Jump to content


Respectfully Disagree


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

FlakKnight #41 Posted Apr 26 2018 - 23:41

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 13201 battles
  • 648
  • Member since:
    11-13-2013
I disrespectfully agree.

Hurk #42 Posted Apr 26 2018 - 23:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 55849 battles
  • 17,382
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

barring a downvote button, can we at least have a report option for "factually inaccurate post" so the mods or devs could flag a post as "WRONG"? 

 

like... literally have red text at the top appended that says "this post contains incorrect information or opinions that are not accurate to the current state of the game at the time of posting". 



awildseaking #43 Posted Apr 27 2018 - 06:11

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 13263 battles
  • 853
  • [NEET] NEET
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015

I would rather they remove upvotes and make everyone anonymous, otherwise the forum will remain a reddit-lite circlejerk.

 

Like, wow, in a discussion where someone agrees with your [edited]opinion, you got a green +1. That totally validates your [edited]opinion and makes it right even though it's wrong.

 

Mature discussion is only possible on anonymous forums because you cannot use prejudice as an argument. You're forced to take what someone says at face value. You can't say, "but in the past you said x." Ideas are either good or bad. So are arguments. Until any and all extraneous information is removed from the process, you cannot unbias yourself.

 

Be honest; milquetoast normie opinions get upvoted while controversial statements get downvoted. Voting has nothing to do with whether or not a statement is true or interesting. It's just a popularity contest.


Edited by awildseaking, Apr 27 2018 - 06:19.


Iron_Soul_Stealer #44 Posted Apr 27 2018 - 21:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 10,190
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostLethalhavoc, on Apr 26 2018 - 17:24, said:

When the points used to roll off, when a person had too many they would just switch off to an alt for a few months, and let the total warning points decline.

 

If they added a good behavior reward to the strike system, it would be exactly the same, every 3 or 6 months the persons main would go off on a strike binge, then be retired while the next alt account did the same and so on.

Just like it was before.

 

We have a number of perma'd forum users currently hanging out here on alt accounts.

 

The only real meaning to the strike perma ban punishment, is that the person no longer gets to post anything on their main account.

No stats carry over, no post count, no reps or negs, no battles played, no "oh this guy knows what he's talking about, because of who he is", no real content of any kind.

That's the punishment for being "bad" and it's just being forced to start over.

 

As long as the new alt account(s) don't identify themselves as so-and-so who's perma banned, then the mods generally leave them alone (although there have been a few that the mods have went above and beyond to keep removed), provided they follow the posting rules.

 

There's a very simple solution for that nonsense...

 

Forum users shouldn't be permitted to 'switch over' and use alts in the first place. WG already has tools in place for detecting that kind of 'alt-posting' stuff, so that would be on them to correct and enforce that problem. 

 

As for the rest of that highlighted part...

I am fairly certain that is also a clear violation of the EULA. *If a person is banned from the forum, then they are banned. No exceptions. No excuses. No more alts. Again, that part of IP address checks and enforcement rests on Wargamings' shoulders, not mine, and not yours. I believe that everyone should only have ONE forum account to post with. And ONE is enough. This is the only account I use to post here, in this forum. And I'm very sure WG already knows that. So, they should certainly know about all the rest of the 'alt' shenanigans that are going on around here, too.

 

 

 

 



Kenshin2kx #45 Posted Apr 27 2018 - 22:05

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18111 battles
  • 6,214
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postawildseaking, on Apr 26 2018 - 19:11, said:

I would rather they remove upvotes and make everyone anonymous, otherwise the forum will remain a reddit-lite circlejerk.

 

Like, wow, in a discussion where someone agrees with your [edited]opinion, you got a green +1. That totally validates your [edited]opinion and makes it right even though it's wrong.

 

Mature discussion is only possible on anonymous forums because you cannot use prejudice as an argument. You're forced to take what someone says at face value. You can't say, "but in the past you said x." Ideas are either good or bad. So are arguments. Until any and all extraneous information is removed from the process, you cannot unbias yourself.

 

Be honest; milquetoast normie opinions get upvoted while controversial statements get downvoted. Voting has nothing to do with whether or not a statement is true or interesting. It's just a popularity contest.

 

Hmmm ... I see merit in the logic ... similar to taking the picture off of all the resumes submitted for the job in order to force the recruiting staff to actually assess qualifications ... as opposed to some unaccounted for personal bias.

Lethalhavoc #46 Posted Apr 28 2018 - 00:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 38720 battles
  • 11,572
  • Member since:
    01-18-2013

View PostIron_Soul_Stealer, on Apr 27 2018 - 13:59, said:

 

There's a very simple solution for that nonsense...

 

Forum users shouldn't be permitted to 'switch over' and use alts in the first place. WG already has tools in place for detecting that kind of 'alt-posting' stuff, so that would be on them to correct and enforce that problem. 

 

As for the rest of that highlighted part...

I am fairly certain that is also a clear violation of the EULA. *If a person is banned from the forum, then they are banned. No exceptions. No excuses. No more alts. Again, that part of IP address checks and enforcement rests on Wargamings' shoulders, not mine, and not yours. I believe that everyone should only have ONE forum account to post with. And ONE is enough. This is the only account I use to post here, in this forum. And I'm very sure WG already knows that. So, they should certainly know about all the rest of the 'alt' shenanigans that are going on around here, too.

 

Since WG changed the rules and allowed players to have multiple accounts, how could they justify forum banning all of them, when only 1 is guilty?

If they did that, then once a person took a perma game ban, then they would have to ban all associated accounts that have done nothing wrong too.

 

WG wants players to learn from their mistakes, they also want those players to continue to spend money on the game, you can't do that if you can't play.

 

The best thing would be to get rid of the rep system completely, and as for the strike system, i don't see how they could improve it, not without it being abused.

WG spends a minimal amount of time "free browsing" the forums, heck there was a WP thread that lasted 4 or 5 days until it was locked today.

 

So, i don't see them investing even more time/effort into the forums, by monitoring every IP logging in and out, especially given how many IP spoofing options there are.



Iron_Soul_Stealer #47 Posted Apr 28 2018 - 03:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 10,190
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostLethalhavoc, on Apr 27 2018 - 18:12, said:

......

WG wants players to learn from their mistakes.....,

........

 

I certainly agree about removing the entire rep system.

I think it's just a useless popularity contest anyway and/or a destructive tool for people suffering from serious conformity issues. Not to mention, 'hitting a stupid-button' really doesn't add anything constructive to discussions. And most importantly {and speaking of mistakes}, I believe the permanent 5-strike policy needs to be improved and modified.

 

*If strikes will never be removed from a members' profile {even with good behaviour, over a long period of time}, then there is nothing positive I can say about this policy. It is flawed, and it will remain flawed unless someone changes it, and gives it hope. For example, the current forum policy {*ie. permanent strikes} is completely lacking of any form of positive reinforcement. All it does is punish negative behaviour, but does nothing to address and reward positive behaviour. How will anyone ever learn from a system like that?

 

In other words, people don't want to live in fear. And it's because people are flawed too. Everyone is flawed, myself included. No one is perfect here. And try as we might to "follow all the rules", we will mess up, from time to time. So, if there is no system of positive reinforcement, or any way for us to 'back up a few steps' every once in a while, and have that accident forgiveness {strike removal}, then all this policy does is create a dark, one way tunnel for its forum members. With every step they take, and every permanent strike they receive getting them closer and closer to that inevitable train wreck. That is not my world view. And I don't believe in a punishment system like that.

 

Again, our forum penalty system needs HOPE for the future. Not 'fear'.

 

 

 



BlinkingDuck #48 Posted Apr 28 2018 - 14:52

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 409 battles
  • 89
  • Member since:
    03-21-2015

No downvoting.  People that actually like to downvote are poopyheads,

 

Oh yea, majority mobs, minority suppression etc etc etc.


Edited by BlinkingDuck, Apr 28 2018 - 14:53.


awildseaking #49 Posted Apr 29 2018 - 06:15

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 13263 battles
  • 853
  • [NEET] NEET
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015

View PostKenshin2kx, on Apr 27 2018 - 16:05, said:

Hmmm ... I see merit in the logic ... similar to taking the picture off of all the resumes submitted for the job in order to force the recruiting staff to actually assess qualifications ... as opposed to some unaccounted for personal bias.

 

Moot's TED talk is still relevant in this regard. I haven't watched it in years, but it's scary when you consider how people are just starting to question Facebook and Twitter now even though we've known how nefarious they were since the late 2000s.

 


Edited by awildseaking, Apr 29 2018 - 06:28.


Chester380 #50 Posted Apr 29 2018 - 09:12

    Captain

  • Players
  • 33803 battles
  • 1,191
  • Member since:
    03-09-2012

View PostBlackgunner, on Apr 25 2018 - 19:52, said:

Well, it's that time again.  The occasional post where the downvotes are requested back.  But this time around, I'd like to go into detail about what a downvote is for me.  To me, a downvote is not a negative thing . To me, a downvote is like saying, "I have read your post and respectfully disagree with your conclusions for whatever cause."  

 

The upvote and downvotes are a source of interpretation, whereas a bad post that is meant to be comedic in nature can be upvoted for providing quality content; and where ideas that are nonsensical can be respectfully declined by the forum-base.  Somewhere along the line, it seems that staff got the impression that downvotes are like calling someone an idiot or whatnot.  It isn't.  It is not a toxic part of the communal norms, it is a natural part of communal norms.

 

Today, the social structure of online gaming often mirrors real life.  Recent studies have shown that generations are distinguishing friendships in real life and online less and less, as they are one in the same.  The point I'm making here is that as a gaming society, might I even go so far as a gaming civilization; must be allowed to flourish.  Naturally, there are rules that must be abided by as there are laws of conduct 'in the real world'.  However, censoring the social interaction of the community is like segregating people.  There are some people who choose to be one way, there are some that are another.  Just as you choose who you want to listen to or hang out with in reality, I feel it is important to try to emulate that to the best of everyones ability here.  If you and your friends have no issues swearing like a sailor to each other, I believe that that is something that you should be able to do.  And naturally, if someone does not want to hear that talk, they have a choice to not be around you.  Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole doesn't go well.

 

EDIT: Constructive comments and criticisms as well as your thoughts will be upvoted.

 

I feel like it is important that we as a community have the ability to discuss something in a constructive manner.

 

Votes are dumb.  There is usually a herd of nuthangers that will upvote everybody in their clique and down vote everyone that disagrees.  Further, it is low IQ to replace actual discussion with silly click voting.  Voting isn't "discussing in a constructive manner"...it is more like petty high school popularity contests.

 

I don't want your upvote.



TankFullOfBourbon #51 Posted Apr 29 2018 - 11:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 29936 battles
  • 6,669
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013
You actually bother to write a post about getting downvotes back? What do you think of the 1972 Camaro?

o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7 #52 Posted Apr 29 2018 - 11:11

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 424 battles
  • 865
  • [ITDED] ITDED
  • Member since:
    01-23-2015

View PostStriker_70, on Apr 26 2018 - 04:17, said:

 

The same things don't happen now.  I was getting revenge downvoted by one or more people every day for weeks right after proving someone wrong in the forums.  They would just go through all my posts and use all their downvotes on my previous posts every day.  It was ridiculous.

 

It's such an improvement over where it was before.  In fact, the downvote system was so problematic at the time that WG did an official poll asking if we should keep downvotes or get rid of them.  The option to get rid of downvotes won by a significant margin due to all the problems the downvoting system had.

 

 

 

and now you have people stalking you across threads posting stupidity at your address. as i said, same thing, different means

 

also the problem is people think forum arrows have a meaning. the only meaning they have is the one YOU  give them. for you i see, they are an important part of your self esteem and personal worth and it affects you when somebody -1 your posts.  vanity is without a cure btw. 

 

while everybody likes some virtual appreciation, getting concerned about getting your posts rated is really primal internet nerdism. its like on tweeter when people cry you arent retweeting them enough. like.. ok??? seriously?? i mean..mmk. 


Edited by o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7, Apr 29 2018 - 11:12.


Iron_Soul_Stealer #53 Posted Jun 06 2018 - 00:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 10,190
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostTankFullOfBourbon, on Apr 29 2018 - 05:10, said:

You actually bother to write a post about getting downvotes back? What do you think of the 1972 Camaro?

^..Gas guzzler...:coin:

 

Speaking of that ....

I had a 72' Chevy Nova once. I loved that car. It was brown, and ugly as all hell, but that 350 would throw you back in your seat and spin you around in circles. I miss that car.

 

 



BillT #54 Posted Jun 06 2018 - 00:37

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 27609 battles
  • 5,104
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostBlackgunner, on Apr 25 2018 - 19:52, said:

Well, it's that time again.  The occasional post where the downvotes are requested back.  But this time around, I'd like to go into detail about what a downvote is for me.  To me, a downvote is not a negative thing . To me, a downvote is like saying, "I have read your post and respectfully disagree with your conclusions for whatever cause."  

 

 

For most people, I think a downvote indicates zero respect and merely means "You said something I don't like to hear".  As such, downvoting punishes people who defend unpopular positions, and is more like "bullying" than "social interaction". 

Take me, for instance.  I've made 3559 postings and have 3468 upvotes - that's close to one upvote per posting and I'm kind of proud of that.  But I'm also an outspoken defender of artillery and I routinely argue with the sort of people who believe the game is rigged.  If people could downvote all of those postings, my rep would be low, maybe even negative.  So my rep would only mean my postings are unpopular; not that they're illogical or hateful, trollish, or wrong.

 

As for upvotes, yes, some of that is just "You said something I agree with, have a +1".  But the postings that really score lots of upvotes are where I say something funny or at least clever, or I do a nice mathematical analysis of a problem.  And those are the kinds of postings I upvote, too.  So I feel like upvotes are more important, more genuine, than downvotes.

 

Finally, the forums are negative enough, so I see no benefit in restoring negative voting.  Forum rep doesn't mean a lot, so don't worry about it.



BillT #55 Posted Jun 06 2018 - 00:49

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 27609 battles
  • 5,104
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostKliphie, on Apr 26 2018 - 15:35, said:

Idea:  Eliminate anonymity on the ups and downs.  Remove the "total" as its useless.  This would allow differentiating between valid and sock puppet responses and remove any motivation for farming.   

 

Or how about this: next to a poster's avatar, show his total upvotes + downvotes GIVEN (not received).  If that's a large, negative number, you know the guy is just a crank who hates and downvotes everyone.  If it's a large, positive number, then he may be a sap, but at least he's a positive person who's usually giving people a pat on the back.

 

But the bottom line is this: if upvotes and downvotes mean anything at all, then people and clans will start abusing the system with sock puppet accounts and organizing voting.  So in the end, it's probably best that they mean nothing.



BillT #56 Posted Jun 06 2018 - 00:58

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 27609 battles
  • 5,104
  • [F-3] F-3
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View Postawildseaking, on Apr 27 2018 - 00:11, said:

Mature discussion is only possible on anonymous forums because you cannot use prejudice as an argument. You're forced to take what someone says at face value. You can't say, "but in the past you said x." Ideas are either good or bad. So are arguments. Until any and all extraneous information is removed from the process, you cannot unbias yourself.

 

While I see your point about prejudice, the majority of my experience is that anonymous forums -- unless composed of a carefully selected group -- just invite trolling and childish behavior.

I think it's significant that the most mature discussions our society has happen in peer-reviewed scientific and legal journals.  They are anything BUT anonymous... but they're still respectful, and that's partly because both the authors and their critics have to put their names on what they write.  As an author, it makes you hesitant to publish a half-baked idea.  As a critic, it makes you hesitant to poo-poo an idea you don't like.

 

Your point about "but in the past you said x" is valid, though, and it's an important one in courts.  When the jury is considering a defendant's guilt, you can't taint their opinion by listing his prior convictions.  So it would be nice if we could preserve that... I just think that anonymity has too many drawbacks, even if it provides that benefit.



Iron_Soul_Stealer #57 Posted Jun 06 2018 - 01:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 10,190
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostBillT, on Jun 05 2018 - 18:37, said:

...........

Finally, the forums are negative enough, so I see no benefit in restoring negative voting.  Forum rep doesn't mean a lot, so don't worry about it.

 

I absolutely agree, Bill.

I don't want to see negative reputation voting come back. As I mentioned earlier, the whole thing was just a useless popularity contest anyway and/or a destructive tool for people suffering from serious revenge and/or conformity issues. And again, hitting a 'stupid-button' really doesn't add anything constructive to discussions. *If people have something to say, then say it. Don't have a button do it for you.

 



Iron_Soul_Stealer #58 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 08:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 3183 battles
  • 10,190
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostBillT, on Jun 05 2018 - 18:49, said:

...........

But the bottom line is this: if upvotes and downvotes mean anything at all, then people and clans will start abusing the system with sock puppet accounts and organizing voting.  So in the end, it's probably best that they mean nothing.

 

Yep, that's almost certainly what would happen. And again, I don't see the constructive point in that.

 

 



Bogart1943 #59 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 16:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 32451 battles
  • 2,065
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013
I disrespectfully agree with your respectfully disagree and see you two upvotes and take one downvote for a net positive upvote.

Rides_with_Death #60 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 16:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 35171 battles
  • 2,455
  • [F0CUS] F0CUS
  • Member since:
    05-02-2011

View PostIron_Soul_Stealer, on Jun 05 2018 - 17:23, said:

^..Gas guzzler...:coin:

 

Speaking of that ....

I had a 72' Chevy Nova once. I loved that car. It was brown, and ugly as all hell, but that 350 would throw you back in your seat and spin you around in circles. I miss that car.

 

 

I am trying to find a 71 or 72 Nova right now for the wife, but they are few and far between here.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users