[MajorTom 2417]

 Achenar, on 05 March 2012 - 07:03 AM, said:

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.

I'm usually VERY eloquent in Internet discussions. I refuse to use text-speak in posts, private messages or chats for that reason: it's not a tremendous effort to type a full word instead of just "lol" or something like that.

[TerminX]

So... I think letting everyone view the rep points has been a positive change overall, so I've decided to leave it that way.

[MajorTom 2417]

 TX, on 18 March 2012 - 08:32 AM, said:

So... I think letting everyone view the rep points has been a positive change overall, so I've decided to leave it that way.

Good call.

[Kathy]

 TX, on 18 March 2012 - 08:32 AM, said:

So... I think letting everyone view the rep points has been a positive change overall, so I've decided to leave it that way.

I actually forgot it was supposed to be temporal. Good feature to have.

[rasmus thorup]

That's awesome!

[Jimmy]

I'm with Mikko. I only downvote posts because they're bad posts not because I disagree with what they're saying. I'm pretty sure I've upvoted people I was arguing with just because I thought it was a good post.

If someone is like "I don't like The Jonas Brothers because their music is insipid and simple." and then you downvote them because you love the Jonas Brothers, you're stupid, because the other person didn't make a bad post. They simply stated their opinion. It's not like the guy said that the Jonas Brothers were yogurt garglers.

[MajorTom 2417]

 Captain Awesome, on 19 March 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

I'm with Mikko. I only downvote posts because they're bad posts not because I disagree with what they're saying. I'm pretty sure I've upvoted people I was arguing with just because I thought it was a good post.

If someone is like "I don't like The Jonas Brothers because their music is insipid and simple." and then you downvote them because you love the Jonas Brothers, you're stupid, because the other person didn't make a bad post. They simply stated their opinion. It's not like the guy said that the Jonas Brothers were yogurt garglers.

This is the most intelligent post on this topic I've read in a good long while.

[Danukem]

It only seems like a great post because he used the Jonas Brothers in his example. If he had used Duke Nukem 3D, as in "I don't like Duke Nukem 3D because the game is insipid and simple" then you would be able to see how questionable his claim is. I would not hesitate to downvote the Duke 3D opinion, because it's flat out wrong and ignorant. Does that mean that I am downvoting someone merely over a difference of opinion? Perhaps, but my point is that in many cases there is nothing wrong with that. Attempts to draw a line between when its OK to downvote someone for their opinion, and when it is not OK, are doomed to failure. And that's why I think we should not be concerned about it.

[Jimmy]

Good point, but the Jonas Brothers example can be backed up by facts. The Duke3D line only applies under the rose colored glasses of 'modern times', and can therefor be fairly rebutted. I don't think any one can legitimately defend the Jonas Brothers, except for maybe saying they're genius for writing crap and making billions off of it, for which I'd have no counter argument.

[rasmus thorup]

You just upvoted a person that called you smart. That's kinda low imo.

[Kathy]

 Captain Awesome, on 20 March 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

Good point, but the Jonas Brothers example can be backed up by facts.

You can't back up "insipid" with facts. It's subjective.

Quote

I don't think any one can legitimately defend the Jonas Brothers

Defend about what? If someone likes listening to them you can't objectively argue they're wrong somehow.

[Hendricks266]

One of the things I mull over when I am enjoying time staring at walls is a set of objective criteria by which I can sort good music from bad music in a universal standard. It is less of good as a competition, and more of good as independent measure of how much any particular song or "song" fulfills musicality.

Very basically, since I don't have this written elsewhere in an organized fashion, it's something along the lines of

• Variation (opposite of repetition)
  
• Structure
  
• Layering
  
• Creativity
  
• Use of Melody
  
• Use of Harmony

A band like Fall Out Boy scores essentially zero marks, while someone like Billy Joel or Michael Jackson receive very high marks.

Keep in mind that I do not have any formal training in music theory (yet).

[Kathy]

[oops, thought this was a music thread]

[Inspector Lagomorf]

 Hendricks266, on 21 March 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

One of the things I mull over when I am enjoying time staring at walls is a set of objective criteria by which I can sort good music from bad music in a universal standard. It is less of good as a competition, and more of good as independent measure of how much any particular song or "song" fulfills musicality.

Very basically, since I don't have this written elsewhere in an organized fashion, it's something along the lines of

• Variation (opposite of repetition)
• Structure
• Layering
• Creativity
• Use of Melody
• Use of Harmony

A band like Fall Out Boy scores essentially zero marks, while someone like Billy Joel or Michael Jackson receive very high marks.

Keep in mind that I do not have any formal training in music theory (yet).

Where does Sonic Youth fall under this? Their music can typically be very atonal, repetitious, irregularly structured. Compared to a band such as Nickelback, they fail more of the criteria.

I disagree heavily with your assessment of Fall Out Boy based on these criteria.

[Danukem]

Even assuming you had the right things on the list (whatever that would mean), it's not clear to me how coming up with a list like that would be helpful in actually evaluating the quality of music, since the contribution of each element cannot be isolated from the others. Some songs with a lot of repetition are good, and some are not. Some very creative songs are good, and some are not. It's how all the different factors combine that make the music what it is.

EDIT: Wait, why are we talking about this here? Isn't this OT? I think Hendricks266 posted in the wrong thread by accident, and the rest of us have been mindlessly following.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

 Trooper Dan, on 21 March 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

EDIT: Wait, why are we talking about this here? Isn't this OT? I think Hendricks266 posted in the wrong thread by accident, and the rest of us have been mindlessly following.

Not so. It was just a tangent run wild.

Captain Awesome used the Jonas Brothers example as a context to his argument. You responded to him by saying that there is a double standard when Jonas Brothers is compared to, say, Duke Nukem 3D. Captain Awesome said that the Jonas Brothers are widely agreed to be insipid; Burnett responded by saying that this was subjective, implying that analysis of music is subjective. Then Hendricks266 claimed that there was a way to objectively analyze music.

[rasmus thorup]

There is one problem with this system. The -rep and the "watch the reps" buttons are too close. I've clicked on the -rep button a few times now when i didn't want to.

[Mad Max RW]

 rasmus thorup, on 22 March 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

There is one problem with this system. The -rep and the "watch the reps" buttons are too close. I've clicked on the -rep button a few times now when i didn't want to.

The problem is you are the biggest offender here for downvoting people without any good reason. Just slip in, downvote multiple posts, then never ever reply. You've been doing it since you registered.

[rasmus thorup]

You just downvoted me 2 times because i downvoted you. I downvoted you because i disagree with you. I doubt you even read the posts you downvoted. That's worse than my way of voting.

[Mad Max RW]

 rasmus thorup, on 22 March 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

You just downvoted me 2 times because i downvoted you. I downvoted you because i disagree with you. I doubt you even read the posts you downvoted. That's worse than my way of voting.

I read your posts and you post horribly with stupid suggestions. Going back and looking at the negative rep history 90% of them are you.

[rasmus thorup]

If i post horribly, then why didn't you downvote me back when i posted it? You only downvoted me because i downvoted you to get some "revenge". It's fair to disagree with 90% of your posts, because i mostly do. But trying to take revenge is pretty low.

[Mad Max RW]

 rasmus thorup, on 22 March 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

If i post horribly, then why didn't you downvote me back when i posted it? You only downvoted me because i downvoted you to get some "revenge". It's fair to disagree with 90% of your posts, because i mostly do. But trying to take revenge is pretty low.

Because most of the time I ignore your posts and I finally snapped How hard is it to explain your disagreement? Because you almost never do.

I'm noticing necroslut had a weird obsession, as well.

[rasmus thorup]

Just give it some more time and you will see that people don't have anything against you. I thought the same of Achenar, and he has done a lot of weird reps that i don't understand. Just ignore it, or ask nicely why they repped as they did.

[Micky C]

If we suddenly get a whole heap of posts going " why did you downvote me? " then threads are going to become a lot more cluttered. Chances are if you're downvoting someone over a disagreement, it's bad enough so as to warrant an actual immediate post as to why you're disagreeing.

[Lunick]

+1 on necroslut http://forums.duke4....715#entry118715

It doesn't really bother me though.

[Danukem]

 Micky C, on 22 March 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

If we suddenly get a whole heap of posts going " why did you downvote me? " then threads are going to become a lot more cluttered. Chances are if you're downvoting someone over a disagreement, it's bad enough so as to warrant an actual immediate post as to why you're disagreeing.

In my opinion, downvoting a post without providing any explanation can be useful because it expresses disapproval of a post without derailing the thread. That would be appropriate, for example, if you are downvoting a post for being off-topic. If people are going to have arguments about why particular posts are downvoted, they can always use PMs for that. But I'm not saying these are hard and fast rules; there are situations in which talking about downvotes in the public thread is justified.

[rasmus thorup]

Actually, i just downvote without posting because i'm too lazy to explain ^^

[Inspector Lagomorf]

 rasmus thorup, on 22 March 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

Just give it some more time and you will see that people don't have anything against you. I thought the same of Achenar, and he has done a lot of weird reps that i don't understand. Just ignore it, or ask nicely why they repped as they did.

I upvoted your post because you dropped my name in conversation.

And because I'm eating spaghetti.

[rasmus thorup]

I upvoted you because i like spaghetti.

[Hendricks266]

 Trooper Dan, on 21 March 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

EDIT: Wait, why are we talking about this here? Isn't this OT? I think Hendricks266 posted in the wrong thread by accident, and the rest of us have been mindlessly following.

A master troll spins a tangent out of control with a poker face and waits in lurking as people start to clean up the damage.

/eats a carrot