Thanks System Referendum.

[The Twilight Mexican]

I'm going to confess to being both highly confused and somewhat annoyed that we're still at the "Should we have a forum-wide trial?" question. Whether going by the poll or what the majority of people have been saying in actual posts in the thread, we as a community clearly want the Thanks system to remain. The question should only be "What measures might we take to make some kind of accommodations for those it bothers without, frankly, abandoning common sense?"

There's such a thing as taking a valid point too far and overreaching, folks. My State is dealing with the fallout of that right now, if you've been following the news.

Two attempts at reasonable accommodation have been offered (disabling Thanks in one section and giving members the ability to hide Thanks from their own view), and both are applicable to the venue where most of the arguments for concern have been brought up. We don't need to rush headlong into anything without thinking about it or having a discussion, no, but sweet Jesus, we don't need to discuss something to the point of impotence either.

I'm sympathetic to the points that have been raised about the News, Politics, Religion & Debate section, particularly from Flare, whose tenacity and good faith willingness to remain in debates where she was overwhelmingly outnumbered has impressed me on multiple occasions. I'll be honest and admit that I'm far less sympathetic toward someone who can't handle a Thanks system outside more serious, debate-y venues, so it's good that others were present to bring up options for individual users to turn Thanks off.

If the suggestions we have so far are still insufficient for someone, and they would only be satisfied by no one having the system available to them, their discomfort is their cross to bear, not anyone else's. We have a trial proposal that directly addresses the area of biggest concern for those who are overall in favor of leaving the system in place even while they are in favor of pruning it from that one section (a number that is itself still far larger than those who want it gone altogether), as well as a suggestion that should satisfy anyone who doesn't want to see it at all.

Any insistence upon overreaching beyond that I am firmly opposed to, as it would seem most of us are. The discussion is just going in circles at this point. It's time to shit or get off the pot.

EDIT: What X said, basically.

 

[Joe]

If anything, I think that the Debate section should have a SRS DEBATE BZNS subsection where Thanks is disabled, and we can move threads into it as needed, so that those discussions can specifically be had in a vacuum of sorts.

I really like this idea. How would the decision be made to move a thread to such a section?

 

[Carlie]

^That edit: Goddamit Joe, I'm not below Tres anymore (I await the sex joke)

I had many other thoughts while reading through this thread, but others have expressed most of them, and I've thanked their posts. Of course, I've also thanked some posts I disagreed with anyway in appreciation of their candor. As well as some I just thought were funny. And some that were helpful for other members.

You thanked every post Tres, you're a thank whore and that's ok.


Look can we do this, we trial the News, Politics, Religion & Debate section without the thank system and for the rest of the forum anyone that doesn't want the thank system can disable it on their own? That being said I still think we also need to address the issues I mentioned in my first post (being antagonistic towards a different opinion, 9 people or so arguing with one person).

 

[Dawnbreaker]

1. Whoa, Ghost, you can't make claims without evidence. Isn't that what you told me? You're saying I'm insulting and intimidating people, yet you present no evidence to prove your point. If I unintentionally upset people by my comments, then I'm sorry. At the same time, I refuse to do more than that without you presenting evidence that I DID insult and intimidate people.

2. And speaking of insulting -- I want an apology from you. Calling me a dick is totally wrong. You were the one saying we should be civil and welcoming of discussion and now you've done the except opposite. I understand you're probably feeling a lot of pressure right now and I've been your friend for a long time so I empathize with your situation. But that was still wrong of you.

3. I respect the desire for anonymity especially in cases where the defense is on the side of the minority. I get that. But honestly, Ghost, it's not a solution to skirt around the issue, etc. and it's just incredibly frustrating for the rest of us to have to abandon something we enjoy just because one or two people who won't talk about it (except through you) are upset by it. Starling and others have made it clear that we'd like to resolve whatever the greater issue is, but we've been rebuffed. I'm not sure what else we can do...

4. As Tres, X and several now have said, we're all confused why several reasonable solutions have been presented but still ignored. That makes me think there are deeper issues at hand here, but of course, without knowing more, I cannot say.

5. Lastly, I'm still totally confused by this situation. All I have so far is a bunch of unverified claims about a bunch of stuff. You said it yourself, Ghost: "Don't follow me, follow the evidence". Since I don't have any, either way, then I'm just gonna say that I don't know what the fuck is going on.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

If anything, I think that the Debate section should have a SRS DEBATE BZNS subsection where Thanks is disabled, and we can move threads into it as needed, so that those discussions can specifically be had in a vacuum of sorts.

I really like this idea. How would the decision be made to move a thread to such a section?

Well, how's about we go through that section, grab titles of the bigger or generally more heated Debate type threads. Then rather than decide what goes in, just have a discussion about which ones don't belong (in a new location, since this thread is busy with the main Thanks stuff), and once that's done, we'll move the relevant threads into our "Blind Debate" section.




X

 

[Octo]

Since there isn't an option for it in the polls, I am genuinely curious about how the folks who're bothered by the Thanks system feel about having the capability to disable it for themselves, since Octo was kind enough to show that it is a thing that can be done.

It wernt me though mun, it was JDBedford128 who come up with it. I don't want to be stealing no glory here innit?

http://thelifestream.net/forums/showpost.php?p=695390&postcount=42

Tidy!

 

[Carlie]

If anything, I think that the Debate section should have a SRS DEBATE BZNS subsection where Thanks is disabled, and we can move threads into it as needed, so that those discussions can specifically be had in a vacuum of sorts.

I really like this idea. How would the decision be made to move a thread to such a section?

Well, how's about we go through that section, grab titles of the bigger or generally more heated Debate type threads. Then rather than decide what goes in, just have a discussion about which ones don't belong (in a new location, since this thread is busy with the main Thanks stuff), and once that's done, we'll move the relevant threads into our "Blind Debate" section.




X

The Presidential thread, the abortion thread, the guns right thread come to mind.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

I've made the SubForum (which Yop will still need to do magic on), and I'm gonna make a new thread for talking about the posts that belong there as soon as I'm out of bed and on a computer because fuck searching for a million threads to make a master poast on my mobile.

Also, good morning, everyone.




X

 

[Jason Tandro]

To say nothing of illogical superiority... now if you'll excuse me I have to go strain spaghetti on a turtle while Careless Whisper plays.

If anybody cares, I wasn't joking about that...

Also I third what X and Tres said. Either pop it out of the debate forum or give the option to remove it to the user base.

 

[Carlie]

Also, good morning, everyone.




X

Good morning, Chrono!

 

[Channy]

Dang. I haven't had a moment to chime in on this and it's now 8 pages and sounds like it's already resolving itself. Damn

 

[Ghost X]

1. Whoa, Ghost, you can't make claims without evidence. Isn't that what you told me? You're saying I'm insulting and intimidating people, yet you present no evidence to prove your point. If I unintentionally upset people by my comments, then I'm sorry. At the same time, I refuse to do more than that without you presenting evidence that I DID insult and intimidate people.

I said when you insult and insinuate things about people being anonymous that comes across as a dick move. Not that people were actually insulted by your insulting and insinuating, etc. There's a difference.

2. And speaking of insulting -- I want an apology from you. Calling me a dick is totally wrong. You were the one saying we should be civil and welcoming of discussion and now you've done the except opposite. I understand you're probably feeling a lot of pressure right now and I've been your friend for a long time so I empathize with your situation. But that was still wrong of you.

Again, like I said to JT, I did not call you a dick. I'm quite sure you are not one. I will not apologise about how I feel in regards to your opinion about people acting anonymously though. You are wrong on that particular issue.

3. I respect the desire for anonymity especially in cases where the defense is on the side of the minority. I get that. But honestly, Ghost, it's not a solution to skirt around the issue, etc. and it's just incredibly frustrating for the rest of us to have to abandon something we enjoy just because one or two people who won't talk about it (except through you) are upset by it. Starling and others have made it clear that we'd like to resolve whatever the greater issue is, but we've been rebuffed. I'm not sure what else we can do...

I would actually be disappointed if anything happens given the poll results ao far, with a majority of people saying they're happy the way things are. Beyond an opt-out thing, be it specific or universal, which might make everyone happy.

4. As Tres, X and several now have said, we're all confused why several reasonable solutions have been presented but still ignored. That makes me think there are deeper issues at hand here, but of course, without knowing more, I cannot say.

I can apologise for that one. It seems people are still confused about things, but I'm not sure if it is related to what I said. I think the poll at least implies what solutions should be seen as legit, and discussed.

5. Lastly, I'm still totally confused by this situation. All I have so far is a bunch of unverified claims about a bunch of stuff. You said it yourself, Ghost: "Don't follow me, follow the evidence". Since I don't have any, either way, then I'm just gonna say that I don't know what the fuck is going on.

Well, hopefully this post has gone towards cleaning up some of this confusion?

@JT: Okay, not so much super position, but super-position or superposition. Schrodinger stuff.

 

[Jason Tandro]

@Ghost: You mean like doggy style? That's a super position.

Also, if I can offer a bit of advice - Dawn isn't asking you to apologize for holding an opinion but rather asking you to apologize for expressing your opinion in a way that - whether you intended to or not - came off as unnecessarily hostile. I don't mind you sticking to your views, you're entitled, but I feel you might be making this more than it needs to be.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

The Sub-Forum is up (though we'll still have to wait for Yop to do the magic before it is considered "running"). Additionally I've made a list of threads that're gonna be moved there, that I'd appreciate everyone checking it out.

At this point, I'd like folks to voice any opinions on things NOT to move that appear in the current list, as well as if you have any concerns about the setup of things.

http://thelifestream.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18625




X

 

[Dawnbreaker]

While I don't agree with the decision being made, I agree with the right for people to make it. If removing the Thanks from the debates section (or creating another forum where it no longer exists) is what people want, then so be it. I'm just glad that a resolution has been reached, whether it's to my liking or not.

Still, I'm disappointed that the bigger issue at hand (whatever it is) is not being dealt with, but again that's people's right. It is my opinion that band-aiding the situation simply leaves it to fester, but again, maybe I'm just not in the loop about things (god knows I've tried, though...) and it would make it worse to address it...

Lastly, to you, Ghost, if you're going to cling to semantics to avoid acknowledging your upsetting behavior, that's up to you. Just be aware that this has influenced my opinion of you.

edit: oh, yes, and basically what Jason said.

 

[Cat Rage Room]

This thread is a fine example of the fundamental limitations of democracy.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

While I don't agree with the decision being made, I agree with the right for people to make it. If removing the Thanks from the debates section is the what people want, then so be it. I'm just glad that a resolution has been reached, whether it's to my liking or not.

Also, I'm still disappointed that the bigger issue at hand (whatever it is) is not being dealt with, but again that's people's rights. It is my opinion that band-aiding the situation simply leaves it to fester, but again, maybe I'm just not in the loop about things (god knows I've tried, though...)and it would make it worse to address it...

I'm curious what you think is actually happening here, Dawn because you seem to be quite off base with what you're talking about vs. what's actually happening.

• The Debates section isn't having Thanks removed. We've made a brand new Sub-section that won't have it in place, and are discussing if there're any of the current debate threads that shouldn't be moved there.

• The main discussion of the issues with the Thanks system have determined that the majority of the forum likes the current implementation of it and so it's being left in place. Additionally, users have the capability to individually block the Thanks system, and currently we're standing at whether or not that is a viable solution to people who're bothered by it. If it's not, we'll discuss why when we get feedback.

• Other issues that stem from the potentially clique-y behaviours that can arise from a system like that are the responsibilities of the Community and the Staff to prevent, since the presence of lack of a Thanks system isn't going to change that.

There isn't a "band-aid" solution being implemented here. We've looked at the issue in 3 different capacities, and have individual solutions for them all that're (in my opinion) comprehensive and nuanced to the potential issues being discussed. If you don't think that's the case, I'd like to know why.





X

 

[Jason Tandro]

This thread is a fine example of the fundamental limitations of democracy.

To horribly misquote some guy: "Democracy is the worst form of government in the world, except all the other ones."

But seriously that's the thing that will plague humanity for all time. Is it fair to side with the majority, to cater to the minority or find a compromise which will inevitably force both to make sacrifices?

 

[Roger]

While I don't agree with the decision being made, I agree with the right for people to make it. If removing the Thanks from the debates section (or creating another forum where it no longer exists) is what people want, then so be it. I'm just glad that a resolution has been reached, whether it's to my liking or not.

Still, I'm disappointed that the bigger issue at hand (whatever it is) is not being dealt with, but again that's people's right. It is my opinion that band-aiding the situation simply leaves it to fester, but again, maybe I'm just not in the loop about things (god knows I've tried, though...) and it would make it worse to address it...

Every solution we can arrive at is gonna be compromise. I doubt the anomymous guy's problem is massively different from the arguments Claymore and Fangu (among others) brought up on the first page(s).

 

[Dawnbreaker]

@X: See my updated post. You probably didn't see it before you created your post, so that's fair. I put in brackets the part about creating a new sub-section. I still don't agree with that, either, but that's my prerogative to not have to agree with it. Doesn't mean I'll stand in the way or anything; I just don't like it.

I actually rather like that people can block Thanks for themselves and think that should be the solution used, tbh. Since people will be using it, good, but I still think that a new sub-forum without Thanks is an extreme solution that is not resolving the bigger issue. Again, my right to not like it and other people's right to want it.

The reason why I feel it's a band-aid solution is that, as several others have stated in this thread, that IF (again, I don't know if it's the case or not since all I get is "people are unhappy but we can't say why") there's more to it than a simple few folks upset with not getting Thanked, perhaps that should be addressed?

I can't say I care enough to argue this further. People in general seemed satisfied with what's being done, so that's good enough for me.

 

[Cat Rage Room]

This thread is a fine example of the fundamental limitations of democracy.

To horribly misquote some guy: "Democracy is the worst form of government in the world, except all the other ones."

But seriously that's the thing that will plague humanity for all time. Is it fair to side with the majority, to cater to the minority or find a compromise which will inevitably force both to make sacrifices?

Of course, benevolent dictatorship with variable community input (with the option for people say 'fuck it' and leave as a counterbalance to encourage the 'benevolent' part) is my favorite style of governance with concern to internet communities, and it's generally how most internet communities are run, anyway.

Too much democracy can either lead to 1. Mob rule or 2. Swinging back and forth forever with no real solution.

You have to understand I'm coming from a mindset where someone (or a group of people) makes an executive decision, and goes "This is what's happening", and if that decision turns out to be a fuckup, that party takes full responsibility and fixes that mistake.

While this way too can lead to issues, it ensures problems are dealt with quickly and efficiently, and if there's any issues afterwards, they can be retroactively dealt with just as quickly and efficiently. The community involvement in this equation comes from influencing, judging, and responding to the person/people in charge, and thus forms a symbiotic relationship where growth is assured.

Like I mentioned before, the community always has the option to 'vote with their feet', willing to leave the community and leave the leaders high and dry if they start getting shit fucked up, and thus serves as a check.

If you ask me, this is the best way to run any internet venture, especially a privately owned one, but

HEY WHO ASKED ME

 

[Starling]

About the subforum: it's probably too late to weigh in but maybe rather than moving the threads you should close them and start fresh with a new one.

 

[Jason Tandro]

I see your point, Mog. And I would argue that X sort of did that. He saw the way the people were leaning and made a decision based on it, which at the end of the day falls on him. And, in fairness to Ghost, we weren't certain anything was going to happen at all. This began as a simple discussion about whether or not a problem even existed. A turn-around time of less than 24 hours seems pretty fast to me all things considered.

Edit: Okay it's been two days, but I've only slept five hours in that time so maybe that's why it seems like one big blur.

 

[Ghost X]

JT and Dawn: That I'm being made out as the bad guy by you two is absurd. I am not the one making this a big deal, nor am I the bad guy. Anonymous participation should be welcome. Intolerance of it shouldn't be. I am the one holding the position of tolerance. Quit with the Orwellian activity. And again, if it wasn't clear the first time, I see a whole lot of irony those claiming to be in the thick-skinned crowd (implying others are thin-skinned), while having issue with what I said and saying I'm discouraging discussion (discussion of intolerant positions) by describing actions as dickish, which up til now, in this forum, was perfectly acceptable language. If your opinion of me has changed, Dawn, more power to you. You are wrong. If anything you two ought to apologise to me, but this is all just really nonsense. Get on with it.

 

[Flare]

Since there isn't an option for it in the polls, I am genuinely curious about how the folks who're bothered by the Thanks system feel about having the capability to disable it for themselves, since Octo was kind enough to show that it is a thing that can be done.

I want to know if that's a viable option for them, and if not, why not. Anonymously is fine, but I think that that's something REALLY important to know at this point, since the Thanks system in general is strongly favoured to remain in place.

Obviously, there's still the question of the Debate section trial run that exists outside of the GENERAL issues with the Thanks system, since that's a more specific thing. Even then, I think only a small handful of threads in that section even merit that, since the NEWS type threads don't seem to need a bias removal.

If anything, I think that the Debate section should have a SRS DEBATE BZNS subsection where Thanks is disabled, and we can move threads into it as needed, so that those discussions can specifically be had in a vacuum of sorts.

I think the majority of the votes made it clear that almost everyone does enjoy the Thanks system at least for the most part, so keeping it around the forum as a whole is nice. Even most of those who don't care for it in heavy debates like it elsewhere.
As far as my thoughts, the only section I've had issue with the Thanks system, as I said in my first post, is in the debate section. Everywhere else, for various reasons, I enjoy it or have no problem with it. I guess reason for that is generally politics, religion and 'social differences' are fairly big issues that can be debated quite ferociously everywhere in life. I mean damn, I know many people who have ruined friendships based on these three things if they let it, so it's no surprise that on TLS these kinds of topics are the ones in question when it comes to having issues with the Thanks system.

As for my personal thoughts about how I'd feel disabling the Thanks system altogether just for myself, well I'd honestly prefer (and am really grateful you set that thread up X ) to just have a sub-forum where topics can go in and out of that automatically has the Thanks system removed.
This is in part because, as I've stated, I enjoy the Thanks system most other places and thus don't want it disabled everywhere (and it'd be a bit of a pain since I'm not tech-savvy right now to disable it every time I want to look in a heavy debate thread). Another reason, and the biggest, is again as I stated in my first post (and Joe has said numerous times,) that a removal of Thanks in big discussion topics is more likely to encourage actual discussion. Hopefully some others who don't want to post because of Thanks will participate in more debate discussions if they really want to, and hopefully some that just usually lurk and Thank would be more willing to share a post as to why they feel the way they do, ect. Or something Point is I think it'll encourage more discussion, at least I genuinely hope so.

I mentioned it in my first post, but I personally feel better actually talking with more members in debates instead of just seeing them thank posts. Because as I've experienced, you get to know some people much better that way and realize you might actually have things in common instead of being completely separated by "I'm a liberal and you're a libertarian" or something. (As a side-note, this of course really only works if each individual is willing to debate things in a good manner and genuinely not be a dick about it, being respectful of a different opinion, actually adding something of themselves or in general to the debate, ect)
I can actually name some people I got to know better, such as Tres, Ghost, and Lex, by actually talking to them in some debates and finding out that we do have some similar viewpoints that we share. If they just thanked stuff and never talked, I'd never have gotten that opinion and respect for them.

Edit: In the time it took me to write this post, another page has been added to this thread. Holy smokes.