Wiltin Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 I like to discuss controversial topics, play devil's advocate at times, and represent views counter to those widely held in all the forum communities I frequent. I find topics that are most inflammatory to be some of the most informative and helpful. My reputation here is suffering, perhaps this is by design and maybe it is well deserved, I'm not suggesting there is injustice here. However, I think that this system serves to exacerbate a confirmation bias within the community and I'm not sure that it is healthy. Those people who support widely held views are up-voted, while those who take positions that are unpopular get down-voted. I see this as an incentive to conform, agree, confirm, and supplicate to positions that one thinks the community will like. I think that the reputation system therefore detracts from the overall quality of discussion here.
MMX2010 Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 My reputation here is suffering, perhaps this is by design and maybe it is well deserved, I'm not suggesting there is injustice here. However, I think that this system serves to exacerbate a confirmation bias within the community and I'm not sure that it is healthy. Those people who support widely held views are up-voted, while those who take positions that are unpopular get down-voted. I see this as an incentive to conform, agree, confirm, and supplicate to positions that one thinks the community will like. You're assuming that your reputation is suffering because of the existence of the reputation system, and because of "the incentive to conform, agree, confirm, and supplicate to positions that one thinks the community will like". But you're not considering that your reputation is suffering because you're a presumptive poster who doesn't adequately respond to / consider counter-arguments. But that's what's most important. What IS most important is that there exists a "search box" at the upper right forum of every page. Typing in "reputation" into the search bar yields multiple topics about the reputation system. You could have researched those topics to develop a criticism of the reputation system that is NOT a practically word-for-word repetition of other peoples' complaints, but you chose not to. Meanwhile, you're claiming that you're "only here to learn" - even though it takes oh-so-little effort for you to use the search bar.
Wiltin Posted June 21, 2014 Author Posted June 21, 2014 You're assuming that your reputation is suffering because of the existence of the reputation system, and because of "the incentive to conform, agree, confirm, and supplicate to positions that one thinks the community will like". But you're not considering that your reputation is suffering because you're a presumptive poster who doesn't adequately respond to / consider counter-arguments. But that's what's most important. What IS most important is that there exists a "search box" at the upper right forum of every page. Typing in "reputation" into the search bar yields multiple topics about the reputation system. You could have researched those topics to develop a criticism of the reputation system that is NOT a practically word-for-word repetition of other peoples' complaints, but you chose not to. Meanwhile, you're claiming that you're "only here to learn" - even though it takes oh-so-little effort for you to use the search bar. I checked the front page of the feedback forum for any similar criticism and didn't find any. I'm sorry if you find the way in which I expressed my view inappropriate, I didn't realize making this thread would create this kind of blowback. You've gotten under my skin and plenty of choice words come to mind, suffice to say I find you to be extremely belligerent and downright unfriendly.
Freedomain Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 I checked the front page of the feedback forum for any similar criticism and didn't find any. I'm sorry if you find the way in which I expressed my view inappropriate, I didn't realize making this thread would create this kind of blowback. You've gotten under my skin and plenty of choice words come to mind, suffice to say I find you to be extremely belligerent and downright unfriendly. Posts such as this may contain the answer to your reputation related concerns. Have you read Real Time Relationships? If not, I'd highly recommend it.
Wiltin Posted June 21, 2014 Author Posted June 21, 2014 Posts such as this may contain the answer to your reputation related concerns. Have you read Real Time Relationships? If not, I'd highly recommend it. That was my first such post. I've looked over Real Time Relationships and I'm not sure how it applies to my criticism of the reputation system. Do you have any comment on the incentive that down-votes provide for people to agree with commonly held views?
Freedomain Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 That was my first such post. I've looked over Real Time Relationships and I'm not sure how it applies to my criticism of the reputation system. Do you have any comment on the incentive that down-votes provide for people to agree with commonly held views? ...but you're somebody who would make such a post, and don't seem to find any problem with that. That may itself be the problem.
Wiltin Posted June 21, 2014 Author Posted June 21, 2014 ...but you're somebody who would make such a post, and don't seem to find any problem with that. That may itself be the problem. Certainly it may be a problem, which RTR could help me with. Be that as it may, I wonder if you find the incentives the reputation system brings with it appropriate for open and honest discussion.
Freedomain Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 Certainly it may be a problem, which RTR could help me with. Be that as it may, I wonder if you find the incentives the reputation system brings with it appropriate for open and honest discussion. I haven't seen a single case where the negative reputation was unwarranted. Universally everybody who has complained about the reputation system, was somebody engaging in behaviors that earned them a deserved negative reputation.
MarkIX Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 I haven't seen a single case where the negative reputation was unwarranted. Universally everybody who has complained about the reputation system, was somebody engaging in behaviors that earned them a deserved negative reputation. I have a neutral reputation. I have complained about the reputation system I called it "herd mental". Not exactly a reasoned argument but still A complaint from a non negative reputation holder. With one exception the people with negative reputations that I have noticed don't seem for the majority to be entirely illogical or deliberately obstructive. For a community that supports the strivings of the damaged to be free, to institute a policy of micromanagerial judgement on every single "utterance" seems a bit counter productive. It also can't be said I have avoided negative reputation because I avoid controversy, look at my recent history if you doubt that.
PatrickC Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 I have a neutral reputation. I have complained about the reputation system I called it "herd mental". Not exactly a reasoned argument but still A complaint from a non negative reputation holder. With one exception the people with negative reputations that I have noticed don't seem for the majority to be entirely illogical or deliberately obstructive. For a community that supports the strivings of the damaged to be free, to institute a policy of micromanagerial judgement on every single "utterance" seems a bit counter productive. It also can't be said I have avoided negative reputation because I avoid controversy, look at my recent history if you doubt that. Have you considered why you favour this questioning from outliers and why you yourself avoid risking controversy? Taking a devils advocate position is one thing, but suggesting that it's just an innocent question that only requires further exploration in one direction, whilst simultaneously avoiding ones own possible culpability is to ignore a great deal of knowledge. Tell me, why would you do that?
MarkIX Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 Have you considered why you favour this questioning from outliers and why you yourself avoid risking controversy? Taking a devils advocate position is one thing, but suggesting that it's just an innocent question that only requires further exploration in one direction, whilst simultaneously avoiding ones own possible culpability is to ignore a great deal of knowledge. Tell me, why would you do that? Did I say I avoid controversy? Perhaps you should reread my post as I believe you have misinterpreted it
endostate Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 However, I think that this system serves to exacerbate a confirmation bias within the community and I'm not sure that it is healthy. Those people who support widely held views are up-voted, while those who take positions that are unpopular get down-voted. I see this as an incentive to conform, agree, confirm, and supplicate to positions that one thinks the community will like. I think that the reputation system therefore detracts from the overall quality of discussion here. How does flagging road hazards detract from the overall quality of the road?
tjt Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 This is not specific to Wiltin's complaints or his previous actions, and I admit I haven't read this whole thread here yet. But I have had some concerns with the reputation system myself. I don't mind that it 'flags the road hazards,'(I can take the rating into account as I decide if the majority vote is accurate or not) but it bothers me that at one point ALL of the person's posts are hidden (if I am understanding the system correctly)... even posts that would be considered logical, rational or generally helpful will be hidden because of down-votes received on other unrelated posts. I'm sure I've skipped over many informative posts just because I didn't see them (I understand that is my fault for not keeping an eye out, but it would be nice if I didn't have to seek out hidden posts when I'm ebbing and flowing through a thread). The function of hiding user's posts because of their reputation is an unnecessary step beyond just putting a red flag by the user name, in my opinion. I like being able to read all posts openly without having to unhide them... even if they do end up being retarded and a waste of my time. It was my choice to read past the first sentence. So, I guess it would be nice to let the reader decide if they will continue reading past the first sentence (the rating system suffices, no need to hide all of that user's posts). And now I'm crossing my fingers, hoping that I don't get any down-votes for this post
cynicist Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 I just looked over one of your prior threads (Objectivity of Violence) to get a sense of why you thought the system was unfair. In that thread, you made the claim that spanking results in obedience, despite the evidence that it is completely ineffective since parents have to keep doing it. Not to mention Stefan has done numerous videos on the subject that include interviews from experts and facts from scientific studies: all that point to you being wrong. I didn't downvote you in that particular thread but I would have, just on the basis that you didn't put in any effort to check if your idea had merit before posting it. To ignore all that information and just spread nonsense like you did deserves a downvote. Maybe you could show an example of where you were downvoted by someone with a confirmation bias instead? Otherwise I don't see why your complaint should be taken seriously by anyone. I like being able to read all posts openly without having to unhide them... even if they do end up being retarded and a waste of my time. It was my choice to read past the first sentence. So, I guess it would be nice to let the reader decide if they will continue reading past the first sentence (the rating system suffices, no need to hide all of that user's posts). It would at least have to be a preference. I like how the feature saves me time and prevents certain posters from damaging my brain with their undecipherable ramblings.
tjt Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 It would at least have to be a preference. I like how the feature saves me time and prevents certain posters from damaging my brain with their undecipherable ramblings. That's a great idea.
Kevin Beal Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 I don't understand why a person would be willing to fight to have people who don't want to read their posts, read them. And I certainly wouldn't immediately assume that the problem was with the reputation system. If I had a couple dozen negative points, I would feel self doubt, and maybe a little hurt. I might not just assume it were all me that was the problem, but I don't think I would have much confidence saying it was any one thing in particular. Why don't people with that low of a reputation score ask someone in a PM or something to review what they had written to get a second opinion? Why does it seem to consistently end up in "this system is unjust" kinds of posts? The mere certainty of these people gives me pause, like, don't you know how that comes off? The first thing I think when I read that is: "so, this person, in all likelihood, said things to warrant that score". And maybe not, but so far, whenever I've looked into it, that has been the case. I haven't checked every time, but still. Also, I'm surprised the OP didn't find any threads on this topic. There's gotta be like a new one every couple weeks, it seems like.
PatrickC Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 I like being able to read all posts openly without having to unhide them... even if they do end up being retarded and a waste of my time. It was my choice to read past the first sentence. So, I guess it would be nice to let the reader decide if they will continue reading past the first sentence (the rating system suffices, no need to hide all of that user's posts). Perhaps the admins might be able to give members the option to not hide posts of down voted members, as a switch in their profile settings. That said, this topic has been gone over plenty and my experience tells me their isn't a lot of desire from them to change it from it's current state.
Wiltin Posted June 22, 2014 Author Posted June 22, 2014 I haven't seen a single case where the negative reputation was unwarranted. Universally everybody who has complained about the reputation system, was somebody engaging in behaviors that earned them a deserved negative reputation. Well that is convenient! Way to stick the knife in while simultaneously avoiding my actual criticism regarding incentives. I'm surprised to find myself actually a little stung by this. I just looked over one of your prior threads (Objectivity of Violence) to get a sense of why you thought the system was unfair. In that thread, you made the claim that spanking results in obedience, despite the evidence that it is completely ineffective since parents have to keep doing it. Not to mention Stefan has done numerous videos on the subject that include interviews from experts and facts from scientific studies: all that point to you being wrong. I didn't downvote you in that particular thread but I would have, just on the basis that you didn't put in any effort to check if your idea had merit before posting it. To ignore all that information and just spread nonsense like you did deserves a downvote. Maybe you could show an example of where you were downvoted by someone with a confirmation bias instead? Otherwise I don't see why your complaint should be taken seriously by anyone. It would at least have to be a preference. I like how the feature saves me time and prevents certain posters from damaging my brain with their undecipherable ramblings. If I am completely wrong about the effectiveness of violence, I'd hope that people would be interested in helping me see why. "So what?" is the overall message I got back, along with a the negative reputation. All the down-votes I accrued created in me an incentive to censor myself and try to make up for it by posting platitudes in other threads. I resisted that incentive and instead made this thread to discuss the incentive itself because I see that as a problem. I don't understand why a person would be willing to fight to have people who don't want to read their posts, read them. And I certainly wouldn't immediately assume that the problem was with the reputation system. If I had a couple dozen negative points, I would feel self doubt, and maybe a little hurt. I might not just assume it were all me that was the problem, but I don't think I would have much confidence saying it was any one thing in particular. Why don't people with that low of a reputation score ask someone in a PM or something to review what they had written to get a second opinion? Why does it seem to consistently end up in "this system is unjust" kinds of posts? The mere certainty of these people gives me pause, like, don't you know how that comes off? The first thing I think when I read that is: "so, this person, in all likelihood, said things to warrant that score". And maybe not, but so far, whenever I've looked into it, that has been the case. I haven't checked every time, but still. Also, I'm surprised the OP didn't find any threads on this topic. There's gotta be like a new one every couple weeks, it seems like. Kevin, please re-read my OP. My criticism is specific in regard to the incentives the reputation system provides. I'm quite happy to accept the consequences of the reputation system if it is intended that way. I felt the incentive to post platitudes and overtly positive things to try and make up for my reputation loss, which I think is a problem, that is why I posted this thread. There are no threads on this topic on the first page of the feedback forum, but wouldn't the fact that you say it comes up so often give you a little pause? MarkIX has received down-votes for giving an honest and relevant opinion on the topic. I'm really scratching my head here trying to figure out why on earth anyone would want to discourage that kind of post. Sure most of you may not agree with him but he isn't trolling or derailing.I've received a private message of support from a long time poster who no longer participates on the forum because of a similar complaint. Am I to assume there is a disgruntled mob of ex-posters lurking the forum, not participating for fear of reputation retribution?Well adjusted wizards of logic and bastions of self-knowledge that you are, none of you are addressing the OBVIOUS INCENTIVE in the reputation system.
endostate Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 Well adjusted wizards of logic and bastions of self-knowledge that you are, none of you are addressing the OBVIOUS INCENTIVE in the reputation system. Obviously, since it's obvious.
DGB Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 Perhaps the admins might be able to give members the option to not hide posts of down voted members, as a switch in their profile settings. That said, this topic has been gone over plenty and my experience tells me their isn't a lot of desire from them to change it from it's current state. Would be cool if they had this feature. I'm not a fan of the idea that someone else can read a post and then decide to collapse it on my screen. What does what I see on the forums have to do with anyone else? Why would it concern anyone else that I might see a post they don't approve of? I feel I am able to make such decisions on whose posts I see and don't see myself.Not losing sleep over it however. Just don't understand the feature personally. I find it hard to understand the context of a thread with posts collapsed, so end up having to expand them anyway. Surely if someone is just trolling as opposed to making an unpopular argument/statement they can be banned.
MMX2010 Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 Not losing sleep over it however. Just don't understand the feature personally. I find it hard to understand the context of a thread with posts collapsed, so end up having to expand them anyway. Surely if someone is just trolling as opposed to making an unpopular argument/statement they can be banned. MMD and JamesP explained their reasoning very well on pages two and three of this thread. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39518-the-forum-a-couple-grievences-i-have/?hl=reputation JamesP's last post reads: " I will probably write this up in a README for general reference. The problem people have is not with the reputation system. I know this because I have heard the same complaints about the forum software and the admins for years now. This is not a problem we can solve. If it were, then people would be satisfied with our explanations, or demonstrate some level of understanding why we have chosen to not implement their suggestions. Or, at the very least, their complaints would have changed in some fundamental way. What it's about is that people want to be able to avoid consequences for their behavior. They want to be able to unload on a forum without being told that their behavior is unacceptable. They want to have that "out" for themselves, because they do it to themselves and in the rest of their lives without being called out on it. And, they want to do that on this forum, in particular, because we claim to have standards. We claim to have external standards of behavior which everybody agrees to. When they come here, and they see those standards, and they are negatively impacted by those standards, they don't stop to ask if their behavior is at fault. They latch on to whatever is most visible and start attacking that. With the last board software, it was the admins. With the current board, it's the reputation system. If we implemented some other system, it would be that. Take some responsibility for yourself. Quit blaming others for the negative consequences on the board. Look at your own behavior."
Kevin Beal Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 Kevin, please re-read my OP. My criticism is specific in regard to the incentives the reputation system provides. I'm quite happy to accept the consequences of the reputation system if it is intended that way. I felt the incentive to post platitudes and overtly positive things to try and make up for my reputation loss, which I think is a problem, that is why I posted this thread. There are no threads on this topic on the first page of the feedback forum, but wouldn't the fact that you say it comes up so often give you a little pause? Your specific criticism was brought up in a separate sub-forum a couple weeks ago. If the reputation system itself promoted "platitudes and overtly positive things" you would see a lot of that, but instead you see disagreement everywhere. And that is not the way that most people with scores low enough to hide their posts react. They nearly for certain double down. It gives me little pause because this same thing happened before on the last forums without a reputation system (as JamesP points out). And nobody ever says that they feel hurt because of it. To that I say bullshit. Of course that would hurt. And if someone is not connecting with their own pain, have that kind of personality, they are bound to project or act out. MarkIX has received down-votes for giving an honest and relevant opinion on the topic. I'm really scratching my head here trying to figure out why on earth anyone would want to discourage that kind of post. Sure most of you may not agree with him but he isn't trolling or derailing. I'm actually really surprised his score isn't lower being that he's repeatedly suggested that FDR folk are generally sheeple. He may have got some downvotes here because of his previous remarks, I don't know. I've received a private message of support from a long time poster who no longer participates on the forum because of a similar complaint. Am I to assume there is a disgruntled mob of ex-posters lurking the forum, not participating for fear of reputation retribution? I doubt it. The explanation that it's because of the reputation system that they don't post is one theory. Maybe it's worth exploring other explanations. Well adjusted wizards of logic and bastions of self-knowledge that you are, none of you are addressing the OBVIOUS INCENTIVE in the reputation system. I have before and I did again. Other people have, as well. Also, if you google "spanking doesn't work" you get lots of prominent articles with reference to case studies demonstrating that it doesn't work. You kept saying that it obviously does work, but you didn't seem to do any looking into it.
Wiltin Posted June 22, 2014 Author Posted June 22, 2014 Obviously, since it's obvious. Up-vote good, down-vote bad. Me want up-vote, me conform. Me no want down-vote, me no disagree. MMD and JamesP explained their reasoning very well on pages two and three of this thread. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39518-the-forum-a-couple-grievences-i-have/?hl=reputation JamesP's last post reads: " I will probably write this up in a README for general reference. The problem people have is not with the reputation system. I know this because I have heard the same complaints about the forum software and the admins for years now. This is not a problem we can solve. If it were, then people would be satisfied with our explanations, or demonstrate some level of understanding why we have chosen to not implement their suggestions. Or, at the very least, their complaints would have changed in some fundamental way. What it's about is that people want to be able to avoid consequences for their behavior. They want to be able to unload on a forum without being told that their behavior is unacceptable. They want to have that "out" for themselves, because they do it to themselves and in the rest of their lives without being called out on it. And, they want to do that on this forum, in particular, because we claim to have standards. We claim to have external standards of behavior which everybody agrees to. When they come here, and they see those standards, and they are negatively impacted by those standards, they don't stop to ask if their behavior is at fault. They latch on to whatever is most visible and start attacking that. With the last board software, it was the admins. With the current board, it's the reputation system. If we implemented some other system, it would be that. Take some responsibility for yourself. Quit blaming others for the negative consequences on the board. Look at your own behavior." Even if the psycho-analysis was on point in my case which I'm going to claim it isn't since I'm very controlled and I don't act out in my day to day life, my criticism of the reputation system remains. Your specific criticism was brought up in a separate sub-forum a couple weeks ago. If the reputation system itself promoted "platitudes and overtly positive things" you would see a lot of that, but instead you see disagreement everywhere. And that is not the way that most people with scores low enough to hide their posts react. They nearly for certain double down. It gives me little pause because this same thing happened before on the last forums without a reputation system (as JamesP points out). And nobody ever says that they feel hurt because of it. To that I say bullshit. Of course that would hurt. And if someone is not connecting with their own pain, have that kind of personality, they are bound to project or act out. I'm actually really surprised his score isn't lower being that he's repeatedly suggested that FDR folk are generally sheeple. He may have got some downvotes here because of his previous remarks, I don't know. I doubt it. The explanation that it's because of the reputation system that they don't post is one theory. Maybe it's worth exploring other explanations. I have before and I did again. Other people have, as well. Also, if you google "spanking doesn't work" you get lots of prominent articles with reference to case studies demonstrating that it doesn't work. You kept saying that it obviously does work, but you didn't seem to do any looking into it. Torture works, beating slaves works, spanking works. Violence does work. Spanking doesn't is not a means of creating well adjusted adults and I've made my position on that very clear in my posts, but it does create obedience in children when performed consistently. I'm starting to get a very unpleasant impression of this community, I'll articulate it more later when I've had a chance to think about it.
PatrickC Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 I'm starting to get a very unpleasant impression of this community, I'll articulate it more later when I've had a chance to think about it. Good, perhaps you should move on then.
JamesP Posted June 22, 2014 Posted June 22, 2014 Given that I've written this down several times, here it is in a pinned/locked thread so that people can find it easily. Reputation System
PatrickC Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Once upon a time there was a fairy tale in my head. Except it was only in my own head and no one elses.
cynicist Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Torture works, beating slaves works, spanking works. Violence does work. Spanking doesn't is not a means of creating well adjusted adults and I've made my position on that very clear in my posts, but it does create obedience in children when performed consistently. No it does not. I just checked Stef's channel and there are numerous videos on spanking in the results. In the video titled, "The First Real-Time Study of Parents Spanking Their Kids" he says, within the first 41 seconds of the video, "....and that children misbehaved within 10 minutes of being punished". It took me a few minutes to find that along with the link to the source of the study. When someone makes a post like you did, which says the complete opposite without citing anything to support it, I'm going to downvote that post. Especially when they claim it to be true, and then say that nobody can deny it. If you did even the most cursory of research into the subject you would see that you were incorrect but you didn't even bother, instead you went straight to your keyboard and fired off your opinion on spanking.
MMX2010 Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 If you did even the most cursory of research into the subject you would see that you were incorrect but you didn't even bother, instead you went straight to your keyboard and fired off your opinion on spanking..... ....(adding to your sentence) "...to a community whose members suffered negative (or extremely negative consequences) as a result of being spanked (and/or worse!) during their childhoods, all while being shocked/shocked-I-say! that such opinions would be met with downvotes..." This is like attending, for your first time (and as a non-member), a meeting of the American Association For The Survivors Of Parent-Child Incest and saying, "If I had a four year old daughter, I'd have sexual contact with her, because such sexual contact 'works' by creating a 'bond' that can never be broken. This is obvious, so you don't get to disagree. And if you do disagree, then you have a horrible agenda, are a cult, and are experiencing a downward spiral."
MarkIX Posted June 23, 2014 Posted June 23, 2014 Did I say I avoid controversy? Perhaps you should reread my post as I believe you have misinterpreted it could the people who down voted this please give their reasons?
StylesGrant Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 Let's say we have Jack and BIll. Jack posts a mixture of things, and sometimes does or says things deliberately nonconstructive to the community or showing a lack of forethought. He gets a negative rating. Bill always gives Jack a negative rating, but if every post Jack makes is not inherently guaranteed to be nonconstructive, but Bill 'attempts to sabotage his character' by just boycotting him, than it is safe to say, nothing can stop this level of defamation. So Jack's rating would be doomed. I assume nothing can stop this, except beyond the 6th post given in a day, if the limit is 5 disapproving ratings?
Recommended Posts