[Ask the Gulch] Gulch points, one more time. Can anyone help clarify?

Posted by Bethesda-gal 9 years, 5 months ago to Ask the Gulch
57 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Since the recent post about points I've been trying to understand better, so I read the FAQ page and it doesn't look like people are following the FAQ guidelines re: voting things up or down. Can anyone help clarify?


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago
    I have a high number thus far. I am on the side of no ups or downs at all nor numbers of posts . But I'm in a minority. I either debate or argue the point with facts. and reason or if that isn't working walk away....that's what ignore is for. I'm sure I'm on some or more than somes ignore list as well. Side issues are the realm of private message to the hosts or an individual. Recently I quit receiving comment email... nothing seemed to work but I disconnected the What's up on my new cell phone and a few other new features. Notified one individual I was not ignoring but not receiving his comments. Turned out to my personal chagrin they had migrated themselves to Spam Land with Fire Foxes new system...All 455 of them. I was trying to track down the source of the claim on Rand's lying to get visa extensions..Each article referred to another and all promised documentation. So far zilch...one referred to a taped conversation which magically cannot be produced but blame was laid at the door of the Rand Foundation. So far without documentation. My response is....not enough evidence in fact to warrant an arrest or a trial. No Probable Cause shown. I do not subscribe to the Patriot Act version which allows 'mere suspicion.' It became a non-starter pending cites and some sort of documentation. The articles by the way are in a website that allows no contact with the authors.....That IS curious.

    The ignores are due to boredom and cutting down on useless commentary. Without Exception.

    I haven't flagged anyone.

    I suppose the system is useful. No doubt. But it introduces a bit of game playing with restart buttons and subtracts from thoughtful commentary.. NOW to 'fess up that does not include Bidenesque Hillary jokes. So I'm tarred with my own brush. Thus the first stone is cast at myself. i am not completely without sin.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, Bill, even though I'm still a flip-phone gal and thus don't text, I can understand fat-fingering it sometimes. But if you look just at this thread, you can see all the down votes that its already accumulated, which - to me - make no sense. Sjatkins suggests that telling people what they are doing wrong itself deserves a down vote, which directly contradicts the guidelines. And I've observed what nsnelson says seems accurate; that socially unpopular topics get down voted. That is the opposite of what I picture the Gulch characters in A.S. would support. My interest in this forum was to find thinking that maybe is enlightened and more evolved and in contrast to the frequently snarky, petty mainstream thinking. But Bill I do agree with you that grade inflation of easy up-votes is not desirable either. It's the down votes that seem too often to be unilluminating. I assume that AR resonates with people who prefer to think outside the box and do not feel obligated to enlighten anyone else. I agree with that concept from AS. But isn't it modulated at all by the continual desire to move thinking and dialog to a higher level ? If someone continually demonstrates they are obtuse beyond redemption, sure, it's throwing effort away to enlighten the enlighten-able. But to assume that that is the default seems unproductive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Pursuing the truth does not mean upvoting a well represented argument for what one is sure is quite wrong. Telling people they are doing it wrong for providing honesty feedback itself deserves a down vote.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by nsnelson 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I've noticed the same thing. It is painfully obvious when people bring up topics unpopular here in the Gulch (e.g., religion, abortion, etc.). These type of comments are very quickly down-voted, even if the comment makes a point constructive to the debate at hand.

    Generally, I like to think that Objectivists are interested in pursuing the truth, wherever that may lead them, even being patient to deal with people's ignorance, even being willing to look past arrogance and rudeness. Objectivists should have a thick skin, being able to see through the crap and cut to the issue. But that is not always the case.

    That said, I think the system described in the FAQ is good, and is followed (except in a relatively few hot-topic exceptions). Regardless of what others do, I encourage you to be pro-active in following the system. Up-vote comments you find constructive. Use the down-vote not just from things you don't like, or from things you wish you hadn't seen, but in particular for comments that distract from the real issue. When you down-vote, it may be helpful to indicate why you did that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by TheRealBill 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Honestly sometimes, when on a mobile, it is easy - too easy - to tap either vote button while scrolling and not realize it. I know I've barely caught it a few times myself, so I can imagine I've missed a few and that others have as well.

    That said for blatantly bad posts such as name calling or doing the same to entire groups I've no qualm down voting without commentary. I feel it should be obvious under such circumstances. Personally that is what I "save" down voting for: outright asshattery. Everything above that line gets nothing or if particularly insightful (I have a pretty high bar for that though - Slashdot taught me that) a thumbs up.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks Rich. Yes, the FAQ suggests up voting replies that add to the discussion even if not agreed with, but that is not what I have noticed. Perhaps it's a case of "you find what you are looking for" but I'd be curious if you or anyone would take a moment to randomly scan the new or hot topics and look at the points and see if you see more plusses or minuses. I'm seeing a lot of down votes, that I can't figure out why, or how they're different from posts that are up-voted. Plus, the FAQ suggests that down votes are accompanied by a comment explaining the basis for the down vote which I'm not sure consistently happens. A recent discussion in the politics category, which generated a huge number of replies, including some from me which were down-voted (I don't believe my comments were attacks or off-topic) and now I can't seem to access that discussion at all and still wondering the how and the why. I'm definitely still trying to crack this Gulch code... :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • 11
    Posted by richrobinson 9 years, 5 months ago
    First post and a good question. Most of the replies I have read concerning voting are similar. Most Gulchers up vote interesting comments that are relevant and on message. I, and others, regularly up vote comments we don't agree with but we believe they added to the discussion. I have also noticed Gulchers are. reluctant to use the down vote. It's like we are saving them for something. Most down votes are cast for personal attacks or comments way off topic. Hope this helps.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo