negative vote

[michel123456]

Related to the + and - vote for posts on this Forum.

I have seen well formulated posts from fellow members being negatively voted on a regular basis. There is no bad wording, no attacks, no insults.

resulting in some members with astonishing negative reputation, although always polite.

One may disagree with one's ideas but

Why do you vote negative?

Edited May 12, 2011 by michel123456

[imatfaal]

Kids who think rebellion is the automatic gainsaying and mockery of anything said/stated by any authority figure (or in SF.N's case - vague approximation of an authority figure).

 

The only time I will neg-rep is when the poster is rude/obnoxious; or, no-matter how politely, answers a straight science question with a wild guess dressed up as fact.

[mississippichem]

Kids who think rebellion is the automatic gainsaying and mockery of anything said/stated by any authority figure (or in SF.N's case - vague approximation of an authority figure).

 

The only time I will neg-rep is when the poster is rude/obnoxious; or, no-matter how politely, answers a straight science question with a wild guess dressed up as fact.

 

I do the same. Some people are legitimately incorrect, and that is okay; but if you post pseudo-scientific nonsense then your rep. point will reflect such.

I also give negative rep to posts that are strongly worded but not well defended. For example:

 

"I think you're wrong because that's not the way it is."

 

That would be a post of poor quality and would receive neg-rep from me. I've noticed it tends to balance out though, a pretty good post that got negative rep Usually recovers as passers by notice. Bad posts that gained good rep always lose it.

[ydoaPs]

I do the same. Some people are legitimately incorrect, and that is okay; but if you post pseudo-scientific nonsense then your rep. point will reflect such.

I also give negative rep to posts that are strongly worded but not well defended. For example:

 

 

 

That would be a post of poor quality and would receive neg-rep from me. I've noticed it tends to balance out though, a pretty good post that got negative rep Usually recovers as passers by notice. Bad posts that gained good rep always lose it.

You're a meany meany turd face!

 

I've actually seen it used as some sort of retaliatory action when someone has been utterly pwned in argument. In fact, that's part of the reason that person got banned.

[zapatos]

I think that many times people use the negative vote as a polite way to say, "I am trying to see things from your perspective but I can't get my head that far up my ass!".

[swansont]

I think that many times people use the negative vote as a polite way to say, "I am trying to see things from your perspective but I can't get my head that far up my ass!".

A lot of this depends on where the post is located. Negative rep is probably used differently in politics/religion/philosophy, where the views are more subjective, than in science sections where there is a more objective standard. Ideally neg rep would not be used in the former for differing opinions and only for faulty reasoning, which is how I have used it on occasion. In the science sections (especially speculations) I have dished it out for blatantly ignoring reality or for personal attacks as a response to criticism (which also usually gets more formal attention from the staff)

 

I prefer, by a large margin, to give out positive rep for good posts — well thought out, supported by facts, includes links to and/or citations of reputable sources.

[imatfaal]

Happy Birthday!

 

Back on the rep points - would it not be possible to allow member to give only +ve rep points until they have posted 30 or so messages? This would seem to weed out lots of the neg reps from disgruntled teens who have their pet theory torn to shreds.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Hm. Consider it done. I hadn't thought of that.

[A Tripolation]

I only give negative rep when a person is being blatantly offensive, or conducting themselves in a manner that is not conducive to a good discussion.

 

I give out positive rep to almost any post that makes a good point, or makes me smile. It's probably whorish, how many times I hit the green + sign.

[Marat]

Since we don't know who is behind any of these purely symbolic name tags, which could very well represent entire committees of people writing under a single nom de plume, I don't find it sensible to be voting for these names as though they were people. I actually never check to see who is saying what, and I make no attempt to discern a reputation or character for any name on this forum, but I just react instead to the contents of each individual message on its own.

 

The true vice of this forum is the astonishing degree of rudeness, viciousness, and cruelty directed at the individuals who are merely imagined to exist behind the messages posted. I am not sure why this ugliness is so much worse on this forum than on any other message group I have ever encountered, but I suspect it has something to do with the title, 'Science Forum,' and the implications this has for personal self-worth being at stake in abusing other people or being abused by them. This enormous downside of the forum might be reduced if everything that tends to focus people's attention on identities underlying the posts is minimized. Included under this category would be things like 'reputation' ratings. Perhaps it is not even necessary to label messages by an identity, or to change the label for each message thread so that responses to previous comments in the same thread can be more clearly oriented.

[imatfaal]

Marat - that's a very strange quasi-solipsistic view to take and would seem to mechanize and dehumanize what is basically a social interaction. Whilst many things are possible, few are likely and to live one's life betting on the least likely option seems perverse. Do you have any evidence that the man staring out from the post above yours isn't an individual but a committee?

 

On the friendliness of this site - I could not disagree with you more. This is a noticeably strict site, where the mods are pretty punctilious, potentially draconian, but there is very little flaming, sledging or rudeness.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Marat: Partly you have hit upon one of my ideas when adjusting the layout and visual design of this forum. By default, the forum software makes details like the user's postcount, registration date, avatar, chosen title, and location very prominent, but I redesigned the post layout so that only the user's name and post content are prominent. Avatars are pushed off to one side as decoration and the postcount placed in faint text at the bottom of posts, after the post content.

 

Making posts anonymous or identities consistent only for each discussion would encourage devious tactics. We've had users who intentionally troll discussions to get negative reactions; if they appear under a different name in every discussion, it'd be difficult to detect or stop their behavior.

 

I'm surprised you think there is a high level of viciousness on SFN, however. In comparison with much larger and more anonymous communities, we're remarkably nice. Now, staff can't read every post, so I encourage anyone who encounters rude behavior to report the posts involved. We do read and react to every report, even if the response is not publicly visible.

[Klaynos]

Most of my neg points are to people who are no answering questions asked directly to them. I hand out far more positive points though.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Do you have any evidence that the man staring out from the post above yours isn't an individual but a committee?

I have noticed a striking tendency for members to draw conclusions about others with little evidence. For example, while debating another member it's common to conclude they must intentionally be using deceptive debate tactics, or that their logical fallacies are introduced as intentional red herrings, or that a pattern of reported posts is evidence of intentional subversion. Generally I find it safer to assume that your opponents faults are a result of their faultiness, rather than malice.

[imatfaal]

I have noticed a striking tendency for members to draw conclusions about others with little evidence. For example, while debating another member it's common to conclude they must intentionally be using deceptive debate tactics, or that their logical fallacies are introduced as intentional red herrings, or that a pattern of reported posts is evidence of intentional subversion. Generally I find it safer to assume that your opponents faults are a result of their faultiness, rather than malice.

 

Captain - not sure why you have singled out one sentence of my post - and responded as above. I do follow who says what and respond to the person with all the corresponding thoughts of what he or she has posted in the past. I do not think Marat is the sort of poster who says much by mistake or 'faultiness' (I like that word).

 

As Marat posted the below immediately after one of the (admittedly few) posts with a photograph:

Since we don't know who is behind any of these purely symbolic name tags, which could very well represent entire committees of people writing under a single nom de plume, I don't find it sensible to be voting for these names as though they were people.

I thought it was fairly reasonable to ascertain on what basis he made that comment.

Edited May 12, 2011 by imatfaal

[ydoaPs]

A lot of this depends on where the post is located. Negative rep is probably used differently in politics/religion/philosophy, where the views are more subjective, than in science sections where there is a more objective standard. Ideally neg rep would not be used in the former for differing opinions and only for faulty reasoning, which is how I have used it on occasion. In the science sections (especially speculations) I have dished it out for blatantly ignoring reality or for personal attacks as a response to criticism (which also usually gets more formal attention from the staff)

 

I prefer, by a large margin, to give out positive rep for good posts — well thought out, supported by facts, includes links to and/or citations of reputable sources.

That's essentially my policy. Neg rep is reserved for special occasions, but positive is dished out until I cannot do it anymore. That's one good thing about the new rep system. You alone could make or break someone's reputation, but it would take me a few hits to get someone that much. The new system puts us all on even playing field. Unfortunately, you're no longer notified of the rep and you can no longer give notes on why you liked that post.

[imatfaal]

Captain

Just noticed your post on the rep points above - Wow, nice one! Talk about the benefits of an efficient and benevolent dictatorship

Edited May 12, 2011 by imatfaal

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Captain - not sure why you have singled out one sentence of my post - and responded as above. I do follow who says what and respond to the person with all the corresponding thoughts of what he or she has posted in the past. I do not think Marat is the sort of poster who says much by mistake or 'faultiness' (I like that word).

I'm not accusing you of doing what I described, just pointing out that the "do you have any evidence?" question often does not stop people.

[Moontanman]

Neg rep rarely if ever helps anything, if I give neg rep i usually feel quite guilty about it due to knowing my own inadequacies, but once a thread gets stupid and real debate ends i think neg rep points that out to people who wander by and might think that the idea of some totally implausible assertion is a great thing and since he doesn't know any different neg rep seems to be indicated but I do like to give pos rep as much as possible.

[imatfaal]

I'm not accusing you of doing what I described, just pointing out that the "do you have any evidence?" question often does not stop people.

 

Whoops, I misunderstood - OK reread post and understand yours now.

[michel123456]

I am surprised Marat. To me the "who's talking" is extremely important. I have not the same discourse towards a retired person or a teenager. When I don't know who is on the other side, I have a third kind of discourse. But that's me.

 

I don't find this forum is rude at all. I have the experience of less moderated Forum where it is really difficult not to get insulted any 2 posts.

 

And just because this Forum has a paternalistic kind of military way of living (no offense intended), I like to put negative points to minimize the positive points other friends have put to posts I don't estimate particuraly. Not very seriously.

 

I vote positive where I like. Lately I also used positive vote for balancing a IMHO unjustified negative reputation. That was somehow more serious and that is the source of the OP.

[ydoaPs]

Having actually been in the military, I don't see this forum as miltaristic at all.

[rktpro]

Let me speak my heart today. I gave 2 or 3 negative votes when I joined just because I wanted to neutralize some one's positive vote which I thought was given just because he made a comic comment. This is true for lot of members. They just give you a negative vote when you disagree with them in some religious or politics forum. You know why they give it politely-because they too fear a negative vote. This is the best part of SFN vote-criteria. If you give someone a negative vote with no basis, you have to act like you were polite to prevent you from other members who dig up your post from all angles and can leave it to zero or negative or maybe a positive.

Don't give me a neg-rep here!

[DJBruce]

Personally, I find that often knowing who I am talking to is very useful and important. Knowing who I am talking to allows me to some extent judge the reliability of the information they are posting and to better understand their tone and where they are coming from. For example, if Swans where to respond to a physics question I would consider his response to be fairly reliables, since he has though his other posts shown to be an expert in the area. I feel that similar information can know about most who post here regularly, which makes debates in my opinion better.

 

As for the overall tone of this forum I find that SFN strikes the right balance of keeping things civilized and on topic without ruling with an iron fist. The negative reputation seems to be used for the most part fairly, and when not there are often members who will correct this by giving positive reputation. Overall, SFN has a much better atmosphere than most forums I frequent thanks to the quality of members we have, the hard and tireless work of the mods, and the design and forethought of the admins.

 

However, if I could suggest one change I did enjoy how back with the vB forum you could leave a comment with your rep point. I felt that this A) Inspired people to give positive rep since they are reminded of it when they receive it, and B) Allows people to give constructive criticism or explain their praise so that people can continue to improve the quality of their posts.

Edited May 13, 2011 by DJBruce

[Marat]

'Marat' is actually just the pseudonym for a committee of 12 different people. Or not? My point is simply that we cannot know.