Consensus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-10-2017, 08:06 PM
RE: Consensus
(07-10-2017 01:57 AM)neurotibotical Wrote:  Reputation points can be a kind of social currency.

And as such, create a kind of social class structure.

--
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
10-10-2017, 08:35 PM
RE: Consensus
(10-10-2017 08:06 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(07-10-2017 01:57 AM)neurotibotical Wrote:  Reputation points can be a kind of social currency.

And as such, create a kind of social class structure.

If only. Undecided

As a Marxist, I say we should rise up against the 1%

Bring out the guillotines!

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2017, 08:55 PM
RE: Consensus
(10-10-2017 08:35 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(10-10-2017 08:06 PM)Dr H Wrote:  And as such, create a kind of social class structure.

If only. Undecided

As a Marxist, I say we should rise up against the 1%

Bring out the guillotines!

Thumbsup

You know what they say...never trust anyone over 214. Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like jerry mcmasters's post
10-10-2017, 09:57 PM
RE: Consensus
I think as long as we are social animals and participate in social groups there we always be both positive and negative feedback. Peer pressure to conform to a group’s norm can be a double edge sword, the examples are countless for good and bad.

Here on this forum I find it instructional. Having been here for years I know how a poster’s reputation came about but if I had just joined I wouldn’t have the foggiest idea what to expect from anyone without the rep system. It is a short cut and it predisposes one either positively or negatively from the onset towards the individual. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Depends on how easily one is swayed by group-think. It has been my experience that the rep system on TTA usually reflects my own view but not in every instance.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
11-10-2017, 06:34 AM
RE: Consensus
LOL... BlkFnx is just pissed off because he's "earned" 13 negative reps in one single month. It's nothing to do with consensus.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
11-10-2017, 06:22 PM
RE: Consensus
(10-10-2017 09:57 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  I think as long as we are social animals and participate in social groups there we always be both positive and negative feedback. Peer pressure to conform to a group’s norm can be a double edge sword, the examples are countless for good and bad.

Here on this forum I find it instructional. Having been here for years I know how a poster’s reputation came about but if I had just joined I wouldn’t have the foggiest idea what to expect from anyone without the rep system. It is a short cut and it predisposes one either positively or negatively from the onset towards the individual. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Depends on how easily one is swayed by group-think. It has been my experience that the rep system on TTA usually reflects my own view but not in every instance.
Essentially, I think you are correct, at least as regards the inevitability of feedback. Anyone who does more than perpetually lurk is eventually going to develop a reputation, whether it's numerically rated or not. I do, however, think it's possible to bow to inevitability without artificially biasing the system, at least not too overtly.

I may have said what follows before, in which case, apologies in advance; they say memory is the first thing to go. Whoever "they" are. Hobo

In the Amazon fora each post had a button that said "I think this post contributes to the discussion." If more than six people said "no", the post was hidden from the rest of the discussion (you could temporarily uncover it to look at, but you had to really want to). If used as intended, this feature could have functioned as a kind of community filter for trolls.

What happened, though, was that it got used as a surrogate "like/dislike/rep" feature. People who disagreed with a post would automatically "no" vote it, even if it promoted vigorous discussion. Popular posters would be immediately "yes" voted, no matter how banal the particular contribution. Unpopular posters would frequently be automatically "no" voted, no matter what they said. It always amused me when this happened to the first post in a thread that would then go on for weeks or months. How could the first post possibly not be contributing to a long and on-going thread -- when the thread wouldn't have existed without it?

Eventually the trolls themselves started manipulating the system, using it to hide posts by forum regulars whom they couldn't best in an open and fair argument.

Several times I argued against what I saw as basically an abuse of the intended system, and sometimes some people even agreed with me, but nothing ever changed. (In fairness, that was largely due to Amazon's monumental and arcane ambiguity.) It was part of the environment, and I just learned to live with it. I rarely ever used the button, and I never "no" voted anyone. Occasionally I would "yes" vote an unpopular post just to help keep it from disappearing, because it was contributing to the discussion.

The system here, whereby "likes" are a whole separate entity from "rep", is definitely a step up. And the policy of not "disappearing" posts is a huge improvement over Amazon, which was wont to occasionally vanish even some popular posts for apparently random reasons. I have, however, been here long enough now to observe that people do seem to get judged, somewhat, based on "rep", particularly new posters. And those judgments are often "snap", and sometimes pretty harsh.

I agree that feedback is useful, but I always prefer to have it offered in the context of a discussion or, if someone is shy, by PM. Feedback that's evaluated numerically on essentially a binary scale has a tendency, I think, to superficially stigmatize -- or superficially aggrandize -- a poster. Ticking a box "yes/no" or "like/dislike" or "+1/-1" has just never set entirely right with me -- probably my damned anarchist nature peeping out.

Be that as it may, "rep" is part of the environment here, and so, I live with it. Yes

My 2¢

--
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
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
11-10-2017, 07:20 PM
RE: Consensus
(06-07-2017 06:23 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  
(06-07-2017 06:20 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. False.
Rep point are INDIVIDUALLY given. The total may reflect a total of individual opinions, but the entire OP is based on a false idea. There is nothing "silent" about individuals who decide, totally independently, to give or take a rep away.
The entire OP is the fallacy of the false analogy.

You need cheese with your whine.

And how is this different than any other rep system that exists?

Your question is irrelevant ... it may be different or may not different.
The FACT is, the decisions are made independently, and your analogy is false.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: