[Ask the Gulch] Gulch points, one more time. Can anyone help clarify?
Posted by Bethesda-gal 8 years, 5 months ago to Ask the Gulch
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?
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.
But I don't think you understood me. Of course I encourage you to give honest feedback. I just don't think that up/down-voting is always the proper way to do this. The best way is to leave a comment expressing your feedback, engaging in the discussion, like you did here. But voting should be reserved for questions like: is this worth seeing? is it constructive to the topic at hand? I suggest that if you found it worth engaging in discussion, then it is worth other people seeing too. There have been many times that I answered in disagreement but up-voted, because I want other people to see it and engage in it too. This is an example (I up-voted your comment).
I've seen too many constructive comments buried way down at the end of a post, just because people didn't like it. I might not agree with them either, but I don't come to this forum to be cuddled and only see things that I agree with, or to protect others from seeing them. I come here to learn, to be challenged, to stretch my mind, and come to a better understanding of what I believe and how to state it. But more and more people here just want a one-sided debate, and so vote-down anything they dislike or disagree with, or even worse, they've been spending too much time on Facebook and treat this like a popularity contest.
I've seen lots of name-calling up-voted. Comments like, "I agree," should not be up-voted to the top of a discussion, but that happens. Rather than such juvenile and trite additions being the first thing on the list, I'd rather see substance. I want to see both sides of an issue, but often times this is difficult.
You may be "sure" something "is quite wrong," but some of us are still interested in learning new ideas, seeking to understand other arguments. Your method of voting makes this harder.
I do not make a ton of comments on this site. In part because I am busy working most of the time, but also because when I do many of the responses indicate that ideas are not welcome on this site unless they fit in with the established doctrines of Objectivism. It is like newcomers are expected to accept something because it is the Objectivist view.
I came to this site because I read Atlas Shrugged and thought it was one of, if not the most, important book I have read. There are so many things that were great illustrations of our current problems. I wanted to be connected to people that had that same basic view.
I am happy to say that not all of my interactions here have been bad...far from it. However, I think there are to many people here that trying to make this a very narrow community where you have to be sold on the entire objectivist philosophy, or at least interested in possibly being "all in".
There are a ton of people out there that agree with 80% of what objectivist believe in. I whish everyone on the site was eager to welcome those like minded people rather than thinking newcomers have to be converted, or interested in converting, into a die hard objectivist before they find a home here.
I guess my problem is that I thought most (not all) of the ideas in Atlas Shrugged were incredible. Then I came here and was exposed to something called Objectivism which goes far beyond the things I agreed with in Atlas Shrugged. I am not at all sold on objectivism as a perfect philosophy. But then again, no philosophy is perfect.
If we accept the premise that an Objectivist is more intelligent than not we could hypothesize he or she is capable of holding conflicting notions in their mind at the same time. For example one could see that objectively speaking a fetus is not a born human being but personally and emotionally believe they should be treated as such. These are objectively conflicting notions at their core, but an intelligent person is able to know the former while believing the latter. They are conflicting but not mutually exclusive. Alternatively there is no objective evidence for the god of today's religions yet Objectivists may still want to believe in one and hold a religious belief of such.
However, even keeping conflicting notions in the same mind, where one is kept by emotional causes, management of the dissonance produced by this can slip and result in emotion winning out in the case of argumentation. We certainly should be abel to have thick skin (I personally spent a long time investing in such), but that doesn't mean we have to tolerate blatantly insulting or ignorant behavior, hence down voting under such circumstances is appropriate.
Ultimately even Objectivists are human. ;)
I do not happen to be religious, but I do sometimes disagree with other statements that are tagged as cannon Objectivist, so I do not call myself "Objectivist" on this list.
Jan
Since I am in the class of non-Objectivists, I will say that I am closer to being an Objectivist than any other pigeonhole; when not in the Gulch, I have referred to myself by that tag. So: What do YOU call someone who is in general an Objectivist, but who deviates from defined parameters in some respect, such as religion?
Jan
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.
Some of the best comments in the Gulch are found in the different category groups listed at the top Hot Now and by type.....That's worth exploring.
I generally vote using the same criteria as richrobinson. I do occasionally down-vote things based on two criteria. 1. The comment is rude and/or adds nothing constructive to the discussion or 2. I disagree strongly with the comment and have nothing more to add. In this fashion it is simply shorthand. If I have something to add I will do that also.
I do try to avoid down-votes as much as possible and will also up-vote things I believe deserve attention even when I disagree. It is a mixed bag, but I also feel that there is sometimes too much made of the vote count; it is a sum of several factors. so it is not just a reflection of the popularity of your comments. It also reflects your total output and participation.
Some let emotion rule and give too much weight to these numbers when it is clear that some of the best comments and most profound observations sometimes come from those with lower total points. A poor score on any particular comment should not be thought of as a general personal attack. If you stick with it and avoid ad-hominem your score will reflect your efforts over time and commitment, more than anything else.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I feel encouraged !
People are going to disagree in matter of philosophy. And that's because no one has a perfect knowledge - supposition is the prime ingredient to scientific inquiry. I don't typically down vote people for disagreeing, however, but for being disagreeable.
it's a courtesy response to someone's sponse!!! -- j
.
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.
"sin" category as an area rife (sic) for study as well? . my wife and I.......
there are some things which are not sin but are labeled so.
see? . like the joke whose punch line is:::
"See, That's What You Get For Twenty Bucks!" -- j
.
guys, and he would pass a street corner where....... -- j
.
bring a nickel; tap your feet.......!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clJb4...
good song! -- j
.
rife -- abundant or plentiful; numerous
we can pretend that words are math, can't we, sometimes?
.
(At least I hope not.)
"points-schmoints" thing (LOL!) but I kinda
agree with jimjamesjames re: its importance.I still don't know which thumb the number refers to, the up or down??
that apply to up=thumb or bad=thumb? Anyway, thumbs up my friend!!
don't work for the government party.
That being said, and the few times I have seen it, I certainly respect those that have "owned" their down vote and given their reasons. This is positive feedback (even if a down vote) and creates an atmosphere for growth and sharing of ideas.
Stay the Course Bethesda-gal! It's definitely worth it.
Let's see- if you have "1" point and I down vote you you go to "0". If, however, you have "3" up votes and I down vote you you go to "2" up votes losing a point. Am I missing something? Let me know.
Bubble Wrap
It has saved me thousands in psych bills!