OT: bearishgurl should clean up her act or go

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=Hobie]
I would like a way to vote for a temp ban on members when posts turn personal or foul language. 3 strikes idea.[/quote]
Censorship… just put them on ignore. Then they just ‘talk to the hand’ or ‘spit into the wind’ or ‘yell into the canyon that has no echo’…. kind of lonely for them.

Censorship creates its own set of problems.

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

link for the nit-pickers on the above quote:
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/%5B/quote%5D

There is an ignore option, but unfortunately the trolls still seem to be well-fed…

As far as fighting to the death for people’s rights, etc… let’s not fall into the fallacy that getting kicked off an internet forum somehow abrogate’s one’s rights. I am with XKCD on this one:

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=Rich Toscano]
Again I don’t understand what for-profit or mainstream media has to do with this subject. Piggington is a free discussion forum, it’s just a whole different kettle of fish.[/quote]

Newsprint’s success (financial) these days is oriented around popularity, not critical content. Good critical content can be very unpopular. If your publication is not ‘popular’, you don’t get advertising revenue…

When someone’s content is rated on popularity, we risk going down the same route the results in quick sound-bites without much thought put into it. As someone else has stated, one can just filter a particular person out if they tend to produce more noise than signal.

However – these are just my opinions – can’t tell you what you must do with your website. I hope you read the full referenced posting though. I have many more on the risk that rating to popularity has on informed discussion.

I’ve seen blog sites degrade into the comment quality that yahoo has when ‘popularity’ upvote/downvote is added. Commenters spend less time on thinking about it and vote on ‘like’. Postings tend to get shorter and more inflammatory and less ‘thinking’ time is used before posting.

Right now, one needs to think things through or one will just get their arguments ‘ripped apart’. With upvote/downvote, one can write something really stupid but won’t get their position ripped apart. Just a lot of downvotes, which some people seem to like to get (any number of votes shows attention over posting something and getting zero votes either way)

[quote=Rich Toscano]My personal view is that there is a wide range in quality of postings here, and I would love to have a way to sort based on how high quality the community as a whole thinks postings are.[/quote]
You are assuming that the votes will be based uniformly on quality vs popularity. I think that is part of the mistake.[/quote]

Thanks for clarifying. Definitely some good points in there worth thinking about.

[njtosd]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=ucodegen][quote=Rich Toscano]
Again I don’t understand what for-profit or mainstream media has to do with this subject. Piggington is a free discussion forum, it’s just a whole different kettle of fish.[/quote]

Newsprint’s success (financial) these days is oriented around popularity, not critical content. Good critical content can be very unpopular. If your publication is not ‘popular’, you don’t get advertising revenue…

When someone’s content is rated on popularity, we risk going down the same route the results in quick sound-bites without much thought put into it. As someone else has stated, one can just filter a particular person out if they tend to produce more noise than signal.

However – these are just my opinions – can’t tell you what you must do with your website. I hope you read the full referenced posting though. I have many more on the risk that rating to popularity has on informed discussion.

I’ve seen blog sites degrade into the comment quality that yahoo has when ‘popularity’ upvote/downvote is added. Commenters spend less time on thinking about it and vote on ‘like’. Postings tend to get shorter and more inflammatory and less ‘thinking’ time is used before posting.

Right now, one needs to think things through or one will just get their arguments ‘ripped apart’. With upvote/downvote, one can write something really stupid but won’t get their position ripped apart. Just a lot of downvotes, which some people seem to like to get (any number of votes shows attention over posting something and getting zero votes either way)

[quote=Rich Toscano]My personal view is that there is a wide range in quality of postings here, and I would love to have a way to sort based on how high quality the community as a whole thinks postings are.[/quote]
You are assuming that the votes will be based uniformly on quality vs popularity. I think that is part of the mistake.[/quote]

Thanks for clarifying. Definitely some good points in there worth thinking about.[/quote]

FWIW – not that it is likely to be an issue for this website, but . . . . Rich – you might want to think about the Digital Millennium Copyright Right Act at least a little. Basically – the less a web host directly interacts in a *non-automated* way (i.e. personally deciding what or who ends up on the blog) the more likely the host is to maintain the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA if there were ever to be any copyright protected components ending up here.

Not intended to be legal advice – just something to think about.

[no_such_reality]

You already have a quality filter and quality vote.

It’s your My Ignore List

I suggest people use it It’s a very good one on this software IMO which shows a post occurred but reduces it to a single line with easy view option

[ucodegen]

[quote=njtosd]
FWIW – not that it is likely to be an issue for this website, but . . . . Rich – you might want to think about the Digital Millennium Copyright Right Act at least a little. Basically – the less a web host directly interacts in a *non-automated* way (i.e. personally deciding what or who ends up on the blog) the more likely the host is to maintain the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA if there were ever to be any copyright protected components ending up here.

Not intended to be legal advice – just something to think about.[/quote]
Good point – I was not thinking along potential litigious paths, though I do think the up/down votes do work under DMCA since it is through viewer input instead of moderator input. I am just concerned which way would the ‘content and quality’ of discourse would go on an up/down vote system.

[ucodegen]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
There is an ignore option, but unfortunately the trolls still seem to be well-fed…
[/quote]
True.. but who are the people feeding the trolls? Generally the same people complaining about them. This leads me to think that the feeders are trying to use censorship as a form of bullying, which could be that the feeders are also trolling.

The feeders could just ‘ignore’, which means they are getting something from feeding the trolls, trolling back the trolls, or trying to bully the trolls.

[ucodegen]

[quote=no_such_reality]You already have a quality filter and quality vote.

It’s your My Ignore List

I suggest people use it It’s a very good one on this software IMO which shows a post occurred but reduces it to a single line with easy view option[/quote]
I *upvote* this one.

I usually don’t use ignore lists unless the poster gets really bad. I usually look at who is posting and if it is one of the *, and it looks like it is going on a tangent, I skip the post and move on.

If the trolls and their feeders are having a love-hate fest on the thread, there are plenty of other threads – or if the original thread is something of interest, I ignore the love-hate fest and go with the content, and post against the content ignoring what the trolls and their feeders are doing.

If the troll-feeder clutter is a problem, what about having a way for individual accounts to reduce a specific post to a ‘one-line’ for just their view? .. kind of a ‘iconify post’ button. This would need to be tracked per account, but would allow people to clean out the troll clutter per individual user preference.

[Coronita]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=flu]Track rat miata cost $24 to fill up, getting 18 miles/gallon (lol)..Synthetic motor oil fell from $35 to $20 for 5 quarts.

So much for peak oil…Lol.[/quote]
A little OT.. but why are you getting such bad mileage on the Miata? Different ECU tuning? Running rich? I presume it is not road registered, or you don’t have to smog where you live?[/quote]

Lol, *thread jack*.

CARB legal supercharger on CARB legal piggyback ECU on a stripped interior and a heavy right foot. I think if I tried, I could probably get 25mpg. But currently, my SUV gets better gas mileage. Lol

[Coronita]

Meh, if there’s a voting system, then I’ll be the one trying to get the most negative votes. It means I’m doing a good job pissing people off. heh heh.

[ucodegen]

[quote=flu]
Lol, *thread jack*.

CARB legal supercharger on CARB legal piggyback ECU on a stripped interior and a heavy right foot. I think if I tried, I could probably get 25mpg. But currently, my SUV gets better gas mileage. Lol[/quote]
The supercharger and lightened car should offset each other. Do you know what your current LTFT (Long Term Fuel Trim) is that you are running when @ highway speeds?

I wonder if the piggyback ECU is pulling too much ignition timing when under light loads. Does your engine have variable valve timing?

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=njtosd]

FWIW – not that it is likely to be an issue for this website, but . . . . Rich – you might want to think about the Digital Millennium Copyright Right Act at least a little. Basically – the less a web host directly interacts in a *non-automated* way (i.e. personally deciding what or who ends up on the blog) the more likely the host is to maintain the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA if there were ever to be any copyright protected components ending up here.

Not intended to be legal advice – just something to think about.[/quote]

Thank you… as you can probably tell, though, there is virtually no manual curating or moderating on this site. I will take this as an upside to my slothfulness!

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=flu]Meh, if there’s a voting system, then I’ll be the one trying to get the most negative votes. It means I’m doing a good job pissing people off. heh heh.[/quote]

On YouTube a thumbs down counts the same. It’s all interaction.

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=Hobie]
I would like a way to vote for a temp ban on members when posts turn personal or foul language. 3 strikes idea.[/quote]
Censorship… just put them on ignore. Then they just ‘talk to the hand’ or ‘spit into the wind’ or ‘yell into the canyon that has no echo’…. kind of lonely for them.

Censorship creates its own set of problems.

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

link for the nit-pickers on the above quote:
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/%5B/quote%5D

Thank you for your thoughts on censorship and up/down-voting. I’m definitely lazier when I interact with content with up/down-voting than with actual responses.

I don’t use the ignore function because, every once in awhile, even the trolls can make insightful points. IMHO, if my arguments can’t hold up to some trolling (and it immediately becomes obvious when they’re unable to make a valid point), then I need to re-assess.

Living in an echo chamber stifles intellectual growth. While some posters can really drag down the discourse, we’re always free to ignore their individual posts.

Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful posts, ucodegen.

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=Hobie]
I would like a way to vote for a temp ban on members when posts turn personal or foul language. 3 strikes idea.[/quote]
Censorship… just put them on ignore. Then they just ‘talk to the hand’ or ‘spit into the wind’ or ‘yell into the canyon that has no echo’…. kind of lonely for them.

Censorship creates its own set of problems.

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall.

link for the nit-pickers on the above quote:
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/%5B/quote%5D

Thank you for your thoughts on censorship and up/down-voting. I’m definitely lazier when I interact with content via up/down-voting than with actual responses.

I don’t use the ignore function because, every once in awhile, even the trolls can make insightful points. IMHO, if my arguments can’t hold up to some trolling (and it immediately becomes obvious when they’re unable to make a valid point), then I need to re-assess.

Living in an echo chamber stifles intellectual growth. While some posters can really drag down the discourse, we’re always free to ignore their individual posts.

Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful posts, ucodegen.

[svelte]

[quote=CA renter]
I don’t use the ignore function because, every once in awhile, even the trolls can make insightful points. [/quote]

Reminds me of the Tom Petty song…”Even the losers keep a little bit of pride – yeah, they get lucky some times”

I’m on the fence with voting buttons. I can see both sides. On one hand they can show those who are legends in their own mind exactly what the community thinks of them (a plus) … on the other hand, it will start encouraging group think discouraging dissenting viewpoints (a minus)which, in some situations, are my viewpoint too.

I think you can see that happen on facebook.

We’ve sort of already implemented our own upvote capability. Often you’ll see folks create simple posts that say “+1”

[Author]

Posts