Joatmon Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 My Dear Old Mother said to me when I was a child "If you can't say something nice about someone then keep your mouth shut!". I believe with that thought somewhere at the back of my mind I am extremely reluctant to "neg rep". I can only remember doing it once and on that occasion I regretted doing it and so found another post by the person concerned and gave him a "+1" in an attempt to rectify matters! Looking at the way the rep score grows for people it would seem I'm not alone.
Phi for All Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 I don't understand. Are you trying to say that it we report someone whom we believe is breaking the rules that its frowned upon? ! Moderator Note We want you to use the report feature. We want you to point out, in thread, when someone is using a logical fallacy to support their argument. We prefer that you don't try enforcing the rules by mentioning them in thread, it just adds a level of defensiveness to the discussion that isn't necessary, and can derail the topic. The use of logical fallacies automatically affects how people view the argument when it's pointed out. Our rules are for repeated offenses, but it normally sorts itself out when the weakness of the argument is pointed out before having to bring in the staff and the rulebook. I find it incredibly irritating when someone uses the logical fallacy of the straw argument and the moderators do nothing about it when they are informed of it. Also when the opponent refuses to acknowledge and respond to your counter arguments its also very irritating. That happens quote a lot. Isn't there a rule against that? ! Moderator Note Pointing out the weakness in someone's argument is part of what you do when you're discussing things with them. If you disagree with their position, you often start by pointing out why it's weak, and when someone uses a strawman it's not just a weak argument, it's often not an argument at all. Strawmen often completely miss the point. First line of defense is always you. Mention when someone is using a weak argument against you. Support your claim well. Be vigilant. That's how you get the +s.
swansont Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 Phi already pointed some of this out, but… I don't understand. Are you trying to say that it we report someone whom we believe is breaking the rules that its frowned upon? Not at all. But pointing it out in a thread is not the same as reporting it. If a moderator is reading a thread, s/he can easily make a judgement on the matter, so merely pointing it out in the thread does little to bring it to a moderator's attention. There's a report post icon (yellow triangle) which people can use to report a post. Other than that, attempts to enforce rules should be left to the staff. I've gotten feeback from people who have said that they were not happy about being mislead in certain cases/topics. That happens when I send then a part of a text that explains the relevant details. We need to take that kind of thing seriously. And I'm not saying that they need to be silenced. I'm saying that their argument should be moved to the speculation forum where people can read about it when they care to and not being confused about it in a normal discussion of bread and butter physics. The problem with simply moving the discussion to speculations is that not all of a discussion falls into that category if it's just one poster making speculative claims, and they did not start the thread. Some individual posts might be moved, if it can be done without disrupting the continuity of discussion. It's heavily dependent on the details of the thread. I find it incredibly irritating when someone uses the logical fallacy of the straw argument and the moderators do nothing about it when they are informed of it. Also when the opponent refuses to acknowledge and respond to your counter arguments its also very irritating. That happens quote a lot. Isn't there a rule against that? Yes, and such instances, where normal give-and-take discussion does not end with an elimination of the use of fallacies, should be reported.
pmb Posted July 6, 2012 Posted July 6, 2012 ! Moderator Note We want you to use the report feature. We want you to point out, in thread, when someone is using a logical fallacy to support their argument. We prefer that you don't try enforcing the rules by mentioning them in thread, it just adds a level of defensiveness to the discussion that isn't necessary, and can derail the topic. The use of logical fallacies automatically affects how people view the argument when it's pointed out. Our rules are for repeated offenses, but it normally sorts itself out when the weakness of the argument is pointed out before having to bring in the staff and the rulebook. Thank you. Yes. That's what I've been doing. I have to admit that being human means having to restrain myself when what I really want to do is say that they're breaking forum rules. Is it okay to say that their argument is outside mainstream physics and therefore belongs in the speculation forum? If not then I appologize for having done that.
pmb Posted July 7, 2012 Posted July 7, 2012 I'd like to add that it an be difficult asking for assistance. We can always hit the report button but it'd be nice to lknow if it was rejected or just not yet decided on. And there's no mechanism to find out. It'd be nice to know when we're being heard as compared to being ignored. What are we supposed to do in that instance? Just live without knowing whether something was done or not? For lack of knowing how to deal with it I mentioned it in open forum whereupon I was pounced on in in irritating manner. We should never be chastised for asking questions or making recomendations. Life's too short for short tempered moderators.
swansont Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 I'd like to add that it an be difficult asking for assistance. We can always hit the report button but it'd be nice to lknow if it was rejected or just not yet decided on. And there's no mechanism to find out. It'd be nice to know when we're being heard as compared to being ignored. What are we supposed to do in that instance? Just live without knowing whether something was done or not? For lack of knowing how to deal with it I mentioned it in open forum whereupon I was pounced on in in irritating manner. We should never be chastised for asking questions or making recomendations. Life's too short for short tempered moderators. "Just live without knowing whether something was done or not" is the correct answer. You were "pounced on" because your post was entirely off-topic and therefore inappropriate. Attributing the response to "short tempered moderators" misses the mark: it wasn't due to temper and it wasn't done on a whim. It's an unfair potshot, and also by laying blame at a moderator's feet it implies that you don't take responsibility for having crossed the line.
hypervalent_iodine Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 The danger in automatically assuming it's personal is that it immediately dismisses the possibility that there is an error or shortcoming of either style or substance in the post. You're ignoring data and that's bad science. (Sort of like assuming that someone disagrees with your hypothesis based on personal reasons, which we get waaaayy to much of in the speculations section.) This quote seems fairly pertinent at this point of the discussion.
pmb Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 "Just live without knowing whether something was done or not" is the correct answer. You were "pounced on" because your post was entirely off-topic and therefore inappropriate. Attributing the response to "short tempered moderators" misses the mark: it wasn't due to temper and it wasn't done on a whim. It's an unfair potshot, and also by laying blame at a moderator's feet it implies that you don't take responsibility for having crossed the line. That's quite an invalid accusation. In the first place the post wasn't off topic. It was a last ditch effort to attempt to keep the topic free from misconceptions and the continuing use of a straw argument, i.e. a non-cogent argument. There is was no call for your false accusation that my post was off topic since attempting to keep the thread free from misconceptions, i.e. bad-science free, is considered to be part of the topic. People were getting quite confused in that thread because of the misconceptions in it. In the second place, there's no excuse for moderators being rude simply because I asked a question. Nobody should ever fear of asking a question. There's just no call for it. Moderators can get their point across just just fine without it. Claiming that they need to be irritating ios, to me, just snobbery. While I understand that moderators are people too it doesn't mean that have to be rude in the form of a moderator comment. In the third place I never said I didn't accept responsibility for my actions. In fact in my next post, post #131, I explicitly said Sorry. My mistake. That clearly means that I took responsibiliy for my actions.
Joatmon Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Could we perhaps get this back on topic? Very valid point! "Why is there a reputation system?" Is very different to "What is wrong with the present reputation system?" or "How could the present reputation system be improved?" or "How do people misuse the present reputation system?" Any of the last three questions could be the subject of a new topic - except they seem to have had a good airing here!
pmb Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) Very valid point! "Why is there a reputation system?" Is very different to "What is wrong with the present reputation system?" or "How could the present reputation system be improved?" or "How do people misuse the present reputation system?" Any of the last three questions could be the subject of a new topic - except they seem to have had a good airing here! I think that being literal isn't always the way to go. As you reminded us, the question was Why is there a reputation system? To me that doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk about how and/or why we use it or what we do in spite of neg reps. On that point I have to admit that I never used to like it. Probably because I was in the negative. SInce I tool notice of that I decided to remain very polite even under the worst circumstances. Sometimes when you disagree with someone it doesn't appear to come off as being polite though. Espeiallyh when emotions are running high. In this course I found that I was able to make a lot of friends. That meant being patient, never telling someone that they're just plain wrong unless absolutely required and tying to be civil when I'm being dumped upon. I believe that it was a result of this new found patience that I saw my reputation go from negative to positive. And I have to admnit, it feels good. Its helped me determine where people are comming from and what they find useful. And when see neg reps I know what not to do in the future. Edited July 8, 2012 by pmb
Aethelwulf Posted July 8, 2012 Author Posted July 8, 2012 "Just live without knowing whether something was done or not" is the correct answer. You were "pounced on" because your post was entirely off-topic and therefore inappropriate. Attributing the response to "short tempered moderators" misses the mark: it wasn't due to temper and it wasn't done on a whim. It's an unfair potshot, and also by laying blame at a moderator's feet it implies that you don't take responsibility for having crossed the line. What's the point of pouncing on anyone... There is a reputation system for that. I hate this reputation system, it'snot justified in the slightest. If you have something to say about someones post, the reputation system is for the shy guys who can't challenge what someone says.
pmb Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 What's the point of pouncing on anyone... There is a reputation system for that. I quite agree. Moderators really shouldn't use the moderator function to be rude to members, even when they have a legitimate point to make. Its just not call for it. And when they're rude they add or we're supposed to assume, that we can't respond to defend ourselves. This only happens with a couple of the moderators. Most of them are very kind in their responses. CaptainPanic deserves an accomadation for the way he moderates. The other moderators should take him as guiding post. I hate this reputation system, it'snot justified in the slightest. If you have something to say about someones post, the reputation system is for the shy guys who can't challenge what someone says. What I'm always cautious about is people using it in to get even with pepple that they have a grudge with.
Joatmon Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) ...............................................What I'm always cautious about is people using it in to get even with pepple that they have a grudge with. I sometimes wonder about the exact opposite. People with friends might easily come to some understanding on the "You pat my back and I'll pat yours" principle. The system being subjective will let personal prejudice have its opportunity to invade. I don't worry about that and must admit that whenever I get a +1 I get a little surge of pleasure. This is not a deliberate invitation asking you to give me pleasure (but please don't do the other thing either!) Edited July 8, 2012 by Joatmon 1
hypervalent_iodine Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 What's the point of pouncing on anyone... There is a reputation system for that. I hate this reputation system, it'snot justified in the slightest. If you have something to say about someones post, the reputation system is for the shy guys who can't challenge what someone says. Because the reputation system and moderation of posts and members by staff are two completely separate things. I quite agree. Moderators really shouldn't use the moderator function to be rude to members, even when they have a legitimate point to make. Its just not call for it. And when they're rude they add or we're supposed to assume, that we can't respond to defend ourselves. This only happens with a couple of the moderators. Most of them are very kind in their responses. CaptainPanic deserves an accomadation for the way he moderates. The other moderators should take him as guiding post. Bolded mine. This is not true. We sometimes add a small bit at the end of a mod note asking members not to respond in thread, but instead to use the PM or the report feature. The reason for this is simply because responding in thread can massively derail it from the OP, which os obviously not something we want to have happen.
Aethelwulf Posted July 8, 2012 Author Posted July 8, 2012 I quite agree. Moderators really shouldn't use the moderator function to be rude to members, even when they have a legitimate point to make. I think, if moderators don't like something being negatively repped, then they should redirect that dislike to this very thread. They either A) Agree to this reputation system (despite it's flaws) or B) They really don't agree with it If a moderator displaces dislike to it, then the nature of the breakdown of this system runs deeper than those who actually attend this place outside of the free members.
swansont Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 What's the point of pouncing on anyone... There is a reputation system for that. I hate this reputation system, it'snot justified in the slightest. If you have something to say about someones post, the reputation system is for the shy guys who can't challenge what someone says. emphasis added So the reputation system is fine for feedback, and there's no justification for it? And for people who can't discuss things at your level but can still evaluate the quality of a post, are to have no voice whatsoever? Sounds incredibly contradictory to me.
Aethelwulf Posted July 8, 2012 Author Posted July 8, 2012 emphasis added So the reputation system is fine for feedback, and there's no justification for it? And for people who can't discuss things at your level but can still evaluate the quality of a post, are to have no voice whatsoever? Sounds incredibly contradictory to me. That's right, there is no justification for it. Who justifies in the end, their negative rep? Those who do actually justify a neg rep, have something to say. Otherwise, it's utter nonesense. feedback should have comments written with it. Do you judge a book by it's cover?
doG Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 ...then the nature of the breakdown of this system runs deeper than .... There is no breakdown. It's a way for the membership here to vote up or down the quality of the content of a post. The only one's offended are those that make poor quality posts like ad hominem attacks that get voted down by the membership. 2
Aethelwulf Posted July 8, 2012 Author Posted July 8, 2012 There is no breakdown. It's a way for the membership here to vote up or down the quality of the content of a post. The only one's offended are those that make poor quality posts like ad hominem attacks that get voted down by the membership. Don't even start. Of course, there is a breakdown. This has been established time and time again, even by moderators here. The breakdown comes a number of ways... can you name them? Have you really thought about this deep enough to recognize those problems? -1
doG Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Who justifies in the end, their negative rep? If I give you negative rep because I think the quality of your post is poor I owe you no justification for doing so. I am free to express my opinion whether of not you agree or disagree with it. 1
Aethelwulf Posted July 8, 2012 Author Posted July 8, 2012 If I give you negative rep because I think the quality of your post is poor I owe you no justification for doing so. I am free to express my opinion whether of not you agree or disagree with it. Who are you to negatively rep anyone though? You may have some contradictory ''good intentions'' by negatively repping a post. I bet half or more of those neg reps are actually not backed up without any verbal attire. If I had a black and white view of the world (which let's face it, many people do), I would be negatively repping people all over the place. Because the reputation system and moderation of posts and members by staff are two completely separate things. Bolded mine. This is not true. We sometimes add a small bit at the end of a mod note asking members not to respond in thread, but instead to use the PM or the report feature. The reason for this is simply because responding in thread can massively derail it from the OP, which os obviously not something we want to have happen. Are they? Have you ever pulled someone up on negatively repping someone? Be honest now, please.
swansont Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 Don't even start. Of course, there is a breakdown. This has been established time and time again, even by moderators here. The breakdown comes a number of ways... can you name them? Have you really thought about this deep enough to recognize those problems? And yet when we analyzed a thread, we saw that all of the posts that were negatively repped were actually of poor quality, owing to shortcomings like dodging the question or being condescending. You doth protest too much, methinks. 1
hypervalent_iodine Posted July 8, 2012 Posted July 8, 2012 1341762964[/url]' post='689326'] Are they? Have you ever pulled someone up on negatively repping someone? Be honest now, please. I am failing to see how this might relate to the comment of mine that you quoted.
Aethelwulf Posted July 8, 2012 Author Posted July 8, 2012 And yet when we analyzed a thread, we saw that all of the posts that were negatively repped were actually of poor quality, owing to shortcomings like dodging the question or being condescending. You doth protest too much, methinks. The greater percent maybe... does the lives of many outweigh the few? I think the unjustified nature, (the fact many do not justify their reasons) is reason enough to realize the system is at fault.
Recommended Posts