Downvoting

[neeeel]

I find the downvoting feature to be fairly useless as it is. If I see a post that has been downvoted, or I get my own post downvoted, I usually cant see why. This site is about learning, and, I learn nothing from being downvoted. If the person who downvoted brought up what their problem with a post was, then the original poster may learn where their thinking was off, or the person who had the problem may learn that their thinking was off. 

 

Is there any way to add a reason why you down vote a post?

[PatrickC]

Neeeel I recommend you read this forum post about the topic.

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39518-the-forum-a-couple-grievences-i-have/?hl=downvoting#entry362165

 

The voting system whilst certainly not perfect has been rather instrumental in filtering out some of the endless threads and obvious troublemakers that used to occur a lot in the past. Being a relatively new member you might not be aware of that of course.

 

Unfortunately you will always get a handful of people that will downvote people unreasonably. This is often countered by people that will notice that and upvote them accordingly. I've had my fair share of downvotes myself. Sometimes it has given me pause and at other times I understand I've probably unwittingly triggered someone through no fault of my own or my argument.

[LovePrevails]

I agree we should be able to leave anonymous feedback but downvoting is like grades. no form of useful assessment or feedback, no evidence that they are helpful. Make people concerned about what other people think of what they are saying than saying what they think etc.

[Carl Green]

Is there any way to add a reason why you down vote a post?

 

You can reply to the topic in the thread explaining how/why you up/down voted for all to see it, or you can send a private message.

 

This requires effort on their part more than just clicking a single button, though.

[WasatchMan]

Downvoting is essential for the function of this board.  I have seen trolls roll in and out of here and if it weren't for the ability for the community to downvote they would be here much longer.

[DaVinci]

I don't think I even have the ability to down vote. I just shake my fist in the air at my screen.

[AncapFTW]

I don't think I even have the ability to down vote. I just shake my fist in the air at my screen.

At the risk of having this comment censored, you haven't paid for the privileged.

[neeeel]

Downvoting is essential for the function of this board.  I have seen trolls roll in and out of here and if it weren't for the ability for the community to downvote they would be here much longer.

 

ok. but can we add an anonymous comment section? Or encourage people to explain why they downvoted?

[WasatchMan]

ok. but can we add an anonymous comment section? Or encourage people to explain why they downvoted?

 

I am not against this.  I do agree with Patrick though, if people see a comment they think was un-justly downvoted they usually try to correct it with an up-vote.

[shirgall]

Posts about determinism are automatically downvoted into oblivion, as it was meant to be.

[Hamish]

It would be great if an up or downvote required a reason. It might result in fewer votes, but would presumably improve the value of votes cast.

[shirgall]

It would be great if an up or downvote required a reason. It might result in fewer votes, but would presumably improve the value of votes cast.

 

Because someone has to click it, and because all behavior is voluntary, all downvotes have a reason.

[Kevin Beal]

There was also this other discussion:

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37664-negative-reputation

[PatrickC]

ok. but can we add an anonymous comment section? Or encourage people to explain why they downvoted?

 

So why not a comment section for those upvotes you disagree with too. You see where this is going?

 

Why not ask yourself why a downvote bothers you so much. On the surface it can seem like a very trivial matter, but it's probably not for you, just for everyone else. So sitting and asking the question of yourself is probably the most productive route you can take. The chances are that any explanation you're given you're probably not going to like either.

[neeeel]

So why not a comment section for those upvotes you disagree with too. You see where this is going?

 

Why not ask yourself why a downvote bothers you so much. On the surface it can seem like a very trivial matter, but it's probably not for you, just for everyone else. So sitting and asking the question of yourself is probably the most productive route you can take. The chances are that any explanation you're given you're probably not going to like either.

 

I would be for comments for upvotes too. I dont always see why posts are upvoted either.

 

Yes , maybe you are right and it indicates something else going on with me

[Kevin Beal]

These suggestions for how things should be changed technologically are not trivial. From the standpoint of a web developer, I already see all sorts of problems with how this sort of thing would be implemented. This is the sort of thing that if requested as a feature, I would be re-negotiating the feature list to have it taken out.

 

Also, the thread I linked already discusses this and many other possibilities at length. Did you read it by chance?

[neeeel]

I cant read it, I think its just a philosopher king thread?

[shirgall]

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/37664-negative-reputation/ is not in a locked area.

[Kevin Beal]

I cant read it, I think its just a philosopher king thread?

Oh, that's weird. It doesn't say it's a PK or gold thread. I wonder why...

[neeeel]

ah, sorry, I was thinking of the link patrick did, I can read your thread

[BaylorPRSer]

I'm not particularly pleased with the way down voting has been abused as of late.  It seems that there are people who simply down vote when they disagree, which I think is unfair.

[wdiaz03]

I agree Baylor, I think this feature is necessary, but people have been using it incorrectly. I can see up voting when you agree or see good insight on a post, but the contrary is not true. Simply disagreeing with a post should not trigger a downvote. This will drive away unpopular opinions since the member posts will be hidden. Stef has said that he welcomes opposite views and they go to the front of the queue. So down voting should only be use for abusive language etc.

[MMX2010]

I agree Baylor, I think this feature is necessary, but people have been using it incorrectly. I can see up voting when you agree or see good insight on a post, but the contrary is not true. Simply disagreeing with a post should not trigger a downvote. This will drive away unpopular opinions since the member posts will be hidden. Stef has said that he welcomes opposite views and they go to the front of the queue. So down voting should only be use for abusive language etc.

 

 

Two of my threads have been heavily down-voted. 

 

Before I started this thread, my reputation was around positive 105.  https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43454-is-fdr-wrong-about-empathy-and-therapy/?hl=empathy

 

And before I started commenting in this thread, my reputation was around positive 40.    https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/43965-friends-with-benefits/

 

My current reputation is negative 23. 

 

I welcome anyone who has an outside perspective to both: (1) tell me what negative things I've done to deserve such reputation hits and/or (2) draw their own conclusions about downvoting using my particular example.  Whether in this thread, through PM's, or through Skype, I'll do my best to address any suggestions. 

 

Also, I have zero warning points from the moderators, and have received zero PMs from moderators indicating what (if any) offenses I've committed. 

[Kevin Beal]

So down voting should only be use for abusive language etc.

What's the "etc"? I think that's a pretty important. You are stating that people are using the feature incorrectly, so help people to know what the appropriate usage is.

 

So far we have "don't simply down vote because you disagree" and "do down vote if they use abusive language". I guess I would probably agree with these statements, but I'm not sure why.

 

We're all adults here, philosophically inclined and hopefully principled adults. If we can't handle figuring this out amongst each other, I'm not sure where that leaves us when it comes to doing anything else productively together.

 

If we have to institute something as a matter of policy, I don't think that speaks very well of us as a community. It's not like whatever dysfunction is being implied (e.x. disagreement as basis for vote) goes away. The personalities involved do not change. All you do is shield yourself from seeing it directly. And that's if we accept that down voting is the real issue concerning dysfunctional personalities or aspects to personalities when it comes to using the boards software (which I'm prepared to argue is not true).

 

So many times I've seen a user with a negative reputation and I wonder why, then I read some more of their posts and then it becomes very clear: because their assholes. I don't know about positive reputations, but I've certainly found negative reputations very useful in determining what kind of person I'm seeing. And assholes don't always use abusive language. The really smart ones don't, in fact.

 

A lot of you weren't around before the current boards software (with the voting feature), but there were plenty of people who were assholes who stuck around a long time finding new people to annoy and drag into endless debates. Those types get down voted now and go off and annoy people in some other corner of the internet. I think that's a wonderful thing.

 

Ostracism isn't a bad thing.

 

I say we down vote assholes. It's not about board guidelines. You should get banned (after being warned) for violating the guidelines. That's my opinion, and anyone is free to disagree (I won't down vote you for it).

[BaylorPRSer]

When I first started poking around here, it was my experience that assholes had negative reps. Now, it seems like a joke to people and I find myself up voting posts I don't agree with because there's simply no assholery to be found in the post.

 

"Ostracism isn't a bad thing."

 

I agree. Although I do like what Chomsky said during his interview with Stef about how it's harmful for both those doing it and receiving it, it absolutely has its time and place. Let's ostracize the behavior of incessant down voting then.

 

They may have played a role in driving off the cop who introduced himself. I was disappointed because I have some complex feelings towards cops and wanted to see how Stef's material, and debating philosophical and mature adults who can handle the difference of opinion, affects his thinking.

[shirgall]

There are two forms of shaming/ostracism that happen here. One is the overt one of downvoting. The other is ignoring what some people bring to the discussion and continuing to converse as if they hadn't posted. The second form is very subtle and most people miss it.

 

What is very telling is people that get downvoted, but nonetheless engaged in very vibrant debate. That is quite a mixed message!

 

What's interesting is the difference between regulars, usual suspects, folks that show up posting a ton in a lot of threads but then get frustrated and ragequit, and those that come by, post in depth from time to time, but in general sit back from threads and read a great deal more than they write. These last two are important audiences and neither are affected very much by the reputation system or the ignoring system.

 

Nothing's perfect, and asynchronous communication systems like forums try to serve a heck of a lot of masters and yet be simple to use.

[Kevin Beal]

Let's ostracize the behavior of incessant down voting then.

[...]

I was disappointed because I have some complex feelings towards cops and wanted to see how Stef's material, and debating philosophical and mature adults who can handle the difference of opinion, affects his thinking.

Why?

 

And 

 

Are you prevented from doing that? Can you not contact him yourself and make the sort of cases you wanted to see made? How important is it to you really? Did you try?

[BaylorPRSer]

No, I'm not prevented from doing that.  I just realized that 'ostracize' seems like a strong word for what we are discussing.  Basically, I'm glad this got brought up is what I'm saying.  I think we should evaluate (in the form of threads like this) this habit people have of down voting harmless posts just because they disagree and/or don't like the person.  I'd hate to see MMX no longer post (not saying he cares, idk) because he links to some cool stuff and brings perspectives drastically different from most people here. 

 

The cop thread that I mentioned was not the end of the world.  You're right about that, but that's because it's just one thread/person.  However, if this turned into turning away hundreds of interesting people or more, I would say it's fairly important to me.  I've gotten a lot of value from people I've interacted with here as well as threads that I didn't participate, but nonetheless found lots of rich content.

[MMX2010]

Ostracism isn't a bad thing.

 

I say we down vote assholes. It's not about board guidelines. You should get banned (after being warned) for violating the guidelines. That's my opinion, and anyone is free to disagree (I won't down vote you for it).

 

 

Citing UPB (the book, not the concept), there are two types of behaviors that cause angst: Moral Violations and Aesthetic Violations.  Moral Violations deserve ostracism, because of UPB.  But Aesthetic Violations don't deserve ostracism because they're not UPB.

 

The two man differences between Moral Violations and Aesthetic Violations are: (1) Aesthetic Violations are not universally preferred behavior, and (2) Aesthetic violations do not prevent you from voluntarily leaving the conversation. 

 

Hence, downvoting is for moral violations - (which I assert I've never done, because I have zero warning points and no contact from the mods) - whereas Ignoring Someone's Posts is for Aesthetic Violations.  (Note, also, that Ignoring Someone's Posts is only Ignoring Someone's Posts; you don't get to antagonize them just because you feel antagonized and then ignore their posts.) 

[Kevin Beal]

I'm glad this got brought up is what I'm saying.  I think we should evaluate (in the form of threads like this) this habit people have of down voting harmless posts just because they disagree and/or don't like the person.

Oh, I see.

 

What about it should we discuss? MMX in particular, TheFuzz, what we should do in the event that someone gets down votes for not being liked?

 

I would just hate to see it implicitly established that something is the case prior to there being any analysis or discussion. "MMX is simply down voted because people don't like him or agree with him" is a claim which I don't think is true, personally. I've pointed out a lot of things that I've seen that I believe would warrant such a vote, and you may disagree with me, but certainly there is a disagreement. (I've also upvoted a ton of his posts, just for the record).

 

Sometimes all we see is the framing someone does after the fact and not the actual interaction being framed. It's hard to imagine, for example, that you read many of his posts in the recent thread (on account of them being so lengthy). But then again, maybe I'm all wrong. People are free to read it themselves and draw their own conclusions.

[shirgall]

I'd hate to see MMX no longer post (not saying he cares, idk) because he links to some cool stuff and brings perspectives drastically different from most people here. 

 

Which is why I often upvote him when he is being downvoted...

I wonder how many other people see the message "You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day"

[MMX2010]

 

You can universalize, "I prefer the hear the truth over hearing lies."

 

You cannot universalize, "I prefer a relationship that lacks ambiguous-flirtation, such as negs and shit tests." or "I prefer a relationship where people directly state their grievances, as opposed to a relationship where people indirectly hint at their grievances and expect you to intuit what they're complaining about."  Nor can you universalize, "I prefer when people criticize me without raising their voice and using dismissive facial expressions." 

 

The last three examples, all of which were aesthetic violations, are not universal.  (And they're aesthetic because they're not universal!)  Downvoting someone's aesthetic violations, which dirties their reputation among an entire community - (subtly encouraging them not to be taken seriously just because you dislike what they're saying) - destroys the open-mindedness of a community. 

[BaylorPRSer]

For me personally, whenever I've hurt someone's feelings in the past, it bothers me.  Even when I didn't do anything wrong.  However, I get that some people need to be ostracized (which I understand can mean to either put pressure on someone to change his or her behavior, or exclude someone completely).

[MMX2010]

 

 

How is ostracism harmful to the person doing it?

 

You didn't ask me, but my earlier post informs my answer here.

 

Ostracizing someone for moral reasons doesn't harm the person doing the ostracism.

 

Ostracizing someone for aesthetic reasons absolutely harms the person doing the ostracism, because no one who does this has the self-awareness to say, "You know what?  I'm totally ostracizing that guy just because I dislike his communication style."  Instead, they say, "I have great moral reasons for ostracizing him!  I'm a moral person; he isn't!" 

 

And nothing sucks the joy out of your own life (and the lives of everyone you come into contact with) like moral pretension.  It makes you believe that you're far more moral than you really are, far more empathetic than you really are, and far more wise than you really are.  Because this particular pretense only "fools" people who already share it, you'll find yourself surrounded by equally Joyless people. 

 

From there, you'll try to regulate behaviors that you have neither the right nor power to regulate. 

[Ray H.]

 

Ostracizing someone for aesthetic reasons absolutely harms the person doing the ostracism, because no one who does this has the self-awareness to say, "You know what?  I'm totally ostracizing that guy just because I dislike his communication style."  Instead, they say, "I have great moral reasons for ostracizing him!  I'm a moral person; he isn't!" 

 

And nothing sucks the joy out of your own life (and the lives of everyone you come into contact with) like moral pretension.  It makes you believe that you're far more moral than you really are, far more empathetic than you really are, and far more wise than you really are.  Because this particular pretense only "fools" people who already share it, you'll find yourself surrounded by equally Joyless people. 

 

From there, you'll try to regulate behaviors that you have neither the right nor power to regulate. 

 

I would wager that this type of rhetoric is the exact reason why you are being downvoted. You are asserting absolute knowledge of the mindstate of others. You have no such knowledge. And, in fact, you have accused of others of wrongfully doing this to you, so this behavior is hypocritical. This seems to indicate a lack of self awareness on your part, which is also something you color-codedly accuse others of. I've downvoted you, rarely, for these reasons. I can't recall upvoting you, because your posts overwhelmingly, contain this approach to whatever conversation you're participating in. 

 

You don't seem like a bad guy. I don't think you deserve any kind of harsh ostracism, but I also think you're intelligent enough to take the downvotes as an indication that, maybe, just maybe, your tone and style aren't facilitating whatever it is your intentions are for posting. Perhaps, that's an area you should work on, instead of doubling down (something else you point out in others.) My guess is that changing your tone from a lecturing, proselytizing style to a more sincere, casual one would work wonders for getting others to see the value in the viewpoint that you have.