Upvoting

[Three]

Okay, there's been something that's been bothering me for quite a long time now. I've been bottling it up, but I just can't keep this to myself anymore. I realize I'm probably going to catch some flack, but here it goes:


I think the upvoting system isn't useful at all. I mean, admittedly, I really enjoy seeing the pleasant green color of the rating square that occasionally lights up in the bottom right corner of my posts. They are kind of like grades. And I like feeling like I got a good grade. It reminds me of when my teacher would occasionally draw a smiley face next to the A+ I'd sometimes receive on a spelling test. It just makes things that much more satisfying.



But, here's the thing; this site is about learning and I learn nothing from being upvoted. If the person who upvotes brought up what specifically they liked about the post, then the original poster(me) may learn where their thinking was on the mark or so that other people(a.k.a me) will know why other people's posts got upvoted cause half the time I can't understand why they got the points. I think their should be a feature built in that allows for anonymous feedback.  

I mean, sometimes I get way more up-votes than I receive comments, which leaves me wondering, "Okay, so all I know is what these commentors think, but not what the voters think. Plus, How do I even know if the upvoters are the same people as the commentors?"


Speaking of commentor's, the problem of feedback doesn't just apply to upvotes, but also comments themselves! Sometimes, people leave me things like 


"Great job!"



without any explanation, reason or argument as to why that is the case!



So, I also think that some sort of feature should be created which allows for giving feedback to the feedback.


Anyways, sorry for the long rant guys. I appreciate your patience. In other words, is there anyway to add a reason why you upvote a post?













 

[Lens]

Upvoting only ? or downvoting too that you don't find a use for it.

 

I upvote some posts because I find them useful or courageous sometimes I will comment them or answer them if they contain questions, sometimes there are answers that I like so I upvote without commenting them. On the less bright side of voting downvotes are so much more important to me they keep trolls' toxic posts hidden and that I find very useful.  

[Kevin Beal]

I completely agree. Upvotes confuse the hell out of me. What am I to make of it?

 

It's a real problem. During the span of a couple weeks over a few threads, I got like 50 upvotes one time. The power to affect a reputation score that dramatically is surely a sign that there is too much unchecked power in this mob rule of an online community.

[WasatchMan]

I am a capitalist, and appreciate the ability to get feedback on my efforts, good and bad.

[MMX2010]

The Roosh V Forum uses a more complex system consisting of Likes and Reputation Points. 

 

Likes are used to provide instantaneous appreciation for a wide variety of posts, whether a funny joke, a great meme, a quasi-heroic story about a man braving the elements to bang a hot chick, a misogynistic comment that strikes the right chord of seriousness and shitlordery, or a really insightful post.  Every user can give or receive infinite Likes per day, and no Likes require explanation. 

 

Here's an amazing post by esteemed user The Lizard of Oz, which received 124 Likes, one of which was mine.  

 

http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-37819.html

 

 

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

 

Rep Points are the gold standard of the Forum, and are given and received with solemn reverence.  Each user may only give one precious Rep Point to any single user, and may only receive one Rep Point from any single user. 

 

So if a specific post moved you deep inside your soul, that's worth a Rep Point.  Or if a specific post gave you an insight for which you will be eternally grateful, that's worth a Rep Point. 

 

My current reputation is 12, in only 260 points, which is a pretty high Posts-to-Reps ratio.  

 

http://www.rooshvforum.com/reputation.php?uid=29024

 

The Rep Point I received from AnonymousBosch made me smile for days, but my favorite one is from SpiderKing, because I really liked my comment here: http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-46980-post-1007858.html#pid1007858

 

But the most important aspect of Rep Points is that each one must be explained.  Therefore, highly-esteemed posters (with triple digit Reputation scores) can be browsed for hours at a time.  And you can acquire both a sense of why that particular user is highly repped, and a broad knowledge of that poster's specialized and most beautifully expressed knowledge.  These highly-esteemed posters have been so important to me that my brain whispers their names with well-deserved respect: AnonymousBosch, scorpion, The Lizard of Oz, Excelsior, Roosh, Tuthmosis, Days of Broken Arrows, 2Wycked, Quintus Curtius, Beyond Borders, jariel...

 

That NON-Anonymous Hierarchy and aggressive moderating against low-post-count noobs creates a sense of stillness and self-reflection.  As in, "Sure I can post this, but has someone else with a higher reputation already posted it in a much more eloquent way?"  Or, "So that man's example is what every man is capable of, provided he solemnly and consistently works for it.  I should stop wasting my potential." 

 

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

 

Here?  All of the upvotes are equivalent to the Likes on the Roosh V Forum, and boards whose posters compete for Likes tend toward the sensationalistic, the petty, and the cliquey (as Kevin Beal noted here: "During the span of a couple weeks over a few threads, I got like 50 upvotes one time. The power to affect a reputation score that dramatically is surely a sign that there is too much unchecked power in this mob rule of an online community."). 

 

Sure, the occasional highly-insightful post gets deservedly-upvoted.  But the fact that the highly-insightful is blended with the merely-funny is a travesty. 

[Jot]

I completely agree. Upvotes confuse the hell out of me. What am I to make of it?

 

It's a real problem. During the span of a couple weeks over a few threads, I got like 50 upvotes one time. The power to affect a reputation score that dramatically is surely a sign that there is too much unchecked power in this mob rule of an online community.

You deserve all your reputation points.

[GuzzyBone]

Here's an alternative perspective, at least on "downvoting"

I am new to this forum, but I always conduct myself with politeness, authenticity, empathy, and with an appeal to reason and evidence.

Regardless, almost all of my posts seem to get at least 1 downvote, which I can only assume is due to "controversial" information that contradicts pre-determined viewpoints or consensus within the community.

Why would I assume this? Because rather than debate my position or argue from reason and evidence, It seems easier to simply downvote.

If you disagree, then state it, and tell me exactly why using reason and evidence.  Downvoting is like trying to bully your perceived "opposition" out of sight.

When I present a controversial case it's because it's being ignored or overlooked, and something of value can be gained discussing it. I am trying to get people to think, but I think it is easy for people to take a personal defensive position and assume that I have some ulterior motives.

[Jot]

I think almost all my posts which were downvoted were rightfully so...However on the post I got the most dislikes (-9) I cannot see for the life of me why that post warranted it.

 

Maybe you could help me sort it out :https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42648-since-all-the-books-podcasts-and-videos-are-already-free/

[Taylor Bailey]

I'm with Kevin.  There needs to be some mechanism that allows us to downvote the upvotes.  Not only that, but in order to facilitate the learning environment that Joel and so many others need, I think we should be able to mouse over the upvoted downvote to reveal a comment that reveals the reason why the upvote was downvoted.  It could be something as simple as "I learned nothing from being upvoted."  That to me is better than a silly green arrow.  If this problem continues, we may have to adopt the downvote as our own formal reputation currency.  Yes, it might be a hassle to reveal every comment, but it'll ring loud and far to all those green boxers who would have us learn nothing.

[PatrickC]

So, I also think that some sort of feature should be created which allows for giving feedback to the feedback.

 

Hey Joel, how about commenters and posters slugging it out like this perhaps.

 

 

On second thoughts, I'm way too old for that.

 

[GuzzyBone]

I don't see the "need" for upvoting or downvoting at all.

Rating a comment is like warning people not to read something because you disagree with it.

Why should people be blocked from exposure to information simply because you don't like it.

This is herd mentality.

If I am saying something truthful, but everyone hates hearing it, should no one listen?

Should we simply bully them into conformity or not wanting to talk at all?

I saw a post that brought up extremely rational debate, but it was downvoted so heavily due to it's "sensitive" nature that it was hidden from the site and I had to click a button just to reveal the original post. This is not the actions of a community in search of truth.

[Kevin Beal]

Alright. Who are the wise guys upvoting the posts in this thread without giving feedback?!

Sure, the occasional highly-insightful post gets deservedly-upvoted.  But the fact that the highly-insightful is blended with the merely-funny is a travesty. 

Sing it brotha! We've got to bring an end to this upvoting issue. There are far too many upvotes floating around.

 

I'll go one step farther, it's not a travesty, it's freaking apocalyptic!

[MMX2010]

Alright. Who are the wise guys upvoting the posts in this thread without giving feedback?!

Sing it brotha! We've got to bring an end to this upvoting issue. There are far too many upvotes floating around.

 

I'll go one step farther, it's not a travesty, it's freaking apocalyptic!

 

The travesty happens when Likes overpower Reputation.  People strive to acquire more and more Likes, by doing less and less work.  After all, if the shallow is equally "Like-able" as the deep, why pursue depth?  And if your shallow snarky comments provide you with pleasure, and provide the board members who upvote it with pleasure, then where's the travesty? 

 

The travesty happens when the shallow overpowers the deep by being given the same emotional currency as the deep.  And where there is no depth, there is no community - just fleeting emotional connections expressed in green boxes or red ones.  (The end result?  Some people feel happy towards the Green-Boxed people and angry towards the Red-Boxed people; others feel happy towards the Red-Boxed people and angry towards the Green-Boxed people.  And so we're divided into emotional tribes, rather than united towards common purpose.) 

 

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

 

At the Roosh Forum, getting a triple-digit Reputation score means something. 

 

One of the esteemed members has shepherded dozens of men out of alcoholism by simply asking them not to drink for a year, and providing encouragement when they fail. 

 

Another of the esteemed members is a mid-forty's man who's extremely muscular AND into philosophy AND so eloquently understands music, female narcissism, and Millennial Avoidant Anxiety Attachment Disorders.  (Hmm, how old are you, Kevin, and how old are the women you prefer to date?) 

 

Another is a Christian, anti-evolutionist whose piercing intellect makes his every word feel like a punch in the face. 

 

Another is an extremely smart mid-20's Black man, who brings tear-inducing peaceful insights to every racially-charged thread.  He - not you, not Stef, not FDR - has helped me eliminate all of the racism that was introduced into my heart as a child. 

 

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

 

What does a triple-digit green score on FDR mean?  Nothing.  Nothing at all. 

 

Where is FDR's equivalent of AnonymousBosch?  Where is our Lizard of Oz?  Where is our Excelsior?  (Well, there's Stef.....and Stef.....and, oh yeah, Stef.) 

 

To realize that the Roosh forum is primarily focused on banging girls, but possesses a much larger collection of Men-of-Depth, Men-of-Character, Men-of-Caring, Men-of-Concern, and Men-of-Awesome than does Freedomain Radio is a travesty. 

 

But, then again, maybe your snarky comments will change that, right?  I mean, it's not like you're so good at programming that you could implement the Roosh V Forum's Likes / Reputation system just to see if my praise of it has merit.  Because if you were, your decision to produce snark instead of skillful change would be quite insulting to both yourself and this forum, right? 

[PatrickC]

Alright. Who are the wise guys upvoting the posts in this thread without giving feedback?!

 

Yea, fess up you button pressing lurkers. Anyone would think Kevin and Joel were here fishing for unexplained upvotes. My God! I even got two myself. Don't let me set the roos on you now.

[Three]

Hey, David. I just upvoted your posts . But, I want to follow my own advice and explain that the reason was because I found them insightful and funny. 

[Kevin Beal]

But, then again, maybe your snarky comments will change that, right?  I mean, it's not like you're so good at programming that you could implement the Roosh V Forum's Likes / Reputation system just to see if my praise of it has merit.  Because if you were, your decision to produce snark instead of skillful change would be quite insulting to both yourself and this forum, right? 

Oh yea!? Challenge accepted!

 

I'll show you who the good programmer is!

[neeeel]

given that your post mirrors my post almost word for word, I am guessing you are taking the piss/making a point.

 

I am not sure what the point is though? That my post was stupid?

[MMX2010]

Hey, David. I just upvoted your posts . But, I want to follow my own advice and explain that the reason was because I found them insightful and funny. 

 

 

Thank you, Joel.  But I find my posts here rather sad. 

 

Take about forty minutes to browse both the first ten pages and last three pages of this thread, and definitely read every post in those eleven pages by The Lizard of Oz.  If you aren't bawling your eyes out while reading the last three pages, there's seriously something wrong with you. 

 

http://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-30625.html

 

I love the way The Lizard of Oz learned to evolve his posts over time.  Simple posts like, "Kimber, thanks for following up with the start date. The wagon welcomes you as of 12/20/2013." took ten pages for him to develop, but they became the glue that holds the thread together.  And the way he took the time to address every poster who joined, asked questions, fell off the wagon, got back on the wagon, and/or ultimately succeeded displays devotion, depth-of-concern, and true empathy. 

 

The Lizard of Oz has never heard of Stefan Molyneux.  He may even be a statist, or a religious person.  But who among here doubts his commitment to virtue?  And, more importantly, Where is FDR's version of The Lizard Of Oz?

 

Why, among the people who have been here for three years or longer, are there so few whom I would give a Reputation point to? 

 

We, like TLoZ, have time, a keyboard, and our minds.  We have Stef; he doesn't.  So why is he out-competing us? 

 

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

 

I'm glad that I'll be using my June 17th call-in show to address Stefan about some of these issues.  But I'd be much more glad if this forum were so awesome that I didn't need to call in. 

[Taylor Bailey]

given that your post mirrors my post almost word for word, I am guessing you are taking the piss/making a point.

 

I am not sure what the point is though? That my post was stupid?

Taking the Piss- The term sometimes refers to a form of mockery in which the mocker exaggerates the other person's characteristics; pretending to take on his or her attitudes, etc., in order to make them look funny. Or it may be used to refer to a ruse where a person is led to believe something is true that is not (usually a fairly unbelievable story) for the purpose of ridicule of the subject.

 

So basically, taking the piss is a form of sadistic pleasure, where the user (Joel) is gratified by ridiculing, mocking, and misrepresenting the subject (you).  If this post mirrors your's, word for word, how is it an exaggeration?  Almost mirroring cannot be the same as exaggeration.  It looks like all he did was universalize your argument, which would only strengthen it if it were principled.  I would say that this characterization of Joel as a manipulative, disheartening sadist is effectively "taking the piss" on yourself, though.

 

 

[Jot]

I would give my reputation point to Kevin.

 

I don't know much about him but whenever I had a problem and messaged him he always responded, and his responses were not some 2 line hasty ass replies, he took his time and made sure he understood my problem and I know that he will help members of this forums if they ask him.

 

Also his posts on this forum are great too, I learned a lot and had a lot of things clarified and didn't need to start myself a lot of threads.

 

He also developed the platform by which the podcasts are now much easier to find and listen too.

I wasn't here for a while but hadn't it been for Kevin my account would have been deleted some time ago.

 

Thank you, Kevin.

[thebeardslastcall]

I think the biggest problem with the rep system is it's pushing away more than just trolls. This site doesn't seem to have very good user retention and I think the rep system is partly to blame for that. I see some posts getting tons of down votes while others just as bad or worse go under the radar and get none and vice versa. People seem to be rather unguided with how to use their votes. This site definitely needs to experiment with some alternate systems if it wants to do better. I feel a notable lack of community here and the people who are here seem almost hyper-sensitive to any possible negative behaviors, which gives a sort of "uptight" feeling preventing people from relaxing and just discussing things. I don't feel expecting a 180 from people is fair or wise if you want to grow the community. Good meaning people need time to adjust to the higher standard of the site before you just push them out for not coming in with the ability to avoid all passive-aggressive behavior and the like. I mean is this community here to help raise people up or to just filter out all the people who don't meet some "high" standard right off the bat? The reason religions do so well is because they're all about the community and helping as many people as possible. I'm not really sure what the goal and strategy for these forums is considered to be in those regards.

Curious to hear if other people are satisfied with user retention, what role they think the rep system plays in this, and whether or not they're satisfied with the current way members are treated. Is the rep system specifically for trolls or is it confused by having multiple purposes that drives people away that could grow into productive members?

[neeeel]

Taking the Piss- The term sometimes refers to a form of mockery in which the mocker exaggerates the other person's characteristics; pretending to take on his or her attitudes, etc., in order to make them look funny. Or it may be used to refer to a ruse where a person is led to believe something is true that is not (usually a fairly unbelievable story) for the purpose of ridicule of the subject.

 

So basically, taking the piss is a form of sadistic pleasure, where the user (Joel) is gratified by ridiculing, mocking, and misrepresenting the subject (you).  If this post mirrors your's, word for word, how is it an exaggeration?  Almost mirroring cannot be the same as exaggeration.  It looks like all he did was universalize your argument, which would only strengthen it if it were principled.  I would say that this characterization of Joel as a manipulative, disheartening sadist is effectively "taking the piss" on yourself, though.

 

 

 

I didnt say he was exaggerating.

 

Its possible that I jumped to conclusions. Perhaps it wasnt mocking at all

[shirgall]

If you disagree, then state it, and tell me exactly why using reason and evidence.  Downvoting is like trying to bully your perceived "opposition" out of sight.

 

I have not downvoted you, but generally when I downvote, it's for someone who has not read the posting they've responded to or--more frequently--someone that makes me compelled to say something to them I've said before.

 

I completely understand that communication is a process that requires validation and acknowledgment by the recipient to be considered successful, but there are some arguments that are more dogmatic reiterations than honest exploration. Those are the kinds of conversations where downvotes get handed out like candy.

"Great job!"

 

Amen! Fist bump!

[PatrickC]

I would give my reputation point to Kevin.

 

I don't know much about him but whenever I had a problem and messaged him he always responded, and his responses were not some 2 line hasty ass replies, he took his time and made sure he understood my problem and I know that he will help members of this forums if they ask him.

 

Also his posts on this forum are great too, I learned a lot and had a lot of things clarified and didn't need to start myself a lot of threads.

 

He also developed the platform by which the podcasts are now much easier to find and listen too.

I wasn't here for a while but hadn't it been for Kevin my account would have been deleted some time ago.

 

Thank you, Kevin.

 

In the spirit of this thread I gave my upvote to you. This too has been my experience of Kevin and I thought your response was candid and sincere. Not enough people get appreciated for the time and effort they put in here and are an important part of this community.

[thebeardslastcall]

I'm also curious what the point of a reputation system is if it doesn't spare you from having posts moderated (which is jarring to conversations and the flow of posts). Also as far as I can tell it prevents a potentially negative post from earning someone any negative reputation if a "bad" post gets moderated away. I'd figure a post that gets held back by moderation would get some sort of warning or feedback, but I've already had two posts get deep sixxed and gotten no feedback about why, nor have I gotten any negative rep points or warnings. Why does a reputation of 100+ or 200+ not spare people from being moderated or am I making an incorrect assessment?

[LovePrevails]

I agree Joel the voting system is not only pointless but will actively discourage people from posting views that are unpopular 

 

I am a capitalist, and appreciate the ability to get feedback on my efforts, good and bad.

they aren't feedback though, they provide zero useful information - it turns the board into a popularity contest

feedback would be leaving a comment on how or why one of your posts was useful or not, or interesting or not, etc.

[WasatchMan]

they aren't feedback though, they provide zero useful information - it turns the board into a popularity contest

feedback would be leaving a comment on how or why one of your posts was useful or not, or interesting or not, etc.

 

I disagree... Money doesn't provide commentary either, but it provides a tremendous amount of information. 

 

I don't know why a philosophy that is trying to aim at a free society which would be made possible through ostracism of those against freedom would be against a popular contest.  Are you saying that the popularity of people with high reps is unearned?  I sure don't think so.

[MMX2010]

I disagree... Money doesn't provide commentary either, but it provides a tremendous amount of information. 

 

I don't know why a philosophy that is trying to aim at a free society which would be made possible through ostracism of those against freedom would be against a popular contest.  Are you saying that the popularity of people with high reps is unearned?  I sure don't think so.

 

 

No one countered my earlier argument comparing the Roosh Forum to this one.  The Roosh forums separate Reputation Points from Likes, which separates the serious and helpful truths from the merely funny.  On the Roosh forum, Reputation indicates helpfulness in improving other peoples' lives, and Likes indicate amusement. 

 

The FDR Forum equates the serious and helpful truths with the merely funny.  So, on this forum, you can get two Upvotes for making a silly joke that two people Like OR you can get two Upvotes for posting the most brilliant summary of narcissism and co-dependency in a way that dramatically and permanently improves the lives of two individuals. 

 

So, yes, the popularity of the High-Repped individuals is unearned. 

[WasatchMan]

No one countered my earlier argument comparing the Roosh Forum to this one.  The Roosh forums separate Reputation Points from Likes, which separates the serious and helpful truths from the merely funny.  On the Roosh forum, Reputation indicates helpfulness in improving other peoples' lives, and Likes indicate amusement. 

 

The FDR Forum equates the serious and helpful truths with the merely funny.  So, on this forum, you can get two Upvotes for making a silly joke that two people Like OR you can get two Upvotes for posting the most brilliant summary of narcissism and co-dependency in a way that dramatically and permanently improves the lives of two individuals. 

 

So, yes, the popularity of the High-Repped individuals is unearned. 

 

I cannot speak for the rep system on Roosh - I have not expedience it.

 

So what if people get a good reputation for having a sense of humor that others can empathize with - that sounds like a pretty good reflection of the real world. To say "The FDR Forum equates the serious and helpful truths with the merely funny" is a pretty large conflation, if you don't mind me saying. This aspect is only a small part of the reputations system in my experience.  I don't think that I make an abundance of silly jokes on here (probably more serious than I should be for the most part), and somehow have got a fair amount of reputation points.

[MMX2010]

I cannot speak for the rep system on Roosh - I have not expedience it.

 

So what if people get a good reputation for having a sense of humor that others can empathize with - that sounds like a pretty good reflection of the real world.

 

Uh, no.

 

I've never been to a KKK meeting, but I'm sure that many of its members have a penchant for cracking jokes that many of its members find funny.  But their complete disconnect from the real world causes them to gather into a specialized group, which allows them to develop specialized jokes that the majority of people (the real world) find non-funny. 

 

 

 

 

To say "The FDR Forum equates the serious and helpful truths with the merely funny" is a pretty large conflation, if you don't mind me saying. This aspect is only a small part of the reputations system in my experience.  I don't think that I make an abundance of silly jokes on here (probably more serious than I should be for the most part), and somehow have got a fair amount of reputation points.

 

Yes, I do mind you saying, because you're basing your "conflation" argument on your non-experience of the Roosh V system, which you earlier said that you cannot comment on.  (Nor is it true that you cannot comment on it, because if you're philosophically-rigorous and open-minded enough, you'll see my point.) 

 

Furthermore, you're commenting on the efficacy of a system that involves hundreds of members by saying, "Well I haven't made an abundance of silly jokes."  The system isn't you.  It's everyone else. 

 

So, once again, don't give your "honest emotional experience with FDR's reputation system".  Instead, think of how the system affects everyone, and then comment on that.  (Or, admit that you find it difficult to reflect on how FDR's reputation system affects everyone, and then temper your comments because of this.) 

[MMX2010]

A Roosh V User gives his insights into the difference between Reddit and the Roosh V Forum.  FDR's reputation system is very similar to Reddit's, although there is room for individualized attention to avatars and user names here.

 

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

 

Reddit is one of the worst site designs ever created, and the sooner it dies the better.

For a start, it's hard to decode what is and isn't important information from the clunky layout, and the actual mechanics of the site encourage homogeneity of ideas: posts with lots of "upvotes" appear higher up than posts with lots of "downvotes" by default, punishing deviation from the dominant ideas and beliefs of whatever subreddit you're currently in. Coupled with the fact that there are persistent user identities, the desire for ones ideas not to be rendered invisible by mass-downvoting, and the similar desire to be a respected "member" of the "community" create a network of incentives which are thoroughly anti-intellectual; where the best-loved (and therefore most visible) members of each subreddit are those who are capable of most creatively expressing orthodox thoughts.

It's also why the site took off with women in a way 4chan failed to (even if it's still predominantly male) - acceptable and unacceptable opinions are clearly flagged so there is no doubt as to which memes and opinions you need to repeat to "fit in", making it the social equivalent for nerdy girls that Thomas the Tank Engine is for autistic boys.

The unsavoury side effect is that everyone who enters a subreddit comes out with radicalised versions of the beliefs they went in with... and an inability to express them in anything besides memes.

The way I look at it, the two extremes of online communities are imageboards like 4chan, and tightly controlled forums like this one: both have their pros and cons, and are useful for different kinds of discussion.

In an imageboard, there is little-to-no persistent identity for individual users, and posts are ranked purely by the time at which they were posted. As such, different viewpoints have similar visibility, differing only in the frequency they are posted. If you browse an imageboard for any length of time, you will encounter a wide spectrum of views and beliefs, argued with differing levels of artistry - you will also encounter an awful amount of low-quality posts, memes, gore and trolling. In my opinion, imageboards are at their best when the sudden need for a think-tank arises, and there is a coalescence of differing interests on a board. Ideas get thrown around at an astounding rate, and in a few hours there's a virtual army pulling off something that would have been unthinkable the day before. You have to have experienced it first-hand to really know what I'm talking about, but I think a few guys here will know what I mean.

On the other hand, forums like the Roosh V Forum encourage a generally high quality of posting, at the expense of stifling alternative viewpoints. In the case of RVF, that's not such a bad thing - if you want to encounter alternative viewpoints, simply go anywhere-else on the internet. As with imageboards, posts are ranked by the time at which they were posted, but here people have names, avatars and signatures. Your eye is surely drawn more to posts by members who have consistently posted good things in the past? Unlike Reddit, which rewards what the group-mind values, this rewards what you, personally, value. Places like this are markedly slower to organize than on imageboards whenever there's a "happening", but they tend to be more meticulous and strategic, and so are important in the longer game. I also can't think of anywhere near as many posts on imageboards that have added real value to my life as I can from here, where I've been for a fraction as long.

The restriction to male posters here also solves a problem less controlled forums are crippled by: the way in which male group dynamics are changed by the introduction of women. It only takes one woman, and one thirsty man, to destroy the functionality of any group, and begin the slow change of focus from whatever the group cared about before to women's feelings and vaginas. The only large board I can think of which has escaped this plague, despite not being strictly controlled, is the misc forum over at bodybuilding.com, which is somehow functionally more like an imageboard. I think it's due to the extremely masculine focus of the main board and the fact that, with no one to enforce social consequences for lack of sensitivity towards fee-fees, easily-triggered women know to stay away. There's no dopamine fix to be found; the most they'll get for their screeching is a "top kek" and then everyone ignores them.

I think my idealised forum would be a combination of an imageboard, or some anonymised version of IRC for shit-talking, spontaneous organisation, discussing things of no real consequence, and expressing views in a context where it doesn't matter who gets offended by what, and then this place, pretty much exactly as it is, to discuss game, give/receive lifestyle advice, and read well thought out posts by people who care about expressing themselves in the best possible terms to this community; posts you know will still be there in a year's time.

Reddit is the exact, polar opposite of this - shit-talking is preserved forever, and almost inversely ranked by quality, whilst important (and therefore longer than 7 word) posts are drowned out in a sea of excrement. I hope it dies. I really do - good riddance. The sudden move towards censorship seems unlikely to make the site sufficiently attractive to the kind of women who currently avoid it that they can monetise it. If anything, it's more likely to drive away a large portion of the core demographic, or even cause them to start a rival site that doesn't regulate what is and isn't acceptable "behaviour".

 

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

 

In my opinion, the first paragraph is most important, because it echoes what I feel about FDR's reputation system: (1) Are the most highly upvoted posters the one's who most cleverly express FDR-orthodox ideas?  (In my opinion, Yes.)  (2) Does the desire to be an "upstanding" member of this "community" limit the intellectual-openness with which certain subjects are discussed?  (Yes.  PUA, for example, is discussed in a very closed-minded manner.  So is sex-outside-of-committed-relationships.  So is sex-that-doesn't-result-in-emotional-bonding.  So is hypergamy.  So is to-therapy-or-not-to-therapy.  So, probably, is transgender.) 

[WasatchMan]

Something to ponder...

 

Why does a post saying that upvoting system is not useful now have 9 upvotes? 

 

If you agree with this sentiment, what was your point in upvoting? 

 

If your point was "I agree with this and I want others to see that this is an agreeable sentiment, so I am going to upvote to show that others do in fact agree with this" then you have just proved the idea of the upvoting system as being useless wrong.  When you use the upvoting system as a utility to communicate your agreement with someones idea, you are saying that the upvoting system was of useful to you to help communicate support of someone else idea that you share.

 

I would expect support for a thread against upvoting to have no upvotes and a bunch of posts just quoting the original thread and saying "I agree with this".  OR are people upvoting this thread because they disagree with the sentiment?  This would be odd, but at least logically consistent in my mind.

 

EDIT: It appears I may have misunderstood the context of this thread to be satire.  So possibly the upvotes are people who did get it and appreciated the humor (which I do now see). Poes law in action.. haha.

[MMX2010]

Something to ponder...

 

Why does a post saying that upvoting system is not useful now have 9 upvotes? 

 

If you agree with this sentiment, what was your point in upvoting? 

 

If your point was "I agree with this and I want others to see that this is an agreeable sentiment, so I am going to upvote to show that others do in fact agree with this" then you have just proved the idea of the upvoting system as being useless wrong.  When you use the upvoting system as a utility to communicate your agreement with someones idea, you are saying that the upvoting system was of useful to you to help communicate support of someone else idea that you share.

 

I would expect support for a thread against upvoting to have no upvotes and a bunch of posts just quoting the original thread and saying "I agree with this".  OR are people upvoting this thread because they disagree with the sentiment?  This would be odd, but at least logically consistent in my mind.

 

 

Did you miss the part where Joel Patterson both upvoted and gave me feedback about my posts.  And then did you miss the part where I responded that I find my posts sad, rather than funny?  And did you ultimately miss the part where the community's knowledge and wisdom was expanded because he and I had that exchange?

 

Did your focus on calling out the upvoters' "lack of logical consistency" leave you blind to the community-enrichment that he and I provided? 

 

Yes, this is an "Ask not what FDR has done for you; ask what you can do for FDR." speech, but it's well worth it. 

[WasatchMan]

 

 

Did you miss the part where Joel Patterson both upvoted and gave me feedback about my posts.  And then did you miss the part where I responded that I find my posts sad, rather than funny?  And did you ultimately miss the part where the community's knowledge and wisdom was expanded because he and I had that exchange?

 

Did your focus on calling out the upvoters' "lack of logical consistency" leave you blind to the community-enrichment that he and I provided? 

 

Yes, this is an "Ask not what FDR has done for you; ask what you can do for FDR." speech, but it's well worth it. 

 

No, but Joel's argument is that upvoting "is not useful at all" in its current state.  Your argument is that people should provide feedback with their upvotes so that they are more useful.  See the difference?  One is a universal statement about upvoting providing absolutely no value, the other one is an aesthetic preference for how to optimize the benefits of the upvoting system.  These two are miles apart, because in order to optimize somethings utility, it has to have the ability to provide utility in the first place (like in math 0 times anything is still 0).

 

Also, your exchange does not account for the fact there is 9 upvotes on a post saying the upvoting system in its current state "is not useful at all".  If you agree that upvotes "are not useful at all" I wonder why you would upvote someone.

 

EDIT: It appears I may have misunderstood the context of this thread to be satire.  So possibly the upvotes are people who did get it and appreciated the humor (which I do now see). Poes law in action.. haha.

[MMX2010]

No, but Joel's argument is that upvoting "is not useful at all" in its current state.  Your argument is that people should provide feedback with their upvotes so that they are more useful.  See the difference?  One is a universal statement about upvoting providing absolutely no value, the other one is an aesthetic preference for how to optimize the benefits of the upvoting system.  These two are miles apart, because in order to optimize somethings utility, it has to have the ability to provide utility in the first place (like in math 0 times anything is still 0).

 

Also, your exchange does not account for the fact there is 9 upvotes on a post saying the upvoting system in its current state "is not useful at all".  If you agree that upvotes "are not useful at all" I wonder why you would upvote someone.

 

Right.  So, once again, we're slowing down the entire discussion so that WastachMan can focus on "the logical contradictions" between certain behaviors.  Meanwhile, for you to participate in this discussion in that manner requires you to ignore the emotional impact that Joel's actions had on the community. 

 

Joel sets an example.  I follow his example.  The community grows.

 

You scratch your head.