Removal of the down-vote, yes or no?

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, CharonY said:

  What I also noticed is that seemingly the forum is also not very welcoming to female posters.

Maybe they don't generally like adversarial discussion and the other thing is, because it is so male dominated they are going to feel overwhelmed in an argument because they may feel they are being ganged-up on when really we are just a bunch of independent people. Hyper can probably articulate it better from the female perspective.

[Phi for All]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Maybe they don't generally like adversarial discussion and the other thing is, because it is so male dominated they are going to feel overwhelmed in an argument because they may feel they are being ganged-up on when really we are just a bunch of independent people. Hyper can probably articulate it better from the female perspective.

Men have hundreds of little ways of showing face-to-face dominance we don't even think about anymore. It could be something like always twisting a handshake so your own hand is on top, or lowering the pitch of your voice with someone you feel is less dominant. I'm sure we've developed ways of speaking and writing that subtly (or not) put people in their place in whatever hierarchy our minds use. 

Add to that the atmosphere of "debate" that surrounds many science discussions, which brings its own subtle jabs and putdowns to support a point, and it's easy to see why many people in general, and women in specific, might get the wrong idea about how we like to discuss things here.

[StringJunky]

29 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Add to that the atmosphere of "debate" that surrounds many science discussions, which brings its own subtle jabs and putdowns to support a point, and it's easy to see why many people in general, and women in specific, might get the wrong idea about how we like to discuss things here.

But if we do, do these things then they've got the right idea how we like to discuss things.  

Edited March 1, 2018 by StringJunky

[Gees]

Hypervalent_iodine;

 

On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 12:17 AM, hypervalent_iodine said:

This is distinctly not okay, and is prohibited by our forum rules. If people are being insulting (note: not simply critical), then staff want to know about that so that it may be dealt with. We try to be as objective as possible in these matters, and have closed threads down in the past that we felt were written to incite those of religious persuasion (for example). 

I did not write that insulting Religion is OK because I accept that idea; I wrote it to remind myself to not jump in when I felt Religion was being insulted -- unless I felt it was absolutely necessary. I am not religious. I am not even sure that one could stretch my ideas enough to call me agnostic, but I respect Religion and see the value in it. As a philosopher, I understand the need for balance between the Disciplines, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, so I respect all of them equally. I just love Philosophy more.

To be critical of a person's faith IS insulting, because it implies that they are somewhat stupid. The members in this forum do not insult religious people in much the same way that Trump does not insult Mexicans.
 

Quote

 

I will not deny that this forum has a lot of people who share the same or similar opinions on a lot of things, and that it can occasionally produce some bias in the way rep points are given out. I am not sure that is that pervasive of an issue, but I accept your viewpoint. 

 

We can suppose that like minded people just gravitate to this forum, or we can suppose that people, who are not like minded do not stay. I know which one I think is more likely, but that is not the point here.

What are the forum's goals? What is the owner of this forum trying to accomplish? If it is to promote Science to the point where it is above and separate from the other Disciplines, then these goals are being accomplished and no change is required. If, on the other hand, the separation of Science causes a limitation in the thinking and knowledge of the membership, then this separation can lead to stagnation.

What I want does not really matter, as it is not my forum. There are other forums, and I can rotate between forums. Most forums lean toward either Religion, Philosophy, or Science, so it is hard to find one that is well balanced. I think that the key to balancing a forum is a well mannered and respectful membership.

Gee

 

Silvestru;

 

On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 4:00 AM, Silvestru said:

I never had an interest in Philosophy and actually all the subjects I loved in school were because the teachers of said subject was cool rational and patient.

After reading some of your posts and this peer review part it made me want to include philosophy and subjects related to it in my short reading time. Give me a few years  and I will come back and try to peer review.  

About "Notes to Gee" I agree with some but I have also seen people being against the grain and thinking and airing their own independent ideas. Even if maybe they are not correct, the members were explaining them in a logical polite manner and they were getting support with the additional corrections if needed.(this is a unicorn scenario but it happens.)

Don't loose faith. This forum is gaining traction. I'm sure there will be people you will be able to have a fruitful conversation with  in the Philosophy section.

You are very kind to say that some of my posts influenced you, but if you want to study Philosophy, you should know that to master it takes a life-long effort. I am not trying to discourage you, just making sure your expectations are in line with reality. You can learn a lot without being a master, and  you can discuss your ideas without knowing everything.

There is only one currency that has any value in Philosophy, and that is "truth". When a new philosopher finds their first truths, they get very excited and start waving their truth around like it is a flag. I am sure that some of those philosophers wave their flag of "truth" in the Science forum and drive the membership crazy. I am certain that in my youth, I did similar things. But eventually, we learn that truth is not like a flag, it is more like a double-edged sword that cuts both ways. The nature of truth is subjective, so that makes it very relevant to perspective. Something that might be true for you might be false for me; it can be true in one circumstance and false in another. Like murder is bad (truth) but in war or self defense it is good (truth). The same holds true for "truths" in Science.

I study consciousness and can truthfully tell you that consciousness is "God", and mind, and a product of the brain, and Nature, and the supernatural, and part of all life, and unknowable, and illusion, and probably the source of cause and effect and reality. How can all of these things be true? Yet they are. Of course, consciousness is a difficult subject that has stumped the minds of our greatest thinkers for tens of thousands of years. I have no hope of resolving these "truths", but the work is challenging and fun, so I enjoy it.

Once you come to terms with the idea that truth is subjective and relative, then you can start to compare truths in order to get a better picture of the over-all and balance the truths. If there is any ultimate truth, it is the truth of balance in my opinion. When you can balance your truths, you are finally on the path to wisdom.

 

I love the quote you have from Tar on the bottom of your posts and smile every time I see it. It is sooooo Tar. Tar's father was a psychologist, and Tar himself studied philosophy and specifically studied the philosopher, Kant, so his background was perfect for understanding my concepts in consciousness. He is more Science minded, I like Philosophy -- we agreed on very little. But I found him to be intelligent, opinionated, argumentative, tenacious, open to new ideas, and possessed of integrity, so he was a perfect foil for my ideas. He is also a good friend and understands friendship.

Gee

 

Migl;

I just realized that you are Canadian, so now I have to thank you. After 9-11, I decided that I should thank any Canadian that I met for the support the people of Canada gave to the US. When my government panicked, got stupid, and decided that airplanes were forbidden to land, we had a lot of commercial airplanes filled with Americans and running out of fuel. Canadians gave us permission to land and be safe, then they fed us, sheltered us, got needed medications, called our families, and some took their own cars to drive Americans home. I think air traffic was locked down for a week or so. It is nice to know that your neighbor has your back when trouble comes.

So thank you, and please pass this along to your neighbors, relatives, and friends. Some of us remember.

 

13 hours ago, MigL said:

Truth be told, I never had much use for philosophy or philosophers, but I have managed to learn a few things on this forum.
Eise managed to teach me the purpose of philosophy and earned a great deal of my respect. He knows his physics as well as philosophy.

Eise specializes in Philosophy of Science, so I would expect him to have a good handle on Science. We have talked, and although we don't agree on everything, he is a good philosopher. I study consciousness, so I suppose you could call my studies Philosophy of Mind. Philosophers are too opinionated to agree on everything. (chuckle)

 

Quote

You don't post nearly as much, Gees, but I do agree with a lot of your ideas, including the above list, but maybe not so much the severity of the problems.
YDon't be discouraged, your opinions are appreciated, and the rest of us may actually learn something.

When I was writing that list, I was thinking about experiences I had when I first joined, so maybe some of the ideas could be tempered. Also consider that insisting that I am a (not formally educated) philosopher in a forum that does not understand Philosophy was kind of like waving a red flag. (chuckle)

I don't post a lot because I have MS (Multiple Sclerosis) which sometimes gives me bad days, or weeks, and makes me tire easily. That is the bad news. The good news is that I would not be here at all if I did not have MS and could get out of this chair more often.

Thank you for the feedback.

 

Quote

Even in your thread 'Powerful men, Beautiful women and Sex', I agreed with a lot of your opinions,

Ethics is a strange forum. I understood the study of ethics to be the study of what is good and bad about the way we regulate our laws, policies, and procedures. It is my personal opinion that when a specific group behaves badly on a regular basis, some bad law or policy is often behind this behavior. Ethics is supposed to help us identify the problems.

I retired from law and have a pretty good understanding of it, but I received most, if not all, of the down votes in that thread on posts that were about law. They may not have liked the words that I posted, but they can not deny the truth of them. So if someone reads those posts, are they going to assume that the information is invalid, or are they going to assume that the down vote posters did not have a clue? For myself, I would like to know who votes on my posts, so that I can figure out what the vote is actually worth.

 

Quote

But I do understand your frustration, and you're right, it seems to happen much more in the 'opinion' oriented fora like politics and religion.
Recently two well respected members, Zapatos and Arete, earned down-votes for their opinions about gun ownership, because others disagreed with their opinions and 'ganged up' on them.

It is nice to know that there are other people, who realize that guns don't go around sneaking up on people and shooting them. They actually stay wherever you put them and are pretty obedient.

I have argued this topic in other forums, but would not do it here because of the down-vote system.

Gee

[StringJunky]

Has the forum ever had a system with no negative points? If so, how was it then? This will be before 2009, when I joined.

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Has the forum ever had a system with no negative points? If so, how was it then? This will be before 2009, when I joined.

I don't recall if the rep system had negative points when I joined, but there was a stretch of time when all new members had 10 points at the outset. Which was probably when rep given was proportional to rep you had, so that even n00bs could give reputation.

On 2/28/2018 at 10:27 AM, ydoaPs said:

*cough* swansont *cough*

When calling my name it shall be in a clear voice.

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Has the forum ever had a system with no negative points? If so, how was it then? This will be before 2009, when I joined.

We've had a system where there were no points, but I don't recall a positive only one. I think the +/- system gives people a way to complain about rude behavior without calling it out every time in the threads. It's much better for the discussions if someone makes a troll-like comment and gets -3 rep for it than for each participant to derail the threads further by calling troll, which always invites retaliatiatory replies, and nobody learns anything.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

We've had a system where there were no points, but I don't recall a positive only one. I think the +/- system gives people a way to complain about rude behavior without calling it out every time in the threads. It's much better for the discussions if someone makes a troll-like comment and gets -3 rep for it than for each participant to derail the threads further by calling troll, which always invites retaliatiatory replies, and nobody learns anything.

This is the problem with a positive-only system. Is it possible to give newcomers an initial credit of so many points that they can lose before going negative??

[dimreepr]

24 minutes ago, Gees said:

I have argued this topic in other forums, but would not do it here because of the down-vote system.

 

A neg rep is not an argument, it's just a finger held high in the sky.

[Phi for All]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

This is the problem with a positive-only system. Is it possible to give newcomers an initial credit of so many points that they can lose before going negative??

That may be possible. As swansont mentioned, Admins used to be able to start rep out at 10, and that seems like a feature Invision would want. Hyperiodine will be checking this out, I'm sure.

Also, don't underestimate the power of reason. It's more common than you probably think for members (including staff) to correct unjust reputation points. It's not that hard to spot abuses and lend your single point to help correct them. In some ways, it's the most satisfying use of reputation.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

That may be possible. As swansont mentioned, Admins used to be able to start rep out at 10, and that seems like a feature Invision would want. Hyperiodine will be checking this out, I'm sure.

Also, don't underestimate the power of reason. It's more common than you probably think for members (including staff) to correct unjust reputation points. It's not that hard to spot abuses and lend your single point to help correct them. In some ways, it's the most satisfying use of reputation.

I do it often, possibly more than for other reasons. I think crediting with some number is the best compromise. If someone lets it go into the negative then they probably don't care, and nor should we.

[Ten oz]

27 minutes ago, Gees said:

I did not write that insulting Religion is OK because I accept that idea; I wrote it to remind myself to not jump in when I felt Religion was being insulted -- unless I felt it was absolutely necessary. I am not religious. I am not even sure that one could stretch my ideas enough to call me agnostic, but I respect Religion and see the value in it. As a philosopher, I understand the need for balance between the Disciplines, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, so I respect all of them equally. I just love Philosophy more.

To be critical of a person's faith IS insulting, because it implies that they are somewhat stupid. The members in this forum do not insult religious people in much the same way that Trump does not insult Mexicans.

Religion is often used to argue against science. When religion is being used in that fashion, to argue against science, the poster doing so doesn't get to use god as a shield. Being Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, or etc doesn't mean one is stupid. However using ones own take on religion to argue against evolution is stupid. I my experience posters do not label religion as stupid but rather they label the inaccurate arguments launched using religion as stupid. I think it is fair.

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I do it often, possibly more than for other reasons. I think crediting with some number is the best compromise. If someone lets it go into the negative then they probably don't care, and nor should we.

Very reasonable. I'd support giving folks the benefit of the doubt. It's too easy to assume the worst, and not that difficult to credit good intentions to every newcomer. 

[StringJunky]

Just now, Phi for All said:

Very reasonable. I'd support giving folks the benefit of the doubt. It's too easy to assume the worst, and not that difficult to credit good intentions to every newcomer. 

It allows some room for adjusting an initially incompatible attitude without consequence, if they care.

[tuco]

Questions aiming at the state of the community before and after implementation of up/down vote are on the right track in my opinion simply because only data can validate a premise stated in OP or any other argument or hypothesis posted here.

I voted to remove it as based on my own experience I have no reason to believe the premise in OP meets reality and in general, I believe in the carrot rather than the stick. However, I will not argue for removing the downvote at length exactly for the reason stated above - do not have the data, just anecdotes and hypothesis. Personally, I do not think I need a filter or indicator of let's say worthy information or state of the community, at least not on an internet forum and I have reason to believe my neurons are capable firing without me having control and knowledge of such firing, essentially running into risk of not being able to evaluate information without bias. There are possibly 100s perhaps 1000s people reading but only a faction down/upvotes. I am not convinced such fraction is indicative of much. 

So that is about it from me in few words. 

[tmx3]

On 2/23/2018 at 5:48 AM, Lord Antares said:

I think it would be optimal if you could only give upvotes and downvotes in science sections. Many people have built up a rep (be it positive or negative) in the politics or religion sections. This completely defeats the purpose of the rep system. I don't know if that's possible to make, though. This would also help get rid of the ''win by rep'' debates and would decrease the effects of ''ganging up on someone'' which is also most prominent in politics sections.

+1

[Itoero]

Also, many people give downvotes, not for the content of the reply but because of the person that writes it.

Many downvotes coffeesippin got were not deserved in any way....

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Also, many people give downvotes, not for the content of the reply but because of the person that writes it.

Many downvotes coffeesippin got were not deserved in any way....

Must ... resist ... must ... not ... downvote ... 

 

[zapatos]

25 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Also, many people give downvotes, not for the content of the reply but because of the person that writes it.

Many downvotes coffeesippin got were not deserved in any way....

When someone repeatedly posts nonsense or exhibits poor behavior, I admit to pulling the trigger on a downvote much more quickly than I would for someone who doesn't typically exhibit those behaviors but makes the same post.

Also, "not deserved in any way" is totally subjective. That just means it wasn't deserved in your opinion. You cannot know what prompted someone to give a downvote.

If someone gets downvotes "because of the person that writes it", then that person should have downvotes on every post. Have you seen that?

[Sensei]

26 minutes ago, Strange said:

Must ... resist ... must ... not ... downvote ... 

...mercifulness is praiseworthy...

 

[Itoero]

22 hours ago, Strange said:

Must ... resist ... must ... not ... downvote ... 

 

I admire your resistance.

[iNow]

Resistance is futile. 

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, Itoero said:

I admire your resistance.

as do I.

[Phi for All]

23 hours ago, Itoero said:

Also, many people give downvotes, not for the content of the reply but because of the person that writes it.

That's not true at all. That type of thing becomes obvious fairly quickly, especially to staff. As zapatos points out, you don't see people getting downvotes for every post.

That said, if you, Itoero, get a downvote on a post where you suggest modifying definitions of accepted terms so your arguments have more strength, it's probably from me. And you do it a LOT. I'll stop if you will.

[beecee]

On 2/20/2018 at 1:19 PM, hypervalent_iodine said:

 

I count a total of 8 down votes by you, which is quite small by comparison to most.  

As an enthusiastic amateur, I see the up/down votes more as pointing to an individual's reputation, and for any newbie [which I was at one time] is a great indication of who to recognise and trust on any site, although with most crackpottery that is fairly obvious. I also see that someone has already mentioned the dangers of down votes as a form of childish revenge, and that is certainly true as I have been on the receiving end of that sort of operation by one individual here already. Thankfully though quick action against this was forthcoming.

My own down votes, which I try to keep to a minimum, are generally reserved for the obvious crack pots, the anti mainstream brigade when such debates start verging on ignoring of the actual evidence that supports mainstream, and those that use religion and deities as a god of the gaps.

Scientific issues sometimes are open to more then one interpretation, and many times certain issues are simply a matter of opinion. I'm actually crossing swords with one member now who obviously knows what he is talking about, but as yet, I remain unconvinced as to the point he is trying to make. So as yet, I find it unnecessary to saddle him with any down vote.   

In essence I see up/down votes as a necessary evil on any public forum open to any Tom, Dick or Harry, and as a guide for newbies to recognise the quality of a question and/or answer.