Reputation Points Problem

[GRosado]

Very interesting reputation point system, I have a -33 reputation which is ridiculous. I have looked through each of the times that I have got a dislike on a post & only 4 or 5 of them are genuine the others are dumb, like I got a dislike for commenting on a post,I said "My goodness he is absolutely blowing you all out of the water & it seems like the big dogs who usually are first to defend atheism have steered clear of this possibly cause of the immense empirical data James Redford has laid down. The ones who stay to defend are simply nitpicking small things about Christianity.".I got a four dislikes for that when it was the truth about the situation. Another example is this"Disclaimer: I am not a Christian or theist but I don't like when people straw man the other side of the spectrum.In a strict sense Technology & Science are different but both are so intertwined that they enable each other to achieve their respective goals.You keep claiming that Christians are the reason innovation has slowed but if you weren't ignorant of history you would realize that it was The Papacy that held back advances which was a government body controlled by Christians who were hardly such simply research the Borgia popes & their successors (maybe Pope Julius). Your over generalizing & demonizing a whole demographic without actually providing the historical facts.The papacy wasn't anti science per se they just viewed scientific advances as challenging their authority over the people's worldview & secular power.Science hasn't completely disproved the possibility of a Deity it has only disproven the Christian concept of a deity. If you want to find some interesting arguments read & watch Dr. Gerald Schroeder an Israeli physicist.I won't disagree with you on that many Christians do flip flop on issues but I feel it is due to the people in charge of their doctrine who manipulate the bible to their benefit. One thing that I criticize Christians & theists for is their strong belief in personal intervention even though it frequently fails."That got a few dislikes.How are these false statements that deserve dislikes?This system is based on peoples opinion without any justification so basically if they don't agree with what you said even if it was a fact they could just damage your reputation by down voting you.There are some other posts that I have made that I know deserve a down vote but the many others don't deserve it.So is there really Free speech on this forum or does the majority decide what you say is false & that's how it goes? The reputation system is weird & disingenuous.

[endostate]

Very interesting reputation point system, I have a -33 reputation which is ridiculous.

.

So is there really Free speech on this forum or does the majority decide what you say is false & that's how it goes? The reputation system is weird & disingenuous.

 

Is there free speech at a dinner party? If a guest at a dinner party deliberately shits on the table, do you think it is ridiculous for others to report it?  Do you think its weird & disingenuous to hide the mess and point out the shitter?  If it escalates, wouldn't the host be wise to clean up the mess and ask the guest to leave?

 

Welcome to the party.

[GRosado]

Is there free speech at a dinner party? If a guest at a dinner party deliberately shits on the table, do you think it is ridiculous for others to report it? Do you think its weird & disingenuous to hide the mess and point out the shitter? If it escalates, wouldn't the host be wise to clean up the mess and ask the guest to leave?

 

Welcome to the party.

That picture went well with your statement & made me laugh. Yes there is free speech at a dinner party but it can be inhibited by the sensitive people at that table. If a guest shits on the table it is obvious enough for everyone to see the shit so no report is needed. Wait hold on what does feces have to do with speech they are two totally different things & seeing as how you disregarded everything else I said it doesn't seem like you commented to contribute anything just to make sardonic remarks.

[Wuzzums]

YouTube uses the same system too, so I can only assume you sent them the same post also. Did they respond?

 

You say it's about free speech. Fair enough. This means you should as angry for having -33 points as for having +33 points, yet you only complain about the negative reputation (it's not as if I can't read your posts). I checked your profile and saw you got some positive points. Please explain to me why you're undeserving of those particular points in as lengthy a paragraph as possible. Afterwards you'll have my full support on your quest for defending free speech.

[Stephen C]

It could be worth asking the people that down voted you why they did so, maybe they can help you out. If they can't or won't help with care, then just keep doing what you're doing. Love yourself the entire time you're doing it.

[GRosado]

YouTube uses the same system too, so I can only assume you sent them the same post also. Did they respond?

No I don't post on YouTube because I don't hold it in as high regards as this site so I expect people on YouTube to down vote obvious truths not people on Freedomain Board. Now that being said I'm not saying all my posts shouldn't be down voted, I clearly said that there are some that I did say stupid stuff that I didn't mean to say the way I did & I so deserve down votes for those.

You say it's about free speech. Fair enough. This means you should as angry for having -33 points as for having +33 points, yet you only complain about the negative reputation (it's not as if I can't read your posts). I checked your profile and saw you got some positive points. Please explain to me why you're undeserving of those particular points in as lengthy a paragraph as possible. Afterwards you'll have my full support on your quest for defending free speech.

Im not so much complaining about the total negative score as I'm complaining about unnecessary negative votes in some of my posts. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the reputation affect your posts? Someone told me it hid my post from him & that seems stupid.Do you really want me to do that?

It could be worth asking the people that down voted you why they did so, maybe they can help you out. If they can't or won't help with care, then just keep doing what you're doing. Love yourself the entire time you're doing it.

Im not sure if you can see who down voted but if there is a way to see then I will ask them. But i will definitely keep on doing what I am doing just wondering if the down vote inhibits my posts.

[Wuzzums]

No I don't post on YouTube because I don't hold it in as high regards as this site so I expect people on YouTube to down vote obvious truths not people on Freedomain Board. Now that being said I'm not saying all my posts shouldn't be down voted, I clearly said that there are some that I did say stupid stuff that I didn't mean to say the way I did & I so deserve down votes for those.Im not so much complaining about the total negative score as I'm complaining about unnecessary negative votes in some of my posts. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the reputation affect your posts? Someone told me it hid my post from him & that seems stupid. 

 

Ok. So we're getting somewhere. It's not about free speech, it's about negative votes you think are undeserving.

 

You posted some stuff, got negative votes and you're upset because you don't know why they downvoted you. This has nothing to do with free speech, it's about negative criticism. I'm not gonna look up the original thread you posted in but if they downvoted you without explaining why then it's not very helpful. If they did explain why then you should be thankful, feedback is incredibly important, especially negative feedback. Positive feedback just enforces that which you already know, negative feedback offers a different vantage point and with that the possibility of growth and/or correcting false data.

 

I don't see where the problem is from my perspective. Yes, your reputation does collapse your posts but it's still readable. I probably agree with most people on this forum, and when I see a collapsed post like yours I'm more interested in reading it because chances are it's offering a different point of view from that which I already have.

 

I think this thread would have been more effective if you were to ask for feedback on the posts you mentioned rather than criticizing the whole system.

[GRosado]

Ok. So we're getting somewhere. It's not about free speech, it's about negative votes you think are undeserving.You posted some stuff, got negative votes and you're upset because you don't know why they downvoted you. This has nothing to do with free speech, it's about negative criticism. I'm not gonna look up the original thread you posted in but if they downvoted you without explaining why then it's not very helpful. If they did explain why then you should be thankful, feedback is incredibly important, especially negative feedback. Positive feedback just enforces that which you already know, negative feedback offers a different vantage point and with that the possibility of growth and/or correcting false data.I don't see where the problem is from my perspective. Yes, your reputation does collapse your posts but it's still readable. I probably agree with most people on this forum, and when I see a collapsed post like yours I'm more interested in reading it because chances are it's offering a different point of view from that which I already have.I think this thread would have been more effective if you were to ask for feedback on the posts you mentioned rather than criticizing the whole system.

When I mentioned free speech it was more in regards to the fact that people with a negative reputation are affected & there posts are hidden.Yes I will admit that I get frustrated when someone criticizes me without a just cause or reason. In the threads no one explained why they down voted me. So I don't have a problem with negative criticism just specifically unjustified/uncaused negative criticism.Well when you put it like that it doesn't sound to bad to have a collapsed post lol but I still don't see why that has to happen. Is that a warning for people to steer clear of low rep posters.Like I said earlier I don't write things in the right way (unless it's a DBQ or essay then I kick ass) & that's why I accept some of the down votes I recieved. But I don't feel asking for feedback for those i mentioned above would be fruitful cause I don't know who down voted & those posts are old. Also to be clear I wasn't criticizing the board just the reputation system, I very much fancy the board.

[abcqwerty123]

Very interesting reputation point system, I have a -33 reputation which is ridiculous. I have looked through each of the times that I have got a dislike on a post & only 4 or 5 of them are genuine the others are dumb, like I got a dislike for commenting on a post,I said "My goodness he is absolutely blowing you all out of the water & it seems like the big dogs who usually are first to defend atheism have steered clear of this possibly cause of the immense empirical data James Redford has laid down. The ones who stay to defend are simply nitpicking small things about Christianity.".I got a four dislikes for that when it was the truth about the situation. Another example is this"Disclaimer: I am not a Christian or theist but I don't like when people straw man the other side of the spectrum.In a strict sense Technology & Science are different but both are so intertwined that they enable each other to achieve their respective goals.You keep claiming that Christians are the reason innovation has slowed but if you weren't ignorant of history you would realize that it was The Papacy that held back advances which was a government body controlled by Christians who were hardly such simply research the Borgia popes & their successors (maybe Pope Julius). Your over generalizing & demonizing a whole demographic without actually providing the historical facts.The papacy wasn't anti science per se they just viewed scientific advances as challenging their authority over the people's worldview & secular power.Science hasn't completely disproved the possibility of a Deity it has only disproven the Christian concept of a deity. If you want to find some interesting arguments read & watch Dr. Gerald Schroeder an Israeli physicist.I won't disagree with you on that many Christians do flip flop on issues but I feel it is due to the people in charge of their doctrine who manipulate the bible to their benefit. One thing that I criticize Christians & theists for is their strong belief in personal intervention even though it frequently fails."That got a few dislikes.How are these false statements that deserve dislikes?This system is based on peoples opinion without any justification so basically if they don't agree with what you said even if it was a fact they could just damage your reputation by down voting you.There are some other posts that I have made that I know deserve a down vote but the many others don't deserve it.So is there really Free speech on this forum or does the majority decide what you say is false & that's how it goes? The reputation system is weird & disingenuous.

 

The problem is, when you go to a place that has a specific mindset and you say/do things against that mindset, you will have people who will not like you. If you go to a meet up for "Learning How to Spank Properly" and you start talking about how spanking is bad, you will probably mostly get hate for it.

 

FDR is for finding the most logic/truth out of all topics. So, your first quoted post, you just are attacking people who haven't posted a reply yet (so it seems). There can be many reasons for not posting but you are assuming that they have no answer. Also, keep in mind, sometimes when you explain something so many times, you get tired of doing so. I don't know the actual posts your quote came from but for the most part, I haven't personally heard anything new from people supporting religion and every time I hear something new, it is supporting a completely made up religion that has nothing to do with christianity or any religion they say they are in support of, and it is always very illogical.

 

As for your second quoted post, again, I don't know what the other posts on that topic are so it is hard to talk about. However, you are defending religion which is completely illogical and untruthful on a forum that supports logic/truth. In the last sentence, you said that christians flip flop on issues because of the people in charge using them for their own benefit. Don't you think that if you are going to follow such a belief that makes not a single logical argument, that you should at least read the single horribly written book that ALL the information is provided in? If you read the book and follow the religion wholeheartedly, then nobody should be able to control you because all answers are in the book, but when you follow the people in charge, you must believe them over the book they say they follow and that makes them equally as bad and responsible.

 

Anyways, that is why. If you don't want down votes, then don't attack the people/truth because this forum isn't about that. If you want up votes, then provide reasonable questions/answers with proof and/or logic. That is the best answer I can give.

[GRosado]

The problem is, when you go to a place that has a specific mindset and you say/do things against that mindset, you will have people who will not like you. If you go to a meet up for "Learning How to Spank Properly" and you start talking about how spanking is bad, you will probably mostly get hate for it.FDR is for finding the most logic/truth out of all topics. So, your first quoted post, you just are attacking people who haven't posted a reply yet (so it seems). There can be many reasons for not posting but you are assuming that they have no answer. Also, keep in mind, sometimes when you explain something so many times, you get tired of doing so. I don't know the actual posts your quote came from but for the most part, I haven't personally heard anything new from people supporting religion and every time I hear something new, it is supporting a completely made up religion that has nothing to do with christianity or any religion they say they are in support of, and it is always very illogical.As for your second quoted post, again, I don't know what the other posts on that topic are so it is hard to talk about. However, you are defending religion which is completely illogical and untruthful on a forum that supports logic/truth. In the last sentence, you said that christians flip flop on issues because of the people in charge using them for their own benefit. Don't you think that if you are going to follow such a belief that makes not a single logical argument, that you should at least read the single horribly written book that ALL the information is provided in? If you read the book and follow the religion wholeheartedly, then nobody should be able to control you because all answers are in the book, but when you follow the people in charge, you must believe them over the book they say they follow and that makes them equally as bad and responsible.Anyways, that is why. If you don't want down votes, then don't attack the people/truth because this forum isn't about that. If you want up votes, then provide reasonable questions/answers with proof and/or logic. That is the best answer I can give.

First paragraph: very trueSecond Paragraph: Not an attack, it was an observation of the landscape & examination of the answers. It sounds like an attack but it is more of a statement of shock at the fact that no one was actually trying to take down this guys argument & also it was an applause of Redford for backing each of his arguments with PROOF/LOGIC & he maintained a respectful demeanor. Also it's clear that you don't know much about the post because you keep talking about religion when religion isn't an integral part of the conversation & I don't understand why you bring it up.Third Paragraph: It's highly inaccurate to say I'm defending religion when I gave a disclaimer that I'm not a Christian so calling my argument illogical because it doesn't fall within the atheist framework is highly disingenuous & saying I'm untruthful is a flat out lie because I maintain academic integrity, everything I wrote about the papacy & stuff like that is historically verifiable. Also by how many times you say logic & truth I feel you don't embody those you simply claim them as your own, what is your endgame with posting here?Fourth Paragraph: Ok so don't attack the people or truth. So if I provide historical facts & you say that it's untruthful & illogical you have just attacked the truth & me. What exactly constitutes a reasonable question might I ask? Is it the question that truly relies on logic & proof or doesn't go against your framework?

[abcqwerty123]

First paragraph: very true

 

Second Paragraph: Not an attack, it was an observation of the landscape & examination of the answers. It sounds like an attack but it is more of a statement of shock at the fact that no one was actually trying to take down this guys argument & also it was an applause of Redford for backing each of his arguments with PROOF/LOGIC & he maintained a respectful demeanor. Also it's clear that you don't know much about the post because you keep talking about religion when religion isn't an integral part of the conversation & I don't understand why you bring it up.

 

Third Paragraph: It's highly inaccurate to say I'm defending religion when I gave a disclaimer that I'm not a Christian so calling my argument illogical because it doesn't fall within the atheist framework is highly disingenuous & saying I'm untruthful is a flat out lie because I maintain academic integrity, everything I wrote about the papacy & stuff like that is historically verifiable. Also by how many times you say logic & truth I feel you don't embody those you simply claim them as your own, what is your endgame with posting here?

 

Fourth Paragraph: Ok so don't attack the people or truth. So if I provide historical facts & you say that it's untruthful & illogical you have just attacked the truth & me. What exactly constitutes a reasonable question might I ask? Is it the question that truly relies on logic & proof or doesn't go against your framework?

 

"My goodness he is absolutely blowing you all out of the water" - That is an attack. Just because something said might be true doesn't mean it isn't an attack. If I say that you are wrong and stupid, and it is true, do you feel I am attacking you? I sure would. (And I am not saying you are stupid, just making a point)

 

You can be shocked that nobody has argued his topic, but do so in a way that doesn't attack anyone else. And again, people may have not argued the topic because of many reasons and to assume that it is because they are stumped is a bit silly.

 

"The ones who stay to defend are simply nitpicking small things about Christianity." - I am bringing up religion because you brought it up and with the small amount of information given, I made the best guess possible at would you were talking about in the post.

 

Just because you say you are not a christian doesn't mean you aren't defending religion. My dad is an atheist but if I say anything back against religion, he flips the lid and unleashes the beast.

 

"I won't disagree with you on that many Christians do flip flop on issues but I feel it is due to the people in charge of their doctrine who manipulate the bible to their benefit." - You are making excuses for christians who aren't in charge, therefore defending them.

 

I didn't say that what you wrote about the papacy wasn't historically verifiable. But defending christianity is the same as defending lies as well as evil.

 

"Also by how many times you say logic & truth I feel you don't embody those you simply claim them as your own, what is your endgame with posting here?" - Again, this is attacking, and I don't mind it because you can say what you want while I can let it go in one ear and out the other, but I wanted to point it out. As for the question part, my endgame on the forums is to learn as much as I can while sharing knowledge I learn. My endgame on posting on this article is to help show you the reason for getting down votes.

[BlackHeron]

If I went to a pro-spanking site and didn't get downvoted, or worse yet got upvoted, I would be extremely disappointed in myself.  

 

That said, reputation systems tend to isolate and expel unpopular opinions.  This is a natural and normal meme engine in any human culture.

 

In a healthy community it keeps the troublemakers out and is a fairly egalitarian way of policing poor behavior in a forum like this.

 

In an unhealthy community, or an immoral one such as the pro-spanking community mentioned earlier, it tends to keep the voice of reason at bay and isolated from positive ideas that might be able to change things.

 

Sure, the system here only collapses the unpopular speech instead of outright censoring it.  But many people don't tend to read beyond the default view.  Perhaps there is something to be said for free-thinkers wanting to see what the down-voted comments say.  

 

I'm of mixed minds when it comes to these reputation systems.  In a way they do tend to stifle free expression and don't let the cleansing sunlight of openness into the conversation.  Nothing outs a jerk like everyone reading the jerk's self-admitted jerky behavior.  I've been on many forums where the unpopular views of the voluntaryist get buried pretty quickly by these downvotes from the legions of Mrs. Grundys jumping on the hush button.  It's happened to me a few times over the years.  I basically got blacklisted at the old Everybock website here in chicago for espoucing voluntaryist viewpoints.  Go figure, making enemies of unvirtuous people is a mark of respect in my eyes.

 

The sword cuts both ways. 

 

I personally like seeing a reputation number next to people's profiles.  But I don't like to see people's unpopular posts buried in the shadows and hidden from the purifying light of the sun.

 

I'm new here.  Because of the nature of this community and my respect for those who pursue virtue and philosophy I hope I will gain reputation points and don't drop out of sight instead.  Then again, that sword does cut both ways and I'm going to judge the community by the "reputation" I get within it for expressing what I feel and KNOW is right (philosophy) every bit as those people are judging me.  Show me what you've got folks.  

 

 

The problem is, when you go to a place that has a specific mindset and you say/do things against that mindset, you will have people who will not like you. If you go to a meet up for "Learning How to Spank Properly" and you start talking about how spanking is bad, you will probably mostly get hate for it.

 

 

[GRosado]

If I went to a pro-spanking site and didn't get downvoted, or worse yet got upvoted, I would be extremely disappointed in myself.

 

That said, reputation systems tend to isolate and expel unpopular opinions. This is a natural and normal meme engine in any human culture.

 

In a healthy community it keeps the troublemakers out and is a fairly egalitarian way of policing poor behavior in a forum like this.

 

In an unhealthy community, or an immoral one such as the pro-spanking community mentioned earlier, it tends to keep the voice of reason at bay and isolated from positive ideas that might be able to change things.

 

Sure, the system here only collapses the unpopular speech instead of outright censoring it. But many people don't tend to read beyond the default view. Perhaps there is something to be said for free-thinkers wanting to see what the down-voted comments say.

 

I'm of mixed minds when it comes to these reputation systems. In a way they do tend to stifle free expression and don't let the cleansing sunlight of openness into the conversation. Nothing outs a jerk like everyone reading the jerk's self-admitted jerky behavior. I've been on many forums where the unpopular views of the voluntaryist get buried pretty quickly by these downvotes from the legions of Mrs. Grundys jumping on the hush button. It's happened to me a few times over the years. I basically got blacklisted at the old Everybock website here in chicago for espoucing voluntaryist viewpoints. Go figure, making enemies of unvirtuous people is a mark of respect in my eyes.

 

The sword cuts both ways.

 

I personally like seeing a reputation number next to people's profiles. But I don't like to see people's unpopular posts buried in the shadows and hidden from the purifying light of the sun.

 

I'm new here. Because of the nature of this community and my respect for those who pursue virtue and philosophy I hope I will gain reputation points and don't drop out of sight instead. Then again, that sword does cut both ways and I'm going to judge the community by the "reputation" I get within it for expressing what I feel and KNOW is right (philosophy) every bit as those people are judging me. Show me what you've got folks.

I think they should implement an add on to the vote where you have the option of writing why you voted the way you did, so that way the person can build of criticism.

"My goodness he is absolutely blowing you all out of the water" - That is an attack. Just because something said might be true doesn't mean it isn't an attack. If I say that you are wrong and stupid, and it is true, do you feel I am attacking you? I sure would. (And I am not saying you are stupid, just making a point)

 

You can be shocked that nobody has argued his topic, but do so in a way that doesn't attack anyone else. And again, people may have not argued the topic because of many reasons and to assume that it is because they are stumped is a bit silly.

 

"The ones who stay to defend are simply nitpicking small things about Christianity." - I am bringing up religion because you brought it up and with the small amount of information given, I made the best guess possible at would you were talking about in the post.

 

Just because you say you are not a christian doesn't mean you aren't defending religion. My dad is an atheist but if I say anything back against religion, he flips the lid and unleashes the beast.

 

"I won't disagree with you on that many Christians do flip flop on issues but I feel it is due to the people in charge of their doctrine who manipulate the bible to their benefit." - You are making excuses for christians who aren't in charge, therefore defending them.

 

I didn't say that what you wrote about the papacy wasn't historically verifiable. But defending christianity is the same as defending lies as well as evil.

 

"Also by how many times you say logic & truth I feel you don't embody those you simply claim them as your own, what is your endgame with posting here?" - Again, this is attacking, and I don't mind it because you can say what you want while I can let it go in one ear and out the other, but I wanted to point it out. As for the question part, my endgame on the forums is to learn as much as I can while sharing knowledge I learn. My endgame on posting on this article is to help show you the reason for getting down votes.

Ok well if your goal is to paint me out as illogical, untruthful & christian go ahead I could care less, it's not worth wasting time to go back & forth constantly & I've learned that with a few people on this board.

[BlackHeron]

I think they should implement an add on to the vote where you have the option of writing why you voted the way you did, so that way the person can build of criticism.

 

Maybe it should cost a dime every time someone wanted to push that up or down button.   It would be interesting to see if people cared enough about it to put some coin behind their vote, with all the money going to FDR.

 

That's really putting your money where your mouth is,  a little skin in the game

[abcqwerty123]

Ok well if your goal is to paint me out as illogical, untruthful & christian go ahead I could care less, it's not worth wasting time to go back & forth constantly & I've learned that with a few people on this board.

 

Umm, I have not painted you out to be anything. You already claimed you were atheist, and I never said you weren't. I never said you were untruthful. I never had to say you were illogical, you accomplished that on your own.

 

You posted a topic asking why your posts get down voted. I answered it as kindly as possible, giving you example from your own words, and instead of accepting the answer and your faults, and changing them so you can converse better in the forums, you choose to deny and blame everyone else.

 

I am sorry, but if I had to guess, you only posted this topic to get the few people on these forums that are like yourself, to post as well so you can all agree on how everyone else is just mean to you guys or something. I apologize for not understanding this sooner, but good luck with finding those people.

[JamesRedford]

Very interesting reputation point system, I have a -33 reputation which is ridiculous. I have looked through each of the times that I have got a dislike on a post & only 4 or 5 of them are genuine the others are dumb, like I got a dislike for commenting on a post,I said "My goodness he is absolutely blowing you all out of the water & it seems like the big dogs who usually are first to defend atheism have steered clear of this possibly cause of the immense empirical data James Redford has laid down. The ones who stay to defend are simply nitpicking small things about Christianity.".I got a four dislikes for that when it was the truth about the situation. Another example is this"Disclaimer: I am not a Christian or theist but I don't like when people straw man the other side of the spectrum.In a strict sense Technology & Science are different but both are so intertwined that they enable each other to achieve their respective goals.You keep claiming that Christians are the reason innovation has slowed but if you weren't ignorant of history you would realize that it was The Papacy that held back advances which was a government body controlled by Christians who were hardly such simply research the Borgia popes & their successors (maybe Pope Julius). Your over generalizing & demonizing a whole demographic without actually providing the historical facts.The papacy wasn't anti science per se they just viewed scientific advances as challenging their authority over the people's worldview & secular power.Science hasn't completely disproved the possibility of a Deity it has only disproven the Christian concept of a deity. If you want to find some interesting arguments read & watch Dr. Gerald Schroeder an Israeli physicist.I won't disagree with you on that many Christians do flip flop on issues but I feel it is due to the people in charge of their doctrine who manipulate the bible to their benefit. One thing that I criticize Christians & theists for is their strong belief in personal intervention even though it frequently fails."That got a few dislikes.How are these false statements that deserve dislikes?This system is based on peoples opinion without any justification so basically if they don't agree with what you said even if it was a fact they could just damage your reputation by down voting you.There are some other posts that I have made that I know deserve a down vote but the many others don't deserve it.So is there really Free speech on this forum or does the majority decide what you say is false & that's how it goes? The reputation system is weird & disingenuous.

 

Whatever the intentions were in setting up this particular forum system, the result of it is to make it into an echo chamber. It's people patting each other on the back.

 

And there really is no excuse for that other than fear. One cannot veridically argue that this system is necessary in order to keep trolls at bay. True trolls are easy enough to spot, and so one does not need this type of system to keep them in check. (I have in mind the Anti-State.com forum, which was quite free-wheeling, and it worked wonderfully. The internet is now broken due to it being offline, but when it did exist it was a wonderful thing.)

 

Rather, this system is in place to keep people out of the discussion who might raise uncomfortable issues. Such as me. As I am very good at making everyone in the room uncomfortable. I take pride in my ability to do that. Because I figure that if what I am saying to you doesn't strike you as odd and objectionable, then I'm not actually conveying new information to you.

 

In order for me to serve you, I must offend you first. In order for me to please you, I must first make you hate me.

[Carl Green]

So is there really Free speech on this forum or does the majority decide what you say is false & that's how it goes? The reputation system is weird & disingenuous.

 

This is not a forum of free speech. It is a forum of speech within the forum guidlines.

 

Rather, this system is in place to keep people out of the discussion who might raise uncomfortable issues. Such as me. As I am very good at making everyone in the room uncomfortable. I take pride in my ability to do that. Because I figure that if what I am saying to you doesn't strike you as odd and objectionable, then I'm not actually conveying new information to you.

 

In order for me to serve you, I must offend you first. In order for me to please you, I must first make you hate me.

 

 

So in no instances in your life you've managed to serve people without offending them and you haven't pleased anyone that doesn't hate you?

 

----------------

 

As for the restriction of free speech, the extent of it only goes to the point that people have to take one extra step to click on your post to read it. The necessity to do this can also be disabled if one chooses.

[JamesRedford]

This is not a forum of free speech. It is a forum of speech within the forum guidlines.

 

So in no instances in your life you've managed to serve people without offending them and you haven't pleased anyone that doesn't hate you?

 

----------------

 

As for the restriction of free speech, the extent of it only goes to the point that people have to take one extra step to click on your post to read it. The necessity to do this can also be disabled if one chooses.

 

That was a subset case I gave, of which subset seems to hold in my interactions with people online. It also seems to hold with people in general.

 

It would be nice if people loved the truth, even if just marginally. It would be nice if people loved the truth, however so slightly.

 

Instead, truth is the most hated thing in the world.

 

So I have steeled my mind to accept people's hatred. Being liked and speaking true things that are at the same time important aren't traits that go hand-in-hand.

[Carl Green]

It would be nice if people loved the truth, even if just marginally. It would be nice if people loved the truth, however so slightly.

 

Instead, truth is the most hated thing in the world.

 

So I have steeled my mind to accept people's hatred. Being liked and speaking true things that are at the same time important aren't traits that go hand-in-hand.

 

It would be nice if they loved the truth, or your truth?  I'm not claiming to know whether your truth is accurate or not, just to be clear.

 

I dunno, maybe it's not the truth that they hate but how you present your claims of the truth?

[James Dean]

It would be nice if they loved the truth, or your truth?  I'm not claiming to know whether your truth is accurate or not, just to be clear.

 

I dunno, maybe it's not the truth that they hate but how you present your claims of the truth?

 

It's probably both, if you are apart of the FDR board, with few exceptions, you are interested in the truth. The people who claim that FDR is not generally accepting of truth is like that joke about the guy driving down the road when he hears about a madman driving the wrong way down the road he's on. he looks out the window and says, "one madman?? Everyone's going the wrong way!!"

[JamesP]

JamesRedford has not been following the guidelines, and quite flagrantly so:"Please avoid accusing someone of bad intentions without any evidence. “Oh, so whenever you are wrong, you just run away!” “Oh, you're just changing the topic because you can't handle the truth!” Even if it turns out to be true, this kind of hostility will never bring enlightenment."

 

I don't think the reputation system is broken at all.

[Josh F]

I love it, it has really kept unwanted people away.  I've been downvoted for things, too, but when you're not a constant "antagonist" it balances out and then some.

[BlackHeron]

I love it, it has really kept unwanted people away.  I've been downvoted for things, too, but when you're not a constant "antagonist" it balances out and then some.

 

I agree.  When I've said or done something that has been unpopular with my peers and friends I like to have that feedback.  I also do like the suggestion that there be some personal feedback included that gives more information as to what the offense (or helpfulness)  was specifically.  The black box system doesn't really give the person much to go on for facilitating personal growth.   Maybe a drop-down of 4-5 possible reasons multiple-choice.

 

Since anyone can vote, donator and non-donator alike, it seems that there is a potential for abuse from the very people the system was intended to protect the community from.  Perhaps a system where donator status or even the person's own reputation is considered when up or down-voting other people.   Maybe the reputation of the person voting up or down should be considered when weighting their up or down votes to keep troublemakers from gaming the system.

[JamesP]

Only donators are able to vote, and this is limited to 5 votes per day.

[BlackHeron]

Only donators are able to vote, and this is limited to 5 votes per day.

 

Thanks for that clarification.  This seems to be a very wise policy.   I did once bump into the vote limit on a long day of reading the board.

 

This discussion on user-generated reputation systems piques my interest because I've often thought about the way a similar system has been gamed on the Amazon Review pages.  It seems certain people get offended at some reviews that they disagree on (especially in the books sections)  and will then proceed to stalk that reviewer, down-voting a number of their other reviews and destroying their reviewer ranking in the process.    Amazon doesn't seem to care about this problem at all, which is one of the reasons I gave up giving them free reviews for nothing but grief from trolls on their network.  I had worked my way up to be a top 1500 reviewer in the hopes of becoming a Vine reviewer and maybe getting some free stuff to review someday.  But my hopes were smashed when my reputation suddenly went from 96% to almost 90% in a couple of days.  In my book anything under 95% is not "A work" and if I can't do "A work" then I'm in the wrong writing class...

[J-William]

As I like to say whenever I see the topic come up... I think this system is working perfectly!