Upvoting

[WasatchMan]

You scratch your head.

 

But it itches DAMMIT!!!

[MMX2010]

 

 

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.

 

It wasn't satire.  If it were satire, Joel wouldn't have upvoted my post and explained why he liked it. 

But it itches DAMMIT!!!

 

Right, deflect with a joke. 

 

There have been two threads that you've extensively participated in with me, WastachMan.  This one and your religious morality thread.

In both threads, you displayed a complete inability to emotionally connect with people who disagree with you AND an intense focus on the smallest logical disagreements in threads.  You also routinely display the stance of, "Everyone else has to change, but I don't have to change anything."  (Billions of religious people must self-examine, but you mustn't self-examine your lack of feeling towards religious people.  The laziness you perceive in certain upvoters is somehow evidence that Joel Patterson was wrong, but you couldn't emotionally connect with his argument - so you erroneously thought it was satire.) 

 

 

Earlier, I asked how many people do you routinely interact with on a face-to-face basis.  But you didn't answer the question, and subsequently derailed a thread to accuse me of "subtle trolling".  So, rather than ask my question again, I'll just encourage you to pursue self-knowledge in the form of emotionally connecting with real people outside of this message board. 

[WasatchMan]

There have been two threads that you've extensively participated in with me, WastachMan.  This one and your religious morality thread.

In both threads, you displayed a complete inability to emotionally connect with people who disagree with you AND an intense focus on the smallest logical disagreements in threads.  You also routinely display the stance of, "Everyone else has to change, but I don't have to change anything."  (Billions of religious people must self-examine, but you mustn't self-examine your lack of feeling towards religious people.  The laziness you perceive in certain upvoters is somehow evidence that Joel Patterson was wrong, but you couldn't emotionally connect with his argument - so you erroneously thought it was satire.) 

 

Do you really expect me to defend myself against all these mealy mouthed accusations? 

 

I have a better idea.  I am done interacting with you MMX.  Take care.

 

P.S. It was satire. Joel told me himself.  So much for the always right about everything MMX.

[MMX2010]

Do you really expect me to defend myself against all these mealy mouthed accusations? 

 

I have a better idea.  I am done interacting with you MMX.  Take care.

 

P.S. It was satire. Joel told me himself.  So much for the always right about everything MMX.

 

Is that true, Joel?

[neeeel]

whats the difference between satire and "taking the piss"

[Three]

Hey, everyone. Just to clarify, this post was satire.



*swirls evil mustache*

[neeeel]

Hey, everyone. Just to clarify, this post was satire.

 

 

 

*swirls evil mustache*

 

I still dont understand why you were satirising my post

[MysterionMuffles]

I do it for the dopamine hits! It excites me to see my posts get upvoted and to upvote other people's posts. Green means GO, Red mean STOP, and I have all the power to control traffic lights muahahahha

[thebeardslastcall]

Hey, everyone. Just to clarify, this post was satire.

 

satire:

"the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing,or deriding vice, folly, etc."

"a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule."

 

I can see how the post was meant to be comical, but I don't see very well how it succeeds in being satirical. That seems to imply, given the timing, that you are mocking the people in the downvote thread. Except you hardly touch any of what they are saying and when you do it isn't even clear how exactly they are wrong or deserving of such derision. I guess that's what confused me about the post, it came off as comical at first and certainly that is how some people replied, but it isn't clear who you are mocking and why, nor did I find it funny, because of this lack of clarity. Challenging the rep system seems perfectly valid to me and you are mocking them for it? Also it is nice to get a smiley face next to an A+ for a kid, stating the teacher is happy the kid did well, earning an A+ for getting correct answers. Seems pretty clear what those are for and I don't see how that correlates well to the "correctness" or "incorrectness" of a post given by someone you don't know with no clear rating metric. Like getting a upvote on a Youtube video could be because they liked that the video was posted, while they hated what the person in the video said, but were glad someone shared it. Not clear at all what the case is there with an upvote, as it could easily be misconstrued as agreement with what was said in the video. Getting uninstructed votes anonymously cannot be clearly correlated to a smiley face from a teacher for receiving an A+. Nor do I see why we would presume people are rational and fair in their votes.

 

How is " I think their should be a feature built in that allows for anonymous feedback. " satirical for example? Technically anonymous feedback is already in place, since you're classifying ratings as feedback and the ratings are anonymously given. So basically I got that your post was meant to be comical, but it didn't seem to succeed in making any relevant points as to what was wrong with the criticisms against the current voting system. Thus I wasn't inclined to respond in the comical fashion, since I didn't enjoy the joke and unwarranted derision that also would seem to point at myself, since I took part in the downvote thread. I mean does not satire mean you're calling someone an idiot basically? Perhaps as one of the idiots I'm not supposed to get it?

 

 

 

Downvoting tells you nothing about what you did wrong. And generally, it is very difficult for someone to read their own post and see whats wrong with it. Further, I also find it hard a lot of the time to see why others posts have been downvoted.

The post with this comment in the downvotes thread got 2 net upvotes. It's also one of the posts you seem to be mocking.

 

Also in regards Kevin Beal's first reply, who would claim mob rule when it's a minority that have voting privileges? Did someone actually suggest that in the downvote thread?

 

I find being serious in a thread meant to be comical quite annoying for me, since I like to take part in the joke and feel I'm instead the butt of the joke. That's the worst part of this thread for me. And given all the upvotes for the the first post and the posts that maintained the comical nature I can only guess that people agreed with the sentiments against criticisms, but if I try to discuss that I'm back into idiot territory perhaps and going against the first post. Thus I stand confused. But I'm always confused anyways, so I guess I'm fine.

 

My first reply was up and down voted and I can't see that after the fact. I've got a post with 0 rating... what does it mean!? I could take this as a neutral post, but some bastard stole my smiley face! I need vengeance! I offer a 3 upvote bounty for whoever finds the thief!

[MMX2010]

Hey, everyone. Just to clarify, this post was satire.

 

 

 

*swirls evil mustache*

 

 

Sweet.  Thanks for your satire.  It allowed me to explain my grievances with the forum, which can be expressed with one simple question, "Where is FDR's version of The Lizard of Oz?" 

 

Joel, did you browse through that thread?  And, if so, what did you think? 

[shirgall]

Frankly, I think that downvote/upvote should go away, and that instead people should be able to tag posts... and the number of times people pick a tag for a thread or a post should be displayed, and be clickable and searchable. Any thread that someone posts too should get a tag for that poster. Tag clouds could show the most popular tags in a forum category, etc. etc. I see this as quite a bit more useful.

[Three]

satire:

"the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing,or deriding vice, folly, etc."

"a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule."

 

I mean does not satire mean you're calling someone an idiot basically? Perhaps as one of the idiots I'm not supposed to get it?

 

 

 

 

 

Well, good question. Let's Look at the definition you just presented.  

 

The goal of a satire is to expose vice, folly, ect through a variety of means, such as irony or sarcasm.  That’s something very specific. That’s quite different from simply calling people idiots.

 

Some people think that the reputation system, the ability to downvote or up vote a post, is useless.

 

 

And there are a variety of different reasons a person can come to this conclusion.

 

 

 

For example, one person might get a downvote unjustly without any feedback. And as a result, such a person might get feel upset.  I can't say I'd blame them.  

 

Another person might get a downvote because they wrote a post that contained an irrational argument as well as insults directed at other people and as a result they get upset because they see the downvote as unjust.

 

 

 

To think that the rating is not deserved and to feel upset about that is one thing.

 

 

It's another thing to say that, "I don't think my rating was just, deserved or accurate, therefore, the rating system is useless.”

 

 

 

The question to me then becomes, If the rating system is useless, then why get upset when you received a downvote?

 

 

The reason it is upsetting when you see a downvote is because you accept the importance of ratings.

 

When you get upset with a rating, you accept that, whether you like it or not, people are more likely to listen to you or read your posts if your ratings are high. People are less likely to read your posts if it is very low.

 

Does a high or low rating necessarily guarantee beyond doubt that the piece being upvoted or downvoted is high or low quality?

 

No, not exactly.

 

But, time is short and if I want to spend an hour and a half watching a movie, I don't want to waste my time on a bad movie, so I'll go to a "top sci fi movies of all time" list or "best movies of the 90's. "

 

 

 

So, what are people really saying when they say, "the ratings are useless" ?

 

Well, they are not saying "the rating system is useless" they are saying "other people's judgement is wrong."

 

"this evaluation, this assessment, this measurement, this estimation of the value of my post incorrect!"

 

 

 

This is why you only ever hear that the reason why the rating system is useless has to do with downvotes and not upvotes.

 

But the thing is, the moment these people say, "this downvote is not an accurate  estimation of the value of my post"

 

They are making an assessment! They are making an estimation about another person's value.Your estimation of my satire was low.

 

And a rating is just another way to convey an estimation.

 

All the rating system on the boards does is allow one convey an estimation numerically. The number communicates publicly that, "people have given this person or this post a high estimation".

 

Again, this is not to say that such an estimate is always accurate. Nor does it communicate exactly why the estimation is what it is.

 

 

Maybe it would be better to communicate with detail through a comment. But then again, maybe people's comments  and written out in great detail  are wrong.

 

This might be one of them.

 

But, wouldn't it be rather silly of me to then cry, "the comment section is useless!"?

 

 

Either the downvote or upvotes do in fact say nothing, are useless and have no value in which case, it makes no sense to be upset receiving a rating either way, or they do say something, in which case you just don't like what people are saying about you.

 

That's why its funny when I write that "upvotes are useless and say nothing" and then ask people to elaborate what it is they're trying to say(you didn't say enough)!

[thebeardslastcall]

The goal of a satire is to expose vice, folly, ect through a variety of means, such as irony or sarcasm.  That’s something very specific. That’s quite different from simply calling people idiots.

 Yes, I equated it similar to calling someone an idiot in that it's specifically negative and disrespectful in a way. I see satire used most often against people the author specifically thinks dumb and not worth debating. So they just mock them with satire instead of pointing it out in a more positive manner.

 

 

Some people think that the reputation system, the ability to downvote or up vote a post, is useless.

 

Perhaps when they say useless they really mean they don't like its use. That they think it has no 'positive' use, since it's a negative vote. The difference between something being useless for good and just useless in total. Use implies a purpose and thus saying something is useless implies it is useless for some unspecified purpose in this case. I don't think it means generally that it doesn't do anything as that would not be useless, but ineffectual or of no effect, which is also useless, but that's different.

 

It's another thing to say that, "I don't think my rating was just, deserved or accurate, therefore, the rating system is useless.”

 

 

The question to me then becomes, If the rating system is useless, then why get upset when you received a downvote?

 

I would compare that to someone saying "murder is useless!" and then the reply being "then why are you upset over the murder!". Getting back to the difference in understanding of what they mean by useless.

 

Out of time, will reply more later.

 

 

[MMX2010]

 

The goal of a satire is to expose vice, folly, ect through a variety of means, such as irony or sarcasm.  That’s something very specific. That’s quite different from simply calling people idiots.

 

Right, but the key to good satire is to express a universally held opinion that, for whatever reason, is escaping common sense.  To me, you've failed to do that, because you've cannot universalize your assessments. 

 

For example, "The question to me then becomes, If the rating system is useless, then why get upset when you received a downvote?  The reason it is upsetting when you see a downvote is because you accept the importance of ratings.  When you get upset with a rating, you accept that, whether you like it or not, people are more likely to listen to you or read your posts if your ratings are high. People are less likely to read your posts if it is very low."

 

Notice how you only present one reason that people are feeling upset?  Notice how, by presenting only one reason, you're attempting to universalize your emotional response? 

 

I get upset whenever I see a downvote, because I know that certain individuals have been following me for months and downvoting me five times a day no matter what I say.  And I get upset because I'm also a part of the Roosh Forum which: (1) doesn't allow its members to do that, and (2) even if it did allow its members to do that - contains members who would never do that because they have too much respect for the Forum. 

 

I can count many people who have said, "Downvoting shouldn't hide people's posts.  Downvoting shouldn't be used for personal animosity, because if it is, then the entire community itself runs the risk of ostracizing unpopular opinions."  Off the top of my head, the usernames: wdiaz, labmath2, BaylorPRSer, Frosty, Gazbone, and J. D. Stembal are among these members. 

 

But no one directly addressed their arguments!  At best, Kevin Beal said, "I say we downvote assholes!" - which is a laughingly subjective argument that has no place on a philosophy forum which is supposed to be devoted to objective truth.  (And, as predicted, no one said, "Wow, 2010, you're right.  Assholes is totally a subjective word."  They just ignored the argument...) 

 

So here I sit, getting downvoted repeatedly - but never lashing out, never using insulting language, never complaining to the mods, refining my arguments so that I can call-in to Stefan and apply them to my life.  And everyone else either just idly watches or actively participates in the downvoting?  (Thanks to those who upvote me five times a day to counteract what's happening.  I don't know the names of everyone who does this, but I thank you all anyway.) 

 

What kind of community is this, where such a thing can "just happen"?  And why is it that a community of men whose only shared interest is banging hot girls can outperform this one in both community-building and the self-improvement of its members? 

[neeeel]

given your last post, joel, I can see that starting off my Downvoting thread by saying "the downvoting system is useless" was incorrect. Its not useless for the reasons you presented.

I still think my other point stands. That is, I want to know why me, or someone else, has been downvoted. In an early post of mine, someone pointed out that I was asking leading questions. If they hadnt pointed this out, and just downvoted me, I wouldnt have known about my leading questions. I probably still ask leading questions, and I would find it useful to have this pointed out to me when it happens. 

 

I dont think that you should be forced to give feedback. But I would rather have feedback and no downvote ( or even feedback and downvote) than just a downvote. On the few times where I have asked why my or anothers post has been downvoted, I havent got an answer.

 

Is downvoting about protecting the people who are already here? If someone arrives full of misconceptions, beliefs, with a poor way of communicating, and gets downvoted all the time and leaves, does he learn anything? Do the people who are already here learn anything?

 

On another forum I am on, people arrive full of beliefs and opinions about the subject, often with the intent to ridicule others. They get a lot of feedback about their posts, pointing out fallacies or given different perspectives. You can often see a softening and opening, or at least some sort of learning. I am not sure that happens with downvotes.

 

Thats not to say that that doesnt happen here too. I just wonder what the ratio of feedback to downvotes is. Ie, how often do people make a post to state their objections to a post, or how often do they just click the downvote button.

[Three]

Neeeel, that makes sense to me. If you wish somebody would elaborate, that's one thing. When I get likes on facebook, I wish every single person would tell me what specifically they liked about it. I wish the people who do write me feedback would write even better feedback! I wish they'd bake me cookies too. But, that's not a good reason to say the reputation system is useless. To immediately(and I'm not saying you're doing this) react and blame the system concerns me because its an missed opportunity for self knowledge. That's what I'd like to encourage, I think that you are all perfectly capable of disagreeing with me about this one particular thing and still be wonderfully intelligent human beings. 




The reason this is important to me is because, in my personal opinion, freedom is to eschew worries and chagrins which are based on things which are out of one's control. All you have control over is your honesty, your integrity, the amount of respect you give to other individuals and the amount of value you want to bring to the table. 


You can't control the existence of the reputation system, you can't control who clicked that up or down button, you can't control people's desire to either give or not give elaborated feedback. If somebody wants to downvote this out of spite, that's totally out of my control!  


When you blame the reputation system for your downvotes, when you immediately jump to the conclusion that, "people just want to be popular", you are surrendering your freedom. You are saying that your reputation in this community is not up to you. This is like the liberal arts student who cries that they can't get ahead because of racial or male privilege! 


On the surface, it appears to be an empathetic stance. "Oh, look, I care about all those people who are having their work denied because of racism and sexism." or "Oh, look, I care about those oppressed individuals who have their posts denied because of the system!"


 But, it's not about the other person. The idea of"Privilege', like the reputation complaints,  is appealing because it allows people to avoid responsibility. It allows them to avoid self knowledge to and to avoid asking themselves uncomfortable questions like, "I wonder if my downvote was just? Maybe I was being passive aggressive? Maybe I'm not providing enough value? Or worse,  maybe I'm not providing negative?"  And that concerns me because if you immediately externalize and blame the reputation system, you probably do it with other areas in your life. That's double plus un-good. 


 If its true that this reputation system here is so botched and that people's priorities and values are so scewed that they are merely trying to obtain popularity or just downvoting out of spite, which could be the case for all I know, you should probably stop posting.  Wishing an 'immature' community would change its behavior is not going to give you freedom.

[GuzzyBone]

Upvotes and downvotes obviously communicate something.

I would argue they communicate herd/tribal preference of support or disapproval.

Furthermore, they have consequences... Like in the case of MMX receiving large quantities of downvotes simply for stating uncomfortable ideas, arguments, or truths. His posts are forcibly blocked from view unless you willingly reveal them, and the illusion of him being an "undesirable" of this community is perpetuated.

This is castagation, it is punishment. It is to say that punishment works and the results of that punishment are "neccessary" to be forced upon all, without choice, through majority rules voting (Democracy).

If someone uses hate speech, or is blatantly trolling without presenting arguement or evidence, then you have option to "report" them, because this IS a privately-owned forum.

But anonymous group whippings and approval just encourages emotional bias, forced ostracism (no choice), and the idea that punishment is even effective at all. I argue that this kind of system is to the detriment and cost of the community as a whole.

Uncomfortable truths will be buried in dislike, comfortable conformist fallacies will be propped up on a pedestial. Bullying and intimidation is given the weight of group support, and irrationality is reinforced through emotionally-motivated group denial.

[Ray H.]

Are there posters, other than MMX2010, that people opposed to the rep system see as having been unjustly ostracized? I'd certainly appreciate some links to other posts that anyone at all feels the FDR community would have gleaned value from, but didn't because it was hidden.

 

I'd also like to see links to posts that were substantially upvoted, but were inconsequential or joky or abusive.

 

The rep system may not be perfect. I've often wondered if individual posts being hidden, as opposed to all of a user's posts being hidden, would be a better system. As I know James has pointed out before, the design and implementation of a rep system is not simple. It takes time and effort. FDR has limited resources. I suspect that if someone donated some coding expertise or some money earmarked for designing a new system, then Stefan and the boys would consider changing it. For now, I, for one, am unconvinced that the current system is being abused to the point that they should divert their attention away from producing content.

[neeeel]

Joel, a good part of my resistance to the voting system is probably because I want others to do the work for me, I will admit that. I want them to tell me what I, or someone else, did "wrong2, rather than trying to find it out for myself.

[MysterionMuffles]

Joel, a good part of my resistance to the voting system is probably because I want others to do the work for me, I will admit that. I want them to tell me what I, or someone else, did "wrong2, rather than trying to find it out for myself.

 

That's Self Knowledge 101; to know explore where you may or may not be at fault and try to understand how you can improve.

[MMX2010]

The reason this is important to me is because, in my personal opinion, freedom is to eschew worries and chagrins which are based on things which are out of one's control. All you have control over is your honesty, your integrity, the amount of respect you give to other individuals and the amount of value you want to bring to the table. 

 

 

You can't control the existence of the reputation system, you can't control who clicked that up or down button, you can't control people's desire to either give or not give elaborated feedback. If somebody wants to downvote this out of spite, that's totally out of my control!  

 

You're right about this, but you're presenting "silent, Buddhist, non-attachment" as if it were the only proper emotional response to the situation.  But what about righteous anger?  What about exhorting people to do better, think harder, do more?

 

On the Roosh Forum, it's guaranteed that certain posts have more likes than others.  But every triple-digit liked post is communicated with a passion, intelligence, coherence, and life-altering wisdom that is lacking in FDR.  And when the deficiencies between our forum and their forum are pointed out, I get downvoted.

 

Are you sincerely presenting, "Well, you shouldn't worry about that.  And if you don't like it, you can leave." - as the best possible emotional reaction I can have? 

 

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

 

 

When you blame the reputation system for your downvotes, when you immediately jump to the conclusion that, "people just want to be popular", you are surrendering your freedom. You are saying that your reputation in this community is not up to you. This is like the liberal arts student who cries that they can't get ahead because of racial or male privilege! 

 

 

Wow, Joel.

 

That's the only possible reason?  Literally the only possible reason? 

 

Or is it just one of many reasons? 

 

 

 

But, it's not about the other person. The idea of"Privilege', like the reputation complaints,  is appealing because it allows people to avoid responsibility. It allows them to avoid self knowledge to and to avoid asking themselves uncomfortable questions like, "I wonder if my downvote was just? Maybe I was being passive aggressive? Maybe I'm not providing enough value? Or worse,  maybe I'm not providing negative?"  And that concerns me because if you immediately externalize and blame the reputation system, you probably do it with other areas in your life. That's double plus un-good. 

 

 

Wow, Joel.

 

Here's an uncomfortable question.  If the smartest man in the world told you a deep truth in the most passive aggressive, sarcastic manner, would you have the emotional self-control to ignore the passive-aggression and accept the truth?  OR would you avoid embracing that truth, thereby sentencing you to a longer period of suffering and heartache, because he was passive-aggressive? 

 

Here's another one: Does too much introspection and therapy, combined with isolation from interacting with real-world individuals, cause some people to overrate their emotional responses and become uncompromising?

 

And here's a final pair: Is it possible to divide the entire FDR community into two roughly-defined groups: (1) FDR members who have friends in real life and have jobs that "force them" to pleasantly interact with many types of people - particularly those who aren't open-minded to FDR AND (2) FDR members who have few, if any, friends in real life and have jobs which isolate them from others?  Once these two groups are created, is it true that those different groups will have vastly different degrees of ability to emotionally compromise, to empathize with the other person, and to change their own behaviors on behalf of other people? 

 

 

 If its true that this reputation system here is so botched and that people's priorities and values are so scewed that they are merely trying to obtain popularity or just downvoting out of spite, which could be the case for all I know, you should probably stop posting.  Wishing an 'immature' community would change its behavior is not going to give you freedom.

 

 

Right.  Don't fight, just surrender.  "Let" the "immature community" be as immature as it wants to be. 

 

Don't ask the host of the show whether he-himself has noticed these trends.  Don't propose a series of reforms to the host, himself, in order to strengthen the community. 

 

Above all else, don't use sarcasm or passive-aggressiveness when communicating frustration with this community, because passive-aggressiveness is the most serious "thought crime" anyone can commit. 

 

I cannot disagree with you more strongly, Joel.  And I cannot reconcile how someone who is passionate enough to intervene in child abuse situations can simultaneously advise, "Surrender because you can't control other people..." as the ultimate solution here.  You know what fighting is and why we're supposed to do it, but you don't fight?  Madness.