do you think that is a fair suggesfion?
Kevin Beal Posted January 15, 2014 Posted January 15, 2014 personaly i cherish judging for myself what i deem to be negative or positive. Having others decide for me what gets hidden and what stays in view seems... off, for lack of a better term. As Ray H. above noted, complaining without suggestions is not really productive, so my suggestion here is to simply have every post always in view by default, and those that prefer to have posts hidden by decisions from others can enable such an option in their personal account settings. Do you think that is a fair suggesfion? No, actually. Developing these features takes time and effort that's better spent elsewhere. You can very easily un-hide it. As for what's productive or not, I don't know. I don't see how it's just a given that it's unproductive. Unproductive as compared to what?
june Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 That is true. But it must have took time and effort (that was possibly better spent elsewhere) to implement this "hide post" system in the first place. But i digress, my suggestion was merely about the idea of not hiding posts. If other people agree about the idea (or dont), then great! Feedback will have been received, and then if enough people, or the right people, show positivity toward it, then we can determine what is worth the time and effort.
freemankind Posted January 16, 2014 Author Posted January 16, 2014 freemankind, I haven't voted you down in either thread. I agree with almost nothing you've said. But you are skirting my personal threshold for civility. Are you trolling? I don't know. I've given you the benefit of a doubt, so far. Others have not. I have no problem with that. Perhaps, you could suggest solutions to the concerns you have, instead of only offering criticism and arguing over semantics. This is exactly what I mean on this thread. You dislike and disagree, and you don't explain why, but blame it all on "civility". I don't know why you haven´t voted me down, because it definitely seems like the best way you could "reply" to me. This thread is "a waste of time", but you still come to post here and project onto me the fact that you are the one without any arguments, appealing to emotions and trolling...
Ray H. Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Okay, you settled that one. You show no desire to do anything other than provoke. Good luck.
Existing Alternatives Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 We are here not to “earn” reputation points, but rather bring up and discuss topics that are important to us. Voting is a mechanism to provide quick feedback on a given post (and not the poster) without actually engaging in a debate. Ultimately, I don't think members get banned for low scores (I hope not), but rather for violating the board's rules. When you talk with your friends in real life, I am sure they often express their disagreement, whether rational, constructive, or not. Here we do it by clicking a button. Take it as is, while being curious as to why people voting your post up or down.
june Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 We are here not to “earn” reputation points, but rather bring up and discuss topics that are important to us. Voting is a mechanism to provide quick feedback on a given post (and not the poster) without actually engaging in a debate. Ultimately, I don't think members get banned for low scores (I hope not), but rather for violating the board's rules. When you talk with your friends in real life, I am sure they often express their disagreement, whether rational, constructive, or not. Here we do it by clicking a button. Take it as is, while being curious as to why people voting your post up or down. Reputation points are signalled both to the post and poster, as far as i'm aware. And a posters low score will automatically hide their posts from view
Recommended Posts