Consensus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-07-2017, 06:49 PM
RE: Consensus
[Image: horse2.gif]

Where are we going and why am I in this hand basket?
"Life is not all lovely thorns and singing vultures, you know." ~ Morticia Addams
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like outtathereligioncloset's post
12-07-2017, 07:15 PM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 03:08 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 02:44 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  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.

I know, I *could* close the thread to halt the silly discussion...but if op is insistent upon continuing to make a fool of themselves, who am I stop them? And I'm certainly not going to silence the dissenting and much more reasonable voices like yourself.

That said, I see nothing from the op to cause me to alter my opinion of them thus far.

Perhaps that will change, but I remain skeptical that will happen.


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
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
12-07-2017, 08:00 PM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 07:15 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 03:08 PM)Aliza Wrote:  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.

I know, I *could* close the thread to halt the silly discussion...but if op is insistent upon continuing to make a fool of themselves, who am I stop them? And I'm certainly not going to silence the dissenting and much more reasonable voices like yourself.

That said, I see nothing from the op to cause me to alter my opinion of them thus far.

Perhaps that will change, but I remain skeptical that will happen.

Why close the thread...the OP swears it's not an issue. Drinking Beverage

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Anjele's post
12-07-2017, 11:10 PM
RE: Consensus
I have leveled the charge of not addressing problems I have brought up, and that the people who respond resort to personal attacks. Just since the last time I posted.

***

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.
---
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]
---
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.
---
Oh, I forgot to add: Do you think we're fucking working for you? What is wrong with you?
---
(12-07-2017 06:49 PM)outtathereligioncloset Wrote:  [Image: horse2.gif]

---
***
An actual helpful comment even if it doesn't address the problems I have brought up.

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.
****
And if I am open to being swayed? Has anyone actually presented counter arguments to my objections? Or have they made degrading, demeaning, and ad hominem attacks? I could go through this thread and pull out each time that an ad hominem attack has been made instead of addressing an objection I have brought up. I could then go through and pull out each time my problems with consensus thinking and rep systems have been addressed. If you would like I could present the numbers instead.

Rather than addressing problems I am bringing up people find it easier to make ad hominem attacks.

(12-07-2017 06:44 PM)Dr H Wrote:  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.
Agreed.
[qupte]
That said, some systems are better than others.
[/quote] I address this elsewhere in the thread and I am right there with you. Some rep systems are better than others, I in no way deny that. Its one reason why I tried to not make this about TTA's rep system in particular until pressed to.
Quote: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.
[/qupte] I've seen this other places and have mixed feelings about it. for much the reasons you give.
[quote]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.
That would be an example of how positive feedback can be a problem.

Quote: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?
Again this is the problem I see with positive feedback. The biggest problem with positive feedback is that it's not something where you can easily see when the machine is going off the rails. It's small misalignments building up over time until the whole thing explodes in your face one day out of what seems like no where.

Quote: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.
This brings me back to a point I made previously of "what is the purpose of a rep system?". If it's to provide feedback to the user then why is it public? I don't think it's unfair to think that there is an attempt to create bias pro and con.
Quote: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.
If that were how it was used then I would absolutely agree with you. Not that I wouldn't still have a problem with the fact that the rep system exists but I would be less critical of it.

Quote: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

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I'm can only hope that hearing my concerns voiced by someone else will motivate others to actually participate in the conversation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2017, 11:57 PM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 11:10 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  ...
I'm can only hope that hearing my concerns voiced by someone else will motivate others to actually participate in the conversation.

Well structured, clear and concise expressions of opinion and using the "Quote this post" button to correctly attribute quotes ... might be a good start in motivating others to participate in the conversation.

Personally, I wrote you off as a constructive contributor to TTA after the Altruism thread.

But those failings are well below my criteria for giving a negative reputation rating.

Sleepy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like DLJ's post
12-07-2017, 11:58 PM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 11:10 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Thank you for taking the time to reply. I'm can only hope that hearing my concerns voiced by someone else will motivate others to actually participate in the conversation.

What are you now trying to save us from ourselves? What the fuck are you concerned about? Bloody troll.

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
13-07-2017, 12:12 AM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 11:57 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(12-07-2017 11:10 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  ...
I'm can only hope that hearing my concerns voiced by someone else will motivate others to actually participate in the conversation.

Well structured, clear and concise expressions of opinion and using the "Quote this post" button to correctly attribute quotes ... might be a good start in motivating others to participate in the conversation.

Personally, I wrote you off as a constructive contributor to TTA after the Altruism thread.

But those failings are well below my criteria for giving a negative reputation rating.

Sleepy

He has something to say about every little sentence someone posts to him. It's becoming too tedious to read through every thought that pops into his head. He doesn't necessarily attribute each quote to the author, making it that much more difficult to follow what tangent his head is going off on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2017, 12:13 AM
RE: Consensus
(12-07-2017 11:10 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I have leveled the charge of not addressing problems I have brought up, and that the people who respond resort to personal attacks. Just since the last time I posted.

***

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.
---
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]
---
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.
---
Oh, I forgot to add: Do you think we're fucking working for you? What is wrong with you?
---
(12-07-2017 06:49 PM)outtathereligioncloset Wrote:  [Image: horse2.gif]

---
***
An actual helpful comment even if it doesn't address the problems I have brought up.

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.
****
And if I am open to being swayed? Has anyone actually presented counter arguments to my objections? Or have they made degrading, demeaning, and ad hominem attacks? I could go through this thread and pull out each time that an ad hominem attack has been made instead of addressing an objection I have brought up. I could then go through and pull out each time my problems with consensus thinking and rep systems have been addressed. If you would like I could present the numbers instead.

Rather than addressing problems I am bringing up people find it easier to make ad hominem attacks.

(12-07-2017 06:44 PM)Dr H Wrote:  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.
Agreed.
[qupte]
That said, some systems are better than others.
I address this elsewhere in the thread and I am right there with you. Some rep systems are better than others, I in no way deny that. Its one reason why I tried to not make this about TTA's rep system in particular until pressed to.
Quote: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.
[/qupte] I've seen this other places and have mixed feelings about it. for much the reasons you give.
Quote: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.
That would be an example of how positive feedback can be a problem.

Quote: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?
Again this is the problem I see with positive feedback. The biggest problem with positive feedback is that it's not something where you can easily see when the machine is going off the rails. It's small misalignments building up over time until the whole thing explodes in your face one day out of what seems like no where.

Quote: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.
This brings me back to a point I made previously of "what is the purpose of a rep system?". If it's to provide feedback to the user then why is it public? I don't think it's unfair to think that there is an attempt to create bias pro and con.
Quote: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.
If that were how it was used then I would absolutely agree with you. Not that I wouldn't still have a problem with the fact that the rep system exists but I would be less critical of it.

Quote: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

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I'm can only hope that hearing my concerns voiced by someone else will motivate others to actually participate in the conversation.

TL/DR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2017, 12:13 AM
RE: Consensus
"Massive open online courses (MOOCs) rely primarily on discussion forums for interaction among students. We investigate how forum design affects student activity and learning outcomes through a field experiment with 1101 participants on the edX platform. We introduce a reputation system, which gives students points for making useful posts. We show that, as in other settings, use of forums in MOOCs is correlated with better grades and higher retention. Reputation systems additionally produce faster response times and larger numbers of responses per post, as well as differences in how students ask questions. However, reputation systems have no significant impact on grades, retention, or the students' subjective sense of community. This suggests that forums are essential for MOOCs, and reputation systems can improve the forum experience, but other techniques are needed to improve student outcomes and community formation. We also contribute a set of guidelines for running field experiments on MOOCs."

Are we done here?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
13-07-2017, 12:21 AM
RE: Consensus
(13-07-2017 12:13 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  "Massive open online courses (MOOCs) rely primarily on discussion forums for interaction among students. We investigate how forum design affects student activity and learning outcomes through a field experiment with 1101 participants on the edX platform. We introduce a reputation system, which gives students points for making useful posts. We show that, as in other settings, use of forums in MOOCs is correlated with better grades and higher retention. Reputation systems additionally produce faster response times and larger numbers of responses per post, as well as differences in how students ask questions. However, reputation systems have no significant impact on grades, retention, or the students' subjective sense of community. This suggests that forums are essential for MOOCs, and reputation systems can improve the forum experience, but other techniques are needed to improve student outcomes and community formation. We also contribute a set of guidelines for running field experiments on MOOCs."

Are we done here?

We are done here.

I actually do care less about forums (university or otherwise) that don't have reputation systems. I can't guarantee that someone will read my post, but a little reputation gets my point across quickly and the user doesn't usually ignore it. Then I know I'm being heard.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: