Consensus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-07-2017, 02:41 PM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 01:52 PM)Aliza Wrote:  The member base has already listened to your argument and they don't agree with you. This is not because you have not explained your argument well... this is because we feel that you're wrong. You've stated your case, we've stated our cases, and we disagree.

I'mma disagree. A well explained argument is succinct. Wall-o-text need not apply.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
12-07-2017, 02:44 PM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 02:41 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 01:52 PM)Aliza Wrote:  The member base has already listened to your argument and they don't agree with you. This is not because you have not explained your argument well... this is because we feel that you're wrong. You've stated your case, we've stated our cases, and we disagree.

I'mma disagree. A well explained argument is succinct. Wall-o-text need not apply.

Doesn't that depend on the topic? Mental masturbation, I concur, but there have been other times where a giant wall of text was useful and informative.

Just not in this particular thread.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
12-07-2017, 02:51 PM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 02:44 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 02:41 PM)morondog Wrote:  I'mma disagree. A well explained argument is succinct. Wall-o-text need not apply.

Doesn't that depend on the topic? Mental masturbation, I concur, but there have been other times where a giant wall of text was useful and informative.

Just not in this particular thread.

Yeah, I guess. It does depend how it's written too. I definitely think though that the shorter the better. People seem to vomit their entire thoughts onto the forum - it's not helpful. Unless it's *really* well done it's not worth it. Something like TBD's recent post on the Cambrian Explosion reads almost like a textbook. A lot of thought went into the presentation, and the text is 100% clear. On the opposite end you have this eejit who thinks we've got nothing better to do than read pages of drivel about how we're biased, based on being a member of the forum for less than a week.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
12-07-2017, 02:56 PM
RE: Consensus
Okay so I am going to handle this in as a batch.

(12-07-2017 01:05 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 12:42 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Please address the problem of positive feedback.

Positive feedback tends to cause system instability. When the loop gain is positive and above 1, there will typically be exponential growth, increasing oscillations, chaotic behavior or other divergences from equilibrium. System parameters will typically accelerate towards extreme values, which may damage or destroy the system, or may end with the system latched into a new stable state. Positive feedback may be controlled by signals in the system being filtered, damped, or limited, or it can be cancelled or reduced by adding negative feedback. All of those are viable available options at your disposal here.

What are the mechanisms here or elsewhere to introduce negative feedback into a reputation system. What is mechanism in the rep system filtered, damped, or limited?

(12-07-2017 01:15 PM)morondog Wrote:  Right now the only positive feedback I'm seeing is reinforcement of my original neg rep.

Your attitude and your behaviour determine how people see you and whether you're liked. You can apply as much fancy language to that as you like. If you act like a prick you'll be repped accordingly. Finish and klaar.

You are under the misapprehension that I actually care about my rep. Again this post is the break off of a post where someone else brought up my rep. Discussion of the rep system was not relevant to that thread so I began a new thread to address their point. I did not bring it up. This was a response to a particular comment. I have a serious principled problem with reputation systems. See my post above KidCharlemagne1962's post.

As to my attitude and behavior. Go back through this thread as just a single example and note how many times I resort to personal attacks against individuals who sometimes are quite nasty. Notice that rarely if ever is the point I actually make ever addressed. The serious exchange which has taken place was a digression and did not actually address the issue of accepting consensus or the problems inherent in a rep system.

(12-07-2017 01:31 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Dude seriously:are you for real, your behaviour so far is now beginning to convince me that you are being deliberately inflammatory and that you are actually encouraging us to give you neg rep so you can justify your ideas and behavior, sadly you have given me no reason to respect your intellectual capacity whatsoever. I'm sadly disappointed as I had hoped we could all reach a resolution. Sad

I ask you to consider for a moment that this post is not about me or about my rep points. If I genuinely do not care about my rep points then what is the purpose of this post? Could it be as I have suggested that this thread began as a response to someone else bringing up my rep points, and that what I was trying to convey was why I don't place stock in rep system?

I do not see why it should be considered inflammatory to ask someone to stick to the objections I've brought up rather than to making personal attacks. If you read through this thread you will see numerous examples of people avoiding legitimate objections I have brought up by making personal attacks against me. It's not "Here's your objection to consensus thinking and/or rep systems and here is why it's wrong". The only attempt to do so turned into a digression on Neanderthals and our ancestors, which does not address the original concern of this thread.

(12-07-2017 01:52 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Uuugh. I really thought you were making improvement and I thought you were taking a few days to figuratively install a few critical updates in your internal operating system and do a hard reboot before posting again.

Okay. You are not as deep and profound as you think you are.

The member base has already listened to your argument and they don't agree with you.
They don't agree with me. Good. Okay. I am perfectly happy with that, what I want to know is how they address the objections I have raised. To date they haven't. Personal attacks. Plenty. Actually addressing the objections made? Nope.

Quote: This is not because you have not explained your argument well... this is because we feel that you're wrong. You've stated your case, we've stated our cases, and we disagree.
My problem is not that I have stated my case and others have stated theirs. My problem is that I have stated my case, other's have stated theirs, and then when I bring up objections the come back is "Oh your just complaining because..." "Stop whining." "I bet if... You wouldn't complain.". What is not addressed, what continues not to be addressed, are actual points I have made.
Quote:Cut your losses and move on to a new topic. We do not agree on this point and neither party seems to be budging. That's okay! This just isn't your audience for that. Can't you recognize that?
I could move on if somebody actually addressed my objections. Instead they resort to personal attacks. I go out of my way to not make my posts personal. I rarely say you, or call out anyone by name even when I feel I might have leave to. If I am wrong about this then show me how, address the objections I make.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2017, 03:04 PM
RE: Consensus
Christ you idiot. You think this shit's about you and you alone? "Your attitude and your behaviour determine how people see you and whether you're liked. " applies to everyone here.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
12-07-2017, 03:06 PM
RE: Consensus
Saying that what you post is drivel, is not a personal attack.



Unlike this: Pray, tell, are you, by any chance, with Cirque du Soleil? Because no one but a contortionist can have their head embedded so far up their own ass and still manage to walk and talk, and type.

[Image: eyEAa.jpg]

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vera's post
12-07-2017, 03:08 PM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2017 03:18 PM by Aliza.)
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 02:44 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 02:41 PM)morondog Wrote:  I'mma disagree. A well explained argument is succinct. Wall-o-text need not apply.

Doesn't that depend on the topic? Mental masturbation, I concur, but there have been other times where a giant wall of text was useful and informative.

Just not in this particular thread.

Yeah, but the discussion isn't evolving. There's this point in time when I recognize that my audience on this atheist forum just isn't going to be swayed by my arguments. We discuss, the discussion evolves and we reach certain points of consensus, but on the subject of G-d, I'm not going to sway anyone.

Do I beat a dead horse? No!

I respect that on this subject, this just isn't my audience and I never drone on, and on, and on about why everyone should believe like I believe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Aliza's post
12-07-2017, 03:18 PM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 02:56 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 01:52 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Uuugh. I really thought you were making improvement and I thought you were taking a few days to figuratively install a few critical updates in your internal operating system and do a hard reboot before posting again.

Okay. You are not as deep and profound as you think you are.

The member base has already listened to your argument and they don't agree with you.
They don't agree with me. Good. Okay. I am perfectly happy with that, what I want to know is how they address the objections I have raised. To date they haven't. Personal attacks. Plenty. Actually addressing the objections made? Nope.

Quote: This is not because you have not explained your argument well... this is because we feel that you're wrong. You've stated your case, we've stated our cases, and we disagree.
My problem is not that I have stated my case and others have stated theirs. My problem is that I have stated my case, other's have stated theirs, and then when I bring up objections the come back is "Oh your just complaining because..." "Stop whining." "I bet if... You wouldn't complain.". What is not addressed, what continues not to be addressed, are actual points I have made.
Quote:Cut your losses and move on to a new topic. We do not agree on this point and neither party seems to be budging. That's okay! This just isn't your audience for that. Can't you recognize that?
I could move on if somebody actually addressed my objections. Instead they resort to personal attacks. I go out of my way to not make my posts personal. I rarely say you, or call out anyone by name even when I feel I might have leave to. If I am wrong about this then show me how, address the objections I make.

Just because the topic is interesting to you doesn't mean that it's interesting to us.

If you can't move on without our engaging you to your satisfaction, then that really sounds like your problem, not ours. I would suggest professional help because you should probably not be so dependent on the approval of others. I remember you were all whack-a-doodle over my not feeling the pain you experienced as a teenager. This is an ongoing trend with you and it's well past the point of excusable miscommunication or crossed wires. Get help.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2017, 03:23 PM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 02:56 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  They don't agree with me. Good. Okay. I am perfectly happy with that, what I want to know is how they address the objections I have raised. To date they haven't. Personal attacks. Plenty. Actually addressing the objections made? Nope.

Oh, I forgot to add: Do you think we're fucking working for you? What is wrong with you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Aliza's post
12-07-2017, 06:44 PM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2017 06:49 PM by Dr H.)
RE: Consensus
(06-07-2017 05:04 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I will lay out my objection to reputation system. For anyone who has seen Black Mirror season 3 you will know exactly where I am going with this. Rep systems are fundamentally flawed because they rely on the consensus and silent voices of dissent. Very quickly individuals can find themselves black listed for voicing opposing views. This leads to a snake eating it's own tail, with individuals being excommunicated for stepping outside the acceptable doctrine. I was ridiculed elsewhere on this forum for saying that I don't care what the consensus says. Not too long ago the consensus was that slavery was alright because the bible said so. There have been all kinds of things believed and done in the name of consensus. We (humans as a whole) like to look back on the past as if we are at the height of human existence, of course our ancestors were ignorant savages. Consider the arrogance of that belief. We learned language, art, music, fire, and so much more from our Neanderthal cousins. Who's to say they didn't have writing, lot can be lost in 250,000 years. All of this was ridiculed and mocked by the consensus because at one point the facts didn't fit the accepted narrative. Up until the last decade "scientists" were still pushing the idea that most mammals were monogamous, now we know less than 3%(perhaps, maybe, we really hope) are monogamous. I don't care about the consensus I care about the facts. Show me the raw data. Rep systems are bunk. Consensus is bunk. It's how you end up with an inbred ideology.

How sure am I of my own views? Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus, and the feeling that whatever you think your bound to be okay, because your in the safely moral majority."-- Christopher Hitchens

Stay Skeptical

*Thanks to Buckey Ball for the spell check. I'm dyslexic so I always appreciate the assit.

I'm still new enough here that I'm not sure how much of the "Colosseum" is for open responses, so if I'm stepping out of line here, just tell me and I'll go elsewhere.

I'm not a big fan of "rep" systems, being an old veteran of Usenet newsgroups, and inclined to let everyone have their say for as long as they have a thick enough hide to handle the responding flames.

That said, some systems are better than others.

In the Amazon fora, from whence I came here, the equivalent was "do you think this post contributes to the discussion" and your choice was "yes" or "no" -- or you didn't have to vote at all. If a post accumulated a certain number of "no" votes, the post became "hidden" from the thread. It could be recovered easily enough, but I always found that an annoyance and an interruption in the flow of reading the thread.

I rarely voted at all, and I never "no" voted anyone, no matter how much of a misguided twat I might have thought them to be.
If I didn't feel that they or their posts were worth my time, I simply didn't bother reading or responding to them.

On a few rare occasions I "yes" voted posts -- mostly of people I disagreed with -- simply to keep their posts from being hidden;
even misguided twats deserve the courtesy of free speech.

At any rate, certain posters unpopular in certain forums were routinely "no" voted into oblivion. This would be true no matter what they posted, which -- like the stopped clock -- sometimes happened by random chance to be reasonable, or even interesting. This was especially annoying when it happened to the original post in a thread. I mean, how could the post that started the thread be considered as "not contributing" to the discussion in a thread that wouldn't have existed without it?

Anyway, clearly that system was being abused.

I've been in other online fora where the choices were more honest. Instead of voting "does this post contribute", one could either "like" or "dislike" a post. Again, I rarely used the system, preferring to express my like or dislike through discussion rather than mouse-clicks. But again, I saw the system abused in attempts to suppress unpopular opinions.

Still other fora have "rep" systems similar to TTA. But actually TTA has gone them one better by having both the "rep" and the ability to "like" individual posts. I like that negative rep doesn't necessarily hide or delete a person's posts. This gives people a chance, at least, to interact with even an unpopular poster as a reasonable person, on a case-by-case basis, as it were. That, and the ability to present comments with "rep" make this one of the better systems I've seen. Not only do you see that people like or dislike something you've done, but they get to tell you exactly why, which can help put things into context.

All that said, I still feel these sorts or rating systems are unnecessary, and I don't use them a whole lot. They can smack of the emotional coups and clicks of a grammar school playground. They attempt to simplify what is usually a very complex texture down to a ridiculously simple level: yes/no; like/dislike. It's pretty rare that I feel all one way or the other about an idea, a person, or even a post. And I'm happy to let you know -- in detail -- what I think and why I think it, rather than just heave a spitball, or leave a candy bar in your mailbox.

My 2¢ ; have at me, if you will Argue

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Dr H's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: