[Martin]

You can see it on other people's posts, as well. For instance, I just saw that rasmus thorup gave Cody a +1. Is it supposed to be like that?

[CruX]

 Martin, on 03 March 2012 - 04:20 AM, said:

You can see it on other people's posts, as well. For instance, I just saw that rasmus thorup gave Cody a +1. Is it supposed to be like that?

Yep, that's what Micky's talking about. AFAIK that's the only way to see who voted who.

[Martin]

By the way, is Cody "The Commander"? Or is it someone trolling him by having the same avatar etc?

[Ronin]

 Martin, on 03 March 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

By the way, is Cody "The Commander"? Or is it someone trolling him by having the same avatar etc?

Its the same guy, name changed is all, on somebodys profile you can look to the top left and see a box that says Display name history, it does exactly what it says on the tin.

[Martin]

OK, I don't know all these ins and outs of forum workings. Cody sounds better than The Commander.

[The Commander]

 Martin, on 03 March 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

OK, I don't know all these ins and outs of forum workings. Cody sounds better than The Commander.

Yeah, I am "The Commander"
I have no problem with everyone knowing my name, as we are all friends here. Right?

[Kathy]

 Cody, on 03 March 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

Yeah, I am "The Commander"
I have no problem with everyone knowing my name, as we are all friends here. Right?

[Mikko]

 Helel, on 29 February 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Yeah, and other idiots complain about being downvoted. What's the point in having voting system if downvoting post you disagree with is considered idiotic?

Congratulations, you just admitted to being guilty of idiotic behavior. Anyone who downvotes a post simply out of an honest disagreement is a fucking idiot.

[Kathy]

 Mikko_Sandt, on 04 March 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

Anyone who downvotes a post simply out of an honest disagreement is a fucking idiot.

Does it also true for upvotes?

[rasmus thorup]

 Mikko_Sandt, on 04 March 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

Congratulations, you just admitted to being guilty of idiotic behavior. Anyone who downvotes a post simply out of an honest disagreement is a fucking idiot.

Come on, so instead of downvoting people you disagree with, you call them idiots. What do you prefer, to be called an idiot, or to be downvoted? truth is that none of those 2 options matter since this is the internet. So i don't really see any problems.

[Hank]

 Mikko_Sandt, on 04 March 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

Congratulations, you just admitted to being guilty of idiotic behavior. Anyone who downvotes a post simply out of an honest disagreement is a fucking idiot.

Any troll post gets a down vote from me. Because as a fucking idiot I don't take kindly to have to read those posts, let alone intelligently respond to them. But you are a big shot in this community. I honestly am in disagreements with your rhetorical statement; and below is why:
A] the rep system is not serious, it does not change our bank account.
B] the rep system is not serious, it shall be used at your discretion, whatever that may be. There are no rules, if there are post them.
C] just in case - The Rep System is not serious.

[Kathy]

 Hank, on 04 March 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

Any troll post gets a down vote from me. Because as a [i]fucking idiot[/] I don't take kindly to those posts let alone intelligently respond to them.

To be fair he most likely meant only posts that had an honest opinion in them voter disagreed with by downvoting. Troll posts get downvoted for being the way they are, not because of having some coherent opinion someone could disagree with.

[LeoD]

Had to downvote Mikko for bad manners but I agree that mere opinions should not be voted down. At least don't downvote people with a rep < 20 for those reasons. Otherwise newbies might stay silent or become dishonest on certain topics. If you disagree, write down your own opinion or simply vote for someone else whose answer you agree with. It's still called reputation system, not opinion system.

[Rellik]

I think that part of the problem is drawing the line between disagreement and trolling. Everyone has their own idea of what determines what they would downvote. Especially those who get all heated over an internet argument.

If it were possible to qualify each vote, and have two levels: one that affects the post only (in case of disagreement) and one that affects the overall rep (in case of trolling)

so something like:

+1 Agree/-1 Disagree (does not affect overall rep, or maybe has less effect on overall rep)
+1 Trustworthy/-1 Troll (affects overall rep)

Obviously that would take some coding, So I wouldn't expect to see anything like that any time soon

[Danukem]

 LeoD, on 04 March 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

Had to downvote Mikko for bad manners but I agree that mere opinions should not be voted down.

Honestly, I don't even know what you guys mean when you talk about how we shouldn't vote down a post for expressing an opinion we don't agree with. Mikko and others have expressed the same sentiment, but to me it sounds extremely vague.

What if the opinion displays a high degree of ignorance? For example, it could be a racist or sexist or anti-gay observation that is the honest (but ignorant) opinion of the poster, and we honestly disagree with it. Should we not be able to downvote it? And when we do downvote it, isn't this just because we have a differing opinion? Or, are you going to say that it's ok in that case because our opinion happens to be correct. But if it's ok to downvote opinions when ours is correct and the other is not, how do you expect that to be enforced? Should the moderators sit around and play god and decide who is right and wrong?

[Kathy]

 Rellik, on 04 March 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

Especially those who get all heated over an internet argument.

While we're at it, why internet arguments aren't treated like a RL arguments? How are they different?

[Ronin]

[LeoD]

Discussing on a forum is meeting, too.
DT, I think your examples feel a bit nitpickish on my argument. I wanted to express that many peoples' downvote threshold between 'not exactly my opinion' and 'unacceptable/dumb posting' is too close to the former IMO. That's kind of vague of course and therefore can't/shouldn't be enforced. But it's worth talking about it now and then.

[Hank]

 Helel, on 04 March 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

While we're at it, why internet arguments aren't treated like a RL arguments? How are they different?

I think, life is what you make of it. Currently this forum is very much part of my daily routine, but it will never have first priority in my life. Therefore, any given argument might be of interest to me, but that's about it. Also, it will depend what the argument is about. Btw, I treat so called Real Life argument equivalent. Do you talk sports, gossip or money? I take the latter dead serious, the rest, again, I may have an opinion about it and mouth off, but will not deeply get into it.

[Kathy]

 Hank, on 04 March 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

I think, life is what you make of it. Currently this forum is very much part of my daily routine, but it will never have first priority in my life.

I was not talking about priority of the forum.

Quote

Therefore, any given argument might be of interest to me, but that's about it. Also, it will depend what the argument is about.

That's right. It depends on the argument, not the discussion place. Perhaps even discussing it on internet could be somewhat less personal thus less emotional. Of course the downside is it could be less serious because of that. But it depends. Nothing is stopping discussion on internet forum being as serious as in RL.

[Hank]

^ excactly. Some topics on the internet are being taken very serious all the way to government.
As for emotional, trying hard not to talk about myself again (bad habit of mine here), as a human being, how can one not get emotional about a subject one cares about?

[Martin]

 Cody, on 03 March 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

Yeah, I am "The Commander"
I have no problem with everyone knowing my name, as we are all friends here. Right?

Indeed. Bravo for using your name.

[Kathy]

 Hank, on 04 March 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

As for emotional, trying hard not to talk about myself again (bad habit of mine here), as a human being, how can one not get emotional about a subject one cares about?

Perhaps I didn't convey that good enough. During the argument you get emotional, but these emotions won't be expressed in the same way as they would in RL. You can even choose not to express them in a post. It's much more harder to do in RL discussion.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

 Helel, on 04 March 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

Perhaps I didn't convey that good enough. During the argument you get emotional, but these emotions won't be expressed in the same way as they would in RL. You can even choose not to express them in a post. It's much more harder to do in RL discussion.

Indeed. If you will let me indulge in a taboo, even in the most inherently emotional subjects, there is a difference between:

Quote

Abortion is unethical, morally wrong and shouldn't be practiced because of reasons X, Y, and Z...

...and...

Quote

You're murdering babies!

[Rellik]

 Helel, on 04 March 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

While we're at it, why internet arguments aren't treated like a RL arguments? How are they different?

Well, for one, you don't see the other persons body language, tone of voice, sense of mood, etc. All you have is text and emoticons which offers only a limited view of the other person. So only take what you see at face value, and react without much consideration of the other.

Oh, and the threat level is less since in most cases neither party can physically harm each other, which in turn elevates the "being a dick" quotient.

[Ronin]

 Rellik, on 04 March 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

Well, for one, you don't see the other persons body language, tone of voice, sense of mood, etc. All you have is text and emoticons which offers only a limited view of the other person. So only take what you see at face value, and react without much consideration of the other.

Oh, and the threat level is less since in most cases neither party can physically harm each other, which in turn elevates the "being a dick" quotient.

Also, in a real discussion face to face you can't run off and research the other persons argument and come back with the actual facts or someone elses take on a subject to make yourself seem smarter even though you didn't know the information before hand yourself as I'm sure happens here a lot. I've seen debates where both posters come back days later with really specific information that I seriously doubt anyone carrys around in their head on a day to day basis, I see through these kind of posts and I don't think the person is well informed or naturally smart, just devious with little else to do but dedicate their spare time to proving people wrong on the internet by going out of their way to find answers to questions they don't know but are pretending they did all along. We could all do that but you know, but lifes too short.

[The Commander]

[Kathy]

 Rellik, on 04 March 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

Well, for one, you don't see the other persons body language, tone of voice, sense of mood, etc. All you have is text and emoticons which offers only a limited view of the other person. So only take what you see at face value, and react without much consideration of the other.

Isn't that a good thing?

 Ripemanewone, on 04 March 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

Also, in a real discussion face to face you can't run off and research the other persons argument and come back with the actual facts or someone elses take on a subject to make yourself seem smarter even though you didn't know the information before hand yourself as I'm sure happens here a lot.

Are you saying that arguing on internet is somewhat pointless since both would consult wikipedia and other links to prove their point?

[Ronin]

 Helel, on 05 March 2012 - 04:12 AM, said:

Are you saying that arguing on internet is somewhat pointless since both would consult wikipedia and other links to prove their point?

No, not at all, just that its differant than a face to face discussion where you can only use what information you have stored in your skull.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

 Ripemanewone, on 05 March 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

No, not at all, just that its differant than a face to face discussion where you can only use what information you have stored in your skull.

In this case, the people making the argument are forced to rely on being able to state their point well, rather than be factually correct. Notice that there is a distinct lack of eloquence in Internet discussions.