Negative rep - (split from B Kavanough and MeToo)

[DrP]

Just now, MigL said:

Negative reps attack the poster, as they carry that negative reputation forward, they say nothing regarding the idea.
You are essentially saying "you are a bad person for posting this". What's next, calling them names ?

 

I disagree. I give it out when I see a post that claims fact when it is just nonsense drivel of the poster's imagination..  actually - I don't give it for that, but if they have been corrected or challenged and they then go off on further rants claiming their view point to be fact when 2 or 3 others have pointed to well tested science that proves them wrong then I give a red mark...  a poster with lots of red marks is a flag to not take what they say that seriously if they are claiming a fact.  For instance, why shouldn't a staunch flat earther or a proponent of their secret perpetual motion machine be marked out as someone who's opinion is probably not worth as much as someone who follows tried and tested scientific fact?  - so I don't think they 'attack the poster' rather than give a warning to others that their opinions have regularly been way off from accepted reality. 

 

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

While someone's post says may offend your sensibilities, or even be verging on hate speech, you don't have the right ( on this forum ) to attack the poster. The rule is 'attack the idea, not the poster'.
Negative reps attack the poster, as they carry that negative reputation forward, they say nothing regarding the idea.

You are essentially saying "you are a bad person for posting this".

If someone gives a negative vote because they don't like the content of a post, it is attacking the idea not the poster. If someone else decides to interpret that a different way, that is their problem.

I generally assume an overall negative vote means that someone posts a lot of nonsense or objectionable material. I don't assume they are a Bad Person, that would be silly.

[MigL]

So you are painting a 'scarlet letter' on the poster. DrP.
Which they will 'keep' even when they make a good post.

How is that different from calling them an idiot ?

Edit:
The rep point stays with the poster, Strange, even after that bad post is long forgotten.
It is a reflection on the poster, not the post.
That is how it is 'Attacking the poster, not the idea"

If we are all in agreement that we allow attacking the poster, who am I to disagree ?
But if we think that is not who we want to be, my opinion is we should change the rep system.
( I have never made a secret of that )

Edited October 15, 2018 by MigL

[Silvestru]

11 minutes ago, DrP said:

I disagree. I give it out when I see a post that claims fact when it is just nonsense drivel of the poster's imagination..  actually - I don't give it for that, but if they have been corrected or challenged and they then go off on further rants claiming their view point to be fact when 2 or 3 others have pointed to well tested science that proves them wrong then I give a red mark...  a poster with lots of red marks is a flag to not take what they say that seriously if they are claiming a fact.  For instance, why shouldn't a staunch flat earther or a proponent of their secret perpetual motion machine be marked out as someone who's opinion is probably not worth as much as someone who follows tried and tested scientific fact?  - so I don't think they 'attack the poster' rather than give a warning to others that their opinions have regularly been way off from accepted reality. 

As usual you raise a very valid point DrP and we have enjoyed reading and in cases where the person did not want to understand, giving negative marks to many flat earthers together on this forum. But this post refers to topics that are not so easily proven. Not the usual religious nut in the physics section.

Should you give a negative point to someone who is just expressing a different opinion than your regarding a "case" or investigation that is not yet closed?
As other members mentioned, I try to avoid giving a negative rep to someone I don't agree with as far as that person did not offend anyone and just expressed his point of view.

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

I generally assume an overall negative vote means that someone posts a lot of nonsense or objectionable material. I don't assume they are a Bad Person, that would be silly.

I agree but it just feels like people get negative reps for sometimes expressing a idea that seems "republican". In this case I think it's rather unfair that people down-voted many of J.C.MacSwell's posts.

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by Silvestru

[zapatos]

47 minutes ago, mistermack said:

So that's it then. With a wave of your hand, it's decided. She's a victim. Meaning that he's guilty. 

 

Phi did not make a legal pronouncement. Attacking the person who claims to be the victim of a crime is considered 'victim blaming'.

What Phi was suggesting (and I agree with) was that your continued attack of Ford was indecent.

e.g.

"Taking into account the timing, delay and obvious motive of her accusation, to me she's not a victim, she's a liar."

"In the tiny chance that she IS telling the truth..."

"This Dr. Ford, if her story is true, let a man that she knew was a would-be rapist carry on his evil way, presumably doing the same thing over and over, all because she didn't report it. Not very public spirited of her. His wicked ways could have been nipped in the bud 36 years ago, if she's telling the truth. The safety of other potential victims doesn't seem to be something she ever cared about."

Considering how much you seem to abhor bias, you seem to be showing a bit of it yourself.  

[Silvestru]

Maybe we shouldn't have a reputation option in the politics section. If we feel  that someone is offensive we should just should report his/her post.

[MigL]

More on the general idea I'm trying to convey...
The very name, REPUTATION points, refers to the poster's reputation, not to the content ( good or bad ) of the post.

You are saying
"You are a disreputable poster, and none of your posts have any merit"
Again, how is that different from calling them an idiot ?

And while I always value your opinion Zapatos, let's not continue a closed thread in this one.

[hypervalent_iodine]

As much as I would be in favour of removing rep points from certain sections of the forum, the software doesn't seem to allow for that adjustment. 

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

And while I always value your opinion Zapatos, let's not continue a closed thread in this one.

Hmm. I thought I was talking about "Negative Rep", split from the Kavanaugh thread, and why it was being given out. Not to mention that I was just responding to the two posts which were already talking about that.

[mistermack]

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Attacking the person who claims to be the victim of a crime is considered 'victim blaming'.

Kavanaugh claims to be a victim of a false allegation of sexual assault. In this country, that's a crime. So everyone who attacked him is also 'victim blaming' by your reasoning. It was a free-for-all on Kavanaugh. You need to be a bit more consistent.

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Kavanaugh claims to be a victim of a false allegation of sexual assault. In this country, that's a crime. So everyone who attacked him is also 'victim blaming' by your reasoning. It was a free-for-all on Kavanaugh. You need to be a bit more consistent.

Just so I'm clear, you are saying my statement ( Attacking the person who claims to be the victim of a crime is considered 'victim blaming'),was false?

Edited October 15, 2018 by zapatos

[Strange]

24 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Attacking the person who claims to be the victim of a crime is considered 'victim blaming'

Actually, it is more than that. It is not just attacking them but saying they are (partly) responsible for becoming a victim.

34 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

I agree but it just feels like people get negative reps for sometimes expressing a idea that seems "republican".

Don't they count as objectionable.  

(Only partly joking. In the current environment, some republicans are expressing pretty despicable views. Starting from the top.)

[mistermack]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Just so I'm clear, you are saying my statement ( Attacking the person who claims to be the victim of a crime is considered 'victim blaming'),was false?

How can it be false? "It is considered" is a vacuous statement. 

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, mistermack said:

How can it be false? "It is considered" is a vacuous statement. 

It was a clarification of your misconception about what "victim shaming" is.

When you said "So that's it then. With a wave of your hand, it's decided. She's a victim. Meaning that he's guilty.",  you were showing your misunderstand of what victim shaming is.

"Victim shaming" does not say anything at all about the guilt or innocence of the alleged perpetrator. "Victim shaming" instead speaks to the treatment of the person who is bringing forth the allegations.

[DrP]

33 minutes ago, MigL said:

How is that different from calling them an idiot ?

Does it matter?  Someone constantly repeats an argument that several well respected members have pointed to being a misunderstanding. They are given resources and references so they can research the facts and update their position based on the actual evidence rather than their mental ramblings. If they continue to repeat their behaviour then that behaviour is idiotic....  why not point it out?  Calling them an idiot is not an insult if it is a fact. Newer members looking for advice might be warned off from those posters with negative rep...  and for good reason.

...  I have to agree though - neg rep for political siding isn't good.  I do not know about this current disagreement regarding the victim blaming. I saw the whole thing a disgusting smear on the Republican party that they would consider this creep that has these allegations surrounding him...  why not allow the investigation? If only to clear the guy's name. Why block the FBI from interviewing people who have information - maybe I am being cynical but it looks like they are covering for him in some old boys club fashion...  I find it deplorable that this is even thought about let alone actually put forward by the WH and then just accepted by the public as a normal acceptable thing that happens in politics. I didn't neg rep anyone in that thread though. It isn't up to me though to say who and for what individuals give their rep for.

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

We do not need to retread old ground regarding the Kavanaugh thread and victim blaming. 

 

[zapatos]

36 minutes ago, MigL said:

Again, how is that different from calling them an idiot ?

 

I fail to see how giving a neg rep to someone who calls someone else a liar is an inherently bad thing, even if you read that neg rep as meaning "you are an idiot".

As you said, we should not attack people here, and calling someone a "liar" is attacking people.

[mistermack]

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

"Victim shaming" does not say anything at all about the guilt or innocence of the alleged perpetrator. "Victim shaming" instead speaks to the treatment of the person who is bringing forth the allegations.

 

35 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Kavanaugh claims to be a victim of a false allegation of sexual assault. In this country, that's a crime. So everyone who attacked him is also 'victim blaming' by your reasoning. It was a free-for-all on Kavanaugh. You need to be a bit more consistent.

 

[zapatos]

What exactly was my inconsistency?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

While I have no problems with positive reps, as they are essentially a 'pat on the back' for a job well done, I do have a problem with negative reps.

While someone's post says may offend your sensibilities, or even be verging on hate speech, you don't have the right ( on this forum ) to attack the poster. The rule is 'attack the idea, not the poster'.
Negative reps attack the poster, as they carry that negative reputation forward, they say nothing regarding the idea.
You are essentially saying "you are a bad person for posting this". What's next, calling them names ?

The only way around this would be to assign the negative point to that particular offending post, but not to the poster's reputation.

"Your post is bad/contains fallacies/is hateful" is not attacking the poster. 

And if a poster consistently posts in that fashion, reputation is a way that people can know that maybe they should take the information they post with a grain of salt.

[iNow]

I have to take issue with the implication being made, both implicitly and explicitly, throughout this thread that neg reps are only being given to one side of discussions... that "the left" is unfairly treating "the right," or "democrats" unfairly using the voting system against "republicans" or "liberals" against "conservatives."

You perhaps can't see it, but I chalked up a shit ton of neg reps myself in the Kavenaugh thread. Frankly, that's just the cost of debating politics (and religion). Not the best analogy, but it's more of a gladiators arena than snow-cone stand; more of an octagon than a nobel conference. It's a different space and that's just how it goes...

With me on that thread... Many of the neg reps I got were from someone erasing a positive rep someone else gave me, but many others were not. Many were given to me for the same type of disagreement SJ describes in the OP, and I say... Oh well. This is a first-world problem, not worthy of my worry. Why are we even talking about this?

The rep system is available to all members here and it it's available for use equally. Given we're talking about politics, it may be useful to point out that it's very democratic (with a small D).

I don't have numbers in front of me, but I've probably received hundreds (or even a few thousand) neg reps while participating as a member here, but you'll still see that my overall reputation remains quite positive. On net, my posts are positive and I like to think that's because I'm a quality poster that makes coherent arguments and who manages to pushback forcefully on difficult topics. I like to think that me being in the green is NOT just because the other members here are lemmings who happen to share my political views or ideology (though, I stipulate some of my reps surely fit that category).

Sigh... This same question comes up perennially about the rep system, and the outcome is always the same. Some like it, some don't. Big whoop... Can we move on , please? On net, it's consistently deemed to be more beneficial than not. If someone has a consistently red reputation, it probably is a good idea to take a harder look at the poster (if for no other reason than their seeming inability to convey an point in a manner that people of all ideologies find acceptable).

Sure... It's possible the system is being used unfairly, but far more likely is that the person showing regularly in the red really is a rather shitty poster with potentially horrible positions, consistent obstinance, trollish approach, logical fallacies, willful ignorance, ignoring clear counterargument and evidence and the like.

The suggestion here is mostly that neg reps are almost cultish, but that ignores the reality that even folks like me racked up a bunch of neg reps in that thread, and in just about every other political thread, too. Oobla dee, oobla da... life goes on.

It's just the nature of political discussion, and I take issue with the implication that me (and others like me) are the aggressors. It's very one-sided to suggest this, and one-sidedness seems to be the core issue being decried. 

[swansont]

55 minutes ago, MigL said:

More on the general idea I'm trying to convey...
The very name, REPUTATION points, refers to the poster's reputation, not to the content ( good or bad ) of the post.

You are saying
"You are a disreputable poster, and none of your posts have any merit"
Again, how is that different from calling them an idiot ?

And while I always value your opinion Zapatos, let's not continue a closed thread in this one.

We can't be commenting on anything other than their post content. That's all there is to go on.

Bad rep can be cancelled by good. So it doesn't necessarily stay with you.

[MigL]

Just expressing my opinion, Swansont.
I certainly don't make the rules and try to abide by whatever the membership/admins decide.

And I'm not saying one side does it more, INow, but even the act of cancelling someone else's downvote means you are cancelling  THEIR 'opinion' of a bad post, and restoring the 'reputation' of a POSTER whose ideas you respect.
Clearly, that has nothing to do with the post.

I also noted, that in the now closed thread, JC and I got no ( or very few ) negs, for expressing virtually the same ideas as other posters who did get neg reps.
Do JC and I have more 'respect' from other members than relatively new members who did get downvoted, because we've been around longer ?
If so, thank you, but I suggest that has also nothing to do with the post.

[zapatos]

I don't give neg reps for any ideas. I may give a neg rep though for the way ideas are expressed. While other posters may have expressed the same ideas as you, they don't necessarily say it the same way you do.

If someone were to say 'I find it hard to believe that so-and-so can't remember the details', I would never give a neg rep.

If on the other hand someone were to say 'no way do they not remember the details, they obviously are lying to support their agenda', I might give a neg rep.

[mistermack]

I'm perfectly ok with negs. There are a lot of sad people out there, who will never get the chance to ride a white stallion to the defence of a damsel in distress. This is the nearest they will ever get, so they should get the chance to gallop to the rescue, deadly mouse in hand. If it makes them feel fine and noble like Sir Galahad, it's fine by me. 

There are also people who would like to reply with a wise and insightful post, but can't think of any words, or are scared that it will just come out stupid, and expose them to ridicule. 
A negative click is safe and anonymous, it's a boon for the less gifted.