get rid of the post rating feature.

[Sophelia]

I mean hell, I was the first one who said that the system was vulnerable to abuse. I know exactly what happens when the system gets abused. I know exactly how easy it is to abuse it. I know exactly how easily a "cool kids club" gets formed by way of such a system, and I know how many people start doing everything to get positive karma. You want to know the unifying trait between all the sites I've seen these karmic systems applied to? It always worked out in the beginning, when the community was small, close-knit and respectful of the etiquette. Then the big influx of users began as the site grew in popularity, and people started disregarding the voting etiquette and the abuse was a fact.

OK, thanks for qualifying and expanding on your views and your reasons for optimism (hmm - am I being extra more polite than normal, I dunno - I think I'm always like this but... :uhoh: have I been conditioned?)

Say someone comes into one of the equality threads, or the racism thread, and just gets balls out offensive yet doesn't really break the rules of the forum. They just have a really offensive opinion. So naturally most people will vote them down, because there's no reason to debate with such a person. Someone who thinks all black people are inferior to white people will think that no matter what arguments you put before them, someone who thinks women belong in the kitchen isn't going to be swayed no matter how persuasive you are.

See here you seem to completely contradict what you said earlier.

Now you are saying people *should* use the negative voting to express "view I strongly disagree with" whereas before you were exhorting people *not* to use votes to express agree/disagreement.

Now you're saying even if somebody is reasonable and polite then, just because we strongly object to their views of the world, they should be voted off so nobody has to see this dissenting view? Why can't we be reasonable and polite back to them (or if people don't want to be exposed to their posts, put them on ignore)?

I also think it's rather cynical to assume that nobody with un-PC views will listen to argument or change their minds, and should just be voted out of sight. What kind of solution is that? Is that not demonstrating even more intolerance? It might drive those people away from the community, but neither the person concerned, not the community, will have achieved any further understanding.

[Sophelia]

Aww, Sophie!

Don't worry my feelings aren't hurt, but neither is my hate-engine.

Glad to hear it - phew! :blushing: for taking you too seriously.

I agree with your views too. Well, except that the very idea of a discussion forum is Web 2.0ish. ;) And I like the proliferation of different ways to interact and share views/information less autocratically/hierarchically. However I confess I loathe 'social networking' and I really don't like the way that intellectual and social communication is getting so mashed together (this is happening in universities).

[kungtotte]

Where can the debate go after someone states that they think black people are inferior to white people, for example? It's a rather polarising statement, and one you wouldn't make unless you believed in it (or were a troll). Where do you take a discussion after such a statement has been made? I mean, you could post evidence to the contrary, but someone who believes that stuff in the first place is obviously none too concerned about evidence, so what will that achieve? It's not about how much you disagree with an opinion, it's the potential for discussion about that opinion that really matters.

I disagree wildly with many opinions posted on this board, but only very few of those opinions are of such a nature that they can't be discussed without the debate turning nasty (or one-sided, ten pages of "Yes it is" vs. "No it isn't" doesn't do anybody any good).

I can't think of a single opinion sufficiently offensive to be downvoted that can also be discussed in a fashion suitable for this forum, and while I admit that some people might be persuaded to change their beliefs, over a decade on the internet means I rate the probability of that occurring exceedingly low :)

Also, downvotes could be used to indicate that the tone of a response is off, rather than the message itself, something that is more likely to occur than people expressing truly offensive opinions.

ETA

Also, we can at least agree about social networking :)

[The Stranger]

I agree with your views too. Well, except that the very idea of a discussion forum is Web 2.0ish. ;) And I like the proliferation of different ways to interact and share views/information less autocratically/hierarchically. However I confess I loathe 'social networking' and I really don't like the way that intellectual and social communication is getting so mashed together (this is happening in universities).

I dunno, I think the things I like on this board are very similar to bulletin boards I liked way back when--words and brains. the other stuff is perhaps backstage driving the current set-up, but in my opinion not totally necessary for it. I STILL think emoticons are too fancy and new-fangled.

[sologdin]

AD&D 4E's system, with small tweaks. Solo's a paladin

ahahahahahaha nice.

<Lays Hands on relic>

<Smites N00bs>

[Sophelia]

Where can the debate go after someone states that they think black people are inferior to white people, for example? It's a rather polarising statement, and one you wouldn't make unless you believed in it (or were a troll). Where do you take a discussion after such a statement has been made? I mean, you could post evidence to the contrary, but someone who believes that stuff in the first place is obviously none too concerned about evidence, so what will that achieve? It's not about how much you disagree with an opinion, it's the potential for discussion about that opinion that really matters.

I think you have to ask them 'why'. How do you know they're not concerned with evidence? It's possible they will quote statistics about the prison population, for example, or IQ tests. So you need to undermine the evidence, pointing out the confounding variables, provide counterevidence, ask them to think about it logically (what would the theoretical explanation be, does that make sense, how do you define 'inferior', what is the purpose of such a definition etc.).

It's certainly possible they won't be interested in evidence. Maybe they trust certain authority figures in their lives (but perhaps reading the board will start some little doubts and questions), or have a religious belief they are not supposed to question. But there are still angles you can take, trying to expose them to other views and other lives, increasing their ability to empathise with others (the most bigoted people usually have the least exposure to those they are prejudiced against).

And finally, if there is nothing to be discussed, then why not get back to the thread's original topic, after the person's racist (or whatever) view has been identified and discussed as much as appropriate (or if it was the OP, close the thread). If they don't mean to be offensive, then the best that can be done if they won't change their mind, is to make it clear that that view is hateful to others and they should bear that in mind for future posts.

I dunno. Maybe I am too fond of debate and not sufficiently attuned to the emotional effects of people expressing prejudiced views. I may be doing an injustice to people who have to put up with and argue with so much bigotry in their daily lives, that they just want a rest from it on the web.

I guess I just like the way in the past people on this board have wonderfully demolished awful beliefs, that it gives strength and courage and ideas for me to use when facing up to similar beliefs in RL.

Also, downvotes could be used to indicate that the tone of a response is off, rather than the message itself, something that is more likely to occur than people expressing truly offensive opinions.

I thought this was the main idea, not an 'also'.

[Eponine]

I don't like the post rating feature- as other people have already mentioned, this is a social community where many people go to just hang out with friends, not to have their posts anonymously rated. We are not allowed to make alts to specifically attack another boarder (harassingly, not humorously), and we are not allowed to reply to posts with a one liner that adds nothing ("this", or "I agree", or "I disagree")- I consider an anonymous rating system to be along the same lines.

Now you're saying even if somebody is reasonable and polite then, just because we strongly object to their views of the world, they should be voted off so nobody has to see this dissenting view? Why can't we be reasonable and polite back to them (or if people don't want to be exposed to their posts, put them on ignore)?

I also think it's rather cynical to assume that nobody with un-PC views will listen to argument or change their minds, and should just be voted out of sight. What kind of solution is that? Is that not demonstrating even more intolerance? It might drive those people away from the community, but neither the person concerned, not the community, will have achieved any further understanding.

I also agree with this and with whoever said that they don't care to have a popularity system determine which votes are worth reading. However, I'd reconsider my position if a lot of other people said that they really wanted more "ignore" filters- but this thread is 9 pages long and I really haven't seen that. I think that the mods have done a good job in the past of getting rid of real trolls. When other people have a dissenting view that I just can't stand, I consider it my own responsibility to stop engaging them, not to down-vote them so they're universally ignored.

Edit: However, I'm going to keep giving negative ratings to Horza's posts, because right now he's at (somewhat) evil, and I'm pretty curious to know if there's a level beyond evil.

[Sophelia]

I'll admit i'm amused by the D&D ratings - but mostly because they take some of the seriousness and fake-objectivness out of the system and make it (even more) like a game, and so easier to ignore.

Yeah, it slightly nerfs the overall reputation score thing, which is a relief. Easier to think of it as separate from the post ratings (though we know it isn't).

Thanks to the (Somewhat) Evil Ran :P

[Lyanna Stark]

i also can't imagine that the handful of reds up in this bitch will commit board seppuku just because they receive a numerical register of the displeasure that their ideas normally receive in routine discourse away from the internet.

Maybe you can even get a cool title if you end up with more negative rep than anyone else. Something like "Evil Overlord". I'm sure if I put some effort into it I could compete with the best of them for that title. Unfortunately I have had to pass the Evohlest FemiNazi crown over to Silanah aka Chaldanya of the Midlands due to nowadays being barefoot, pregnant, chained to the cooker etc.

<Lays Hands on relic>

Perv!!!!!!!!

[The Iceman of the North]

Lyanna, what are you doing on the board? Don't you have a kitchen to clean or something? :spank:

[Lord of Oop North]

<Lays Hands on relic>

Brother-Dude, you're giving the Order a bad name. Now I'm going to have to stage a cover-up.

[Casts Undetectable Alignment on Sologdin]

[Lyanna Stark]

Lyanna, what are you doing on the board? Don't you have a kitchen to clean or something? :spank:

Let's just say I could get the laptop into the kitchen area and leave it at that... :leaving:

Edit: Oh, did I miss something by the way of can you give yourself negative and positive rep? That could give a whole new world of opportunities to sock puppets, trolls and masochists. If not, I am thoroughly disappointed. :(

Plus I almost reported my own post just to see what happened. What can I say: new shiny features and buttons need to be tested!

[Usotsuki]

Oh, did I miss something by the way of can you give yourself negative and positive rep? That could give a whole new world of opportunities to sock puppets, trolls and masochists. If not, I am thoroughly disappointed. :(

You can't self-rate but you could make a sock-puppet army and sit in your Command and Control kitchen basking in their unending paeans of praise. but that would be a little weird even for here.

[The Stranger]

I guess I just like the way in the past people on this board have wonderfully demolished awful beliefs, that it gives strength and courage and ideas for me to use when facing up to similar beliefs in RL.

Yes, except that I think part of the charm of the RT-dirjj effect is that neither of them, or their spiritual siblings, will ever, ever learn.

[Shryke]

Eh, it's a stupid system but I'll just ignore it.

From other boards I've seen it used on, it's only purpose is to let people have an outlet for downraiting other people they don't like or who's views they disagree with.

[Guy Kilmore]

I wonder how this system would also work in conjunction with the ignore function. I mean if someone is so obnoxious that they are ignored by many active users, their posting just appears as just neutral; whereas someone who has radically unpopular ideas even though they can engage in conversation may have many negatives too their posts

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Eh, it's a stupid system but I'll just ignore it.

From other boards I've seen it used on, it's only purpose is to let people have an outlet for downraiting other people they don't like or who's views they disagree with.

I think that some people are more likely to use the negative button in a snarky way just because they can remain anonymous. Maybe if the names of who made the votes were listed if you clicked on the number, it would be more likely to serve the intended purpose?

[Night Watchman]

Meh I don't mind the rating thing. It could possibly be open to abuse, though from what I can see it just gives you an arbitrary number on your profile so it's nothing to worry about unless you're insecure.

[IheartTesla]

To paraphrase Churchill, "never in the history of the internet has so much been written by so many about so little" :)

I have decided not to use the rating system. Its probably a better idea to disagree with posts by responding rather than a up/down vote like the gladiators of old were subjected to.

[Altherion]

You can't self-rate but you could make a sock-puppet army and sit in your Command and Control kitchen basking in their unending paeans of praise. but that would be a little weird even for here.

You could also make deals with fellow boarders to give your posts a certain number of pluses in a specified time interval in exchange for you giving them the same. It would be harder to detect than an army of alts, but if the mods know who is rating whom, they could still do it. Even if not, they could make some inferences by drawing a graph of reputation changes over time. Although... what if the conspirators use a random number generator? And what if the plot is not between two people, but something on the order of five? This could fairly quickly evolve into a scenario with plausible deniability even if the mods know everything except the terms of the agreement.

In any case, I suspect you're right -- the system is not that hard to game, but it would be a little weird for anyone to do it (unless I'm badly underestimating how much people care about this).