Thanks System Referendum.

[Ghost X]

I am still waiting on hearing more specifics about the other specific issues being felt. *So far I've personally (not publicly) heard from a SINGLE member that I've looked into directly with the staff, and no one else's offered any sort of examples that I can look at for the rest of the imbalances that are apparently being felt by some of the member base. That's not enough for me to build a case on for attempting to moderate action or suggest a solution.

@X: I'm not sure if you're referring to me, nor am I entirely sure what you are saying in this paragraph (), but I think I should clarify one detail just in case: All current members that I (me, personally, as an individual) am aware of who had issues with the thanks system have all now given input.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

I am still waiting on hearing more specifics about the other specific issues being felt. *So far I've personally (not publicly) heard from a SINGLE member that I've looked into directly with the staff, and no one else's offered any sort of examples that I can look at for the rest of the imbalances that are apparently being felt by some of the member base. That's not enough for me to build a case on for attempting to moderate action or suggest a solution.

@X: I'm not sure if you're referring to me, nor am I entirely sure what you are saying in this paragraph (), but I think I should clarify one detail just in case: All current members that I (me, personally, as an individual) am aware of who had issues with the thanks system have all now given input.

Input, yes. Examples… ?

I know how people feel about things, and that we basically all think there're probably other underlying issues at this point, but without examples (like what the Presidential Debate thread is for the Blind Debate forum), there isn't any real data to look at as a contextual reference to DO something about it. I want to DO something about it, but I can't without specifics.




X

 

[Ghost X]

I think the "ganged up upon" examples are fairly self evident, if you have minority opinion in the debate section, that's the perception some choose to take. There are other perceptions that could be taken, which might alleviate the pressure, but sometimes emotions come before reason .

I personally don't think anything can or should be done about the "ganged up upon" issue beyond what already has been done. Removing the thanks system basically removes the argument from popularity fallacy. Even in some public debates, audiences are discouraged from clapping. Really, what does it add? People clapping at the idea I have a large green spot on my palm doesn't mean there is a large green spot on my palm.

I don't think there is problematic behaviour otherwise. There should be no restrictions on multiple people posting against a minority opinion, for example. If people (including minorities) are still uncomfortable sharing their views in the usually quite-civil debate section, especially when it is civil, I think the "deeper issue" is something they need to personally investigate with themselves, and isn't the forum's responsibility.

Off the top of my head, people who don't like debating in a civil environment come under at least four categories: those who don't like the scrutiny of their ideas, those who realise their ideas are found wanting and don't like the humiliation, those who feel their opponents are arguing dishonestly, or those who feel like they're talking to a brick wall. There are solutions to all these issues, and none are really the forum's responsibility (except if trolling is involved, etc ).

As for examples of cliquey-ness, I don't think there is much cliquey-ness on the forum beyond reason. Of course there are folks here who interact with some more than others, and I would bet all my money that the stats on how thanks are distributed similarly reflect this behaviour that can't be accounted for by other things (eg: being the last post of a page will probably get you less thanks, etc).

Anyway, according to the poll, people don't want to remove the thanks system to make the forum less intimidating for new folk, and others. That was my proposed solution, but the people have spoken, and I don't think there are any other solutions that would make members more welcome without "forcing people to be friends", and as I said here or elsewhere, that is not what I want happening . That includes being extra-friendly to new folk. I don't want people to do that. People should do what comes naturally .

If you ask me, this thread has outlived its productivity, but that is just my opinion. I'm not being dismissive .

 

[X-SOLDIER]

I think the "ganged up upon" examples are fairly self evident, if you have minority opinion in the debate section, that's the perception some choose to take. There are other perceptions that could be taken, which might alleviate the pressure, but sometimes emotions come before reason .

I personally don't think anything can or should be done about the "ganged up upon" issue beyond what already has been done. Removing the thanks system basically removes the argument from popularity fallacy. Even in some public debates, audiences are discouraged from clapping. Really, what does it add? People clapping at the idea I have a large green spot on my palm doesn't mean there is a large green spot on my palm.

This was my thinking in doing the Blind Debate trial, since in that slightly more restricted form you're basically now JUST engaging with people who will converse with you on X topic, and not the silent support of people who're only passively involved with the topic directly. (i.e. a situation goes from you talking to someone with a crowd of yes-men, to you talking to one or a few other people who specifically address you).

– Plus, It's not like we can ensure that everyone gets assigned a devil's advocate team of other members to make everything equal, because that's just not realistic, so we implemented a realistic option to deal with a specific type of thread/conversation.

I don't think there is problematic behaviour otherwise. There should be no restrictions on multiple people posting against a minority opinion, for example. If people (including minorities) are still uncomfortable sharing their views in the usually quite-civil debate section, especially when it is civil, I think the "deeper issue" is something they need to personally investigate with themselves, and isn't the forum's responsibility.

Off the top of my head, people who don't like debating in a civil environment come under at least four categories: those who don't like the scrutiny of their ideas, those who realise their ideas are found wanting and don't like the humiliation, those who feel their opponents are arguing dishonestly, or those who feel like they're talking to a brick wall. There are solutions to all these issues, and none are really the forum's responsibility (except if trolling is involved, etc ).

As for examples cliquey-ness, I don't think there is much cliquey-ness on the forum beyond reason. Of course there are folks here who interact with some more than others, and I would bet all my money that the stats on how thanks are distributed similarly reflect this behaviour that can't be accounted for by other things (eg: being the last post of a page will probably get you less thanks, etc).

True, my main concern is ensuring that we're cognizant of that being a thing such that we aren't coming off as being exclusionary, especially towards newer members. (Hence my specific push for specific examples).

Anyway, according to the poll, people don't want to remove the thanks system to make the forum less intimidating for new folk, and others. That was my proposed solution, but the people have spoken, and I don't think there are any other solutions that would make members more welcome without "forcing people to be friends", and as I said here or elsewhere, that is not what I want happening . That includes being extra-friendly to new folk. I don't want people to do that. People should do what comes naturally .

If you ask me, this thread has outlived its productivity, but that is just my opinion. I'm not being dismissive .

Hopefully the available options here work for everyone to address the issues being had (i.e. you can hide Thanks if you hate it, and try debating without it), and if there're still other things that need addressing, they'll be brought up with us directly so that we can determine if they're a specific or systemic issue and handle it accordingly.

Thanks for the feedback, Ghost!




X

 

[Channy]

I don't know if this applies to anyone else (but may to some?) but I don't frequent the Debate section because I often know dick-all about the topic at hand. Presidency? Nope. Gun control? Nuh uh. Poor people? Shrug.

Not to say that I'm either oblivious, but rather self-admittedly ignorant to a lot of these things and outside the realm of the thinking circle of my brain and I often don't feel smart enough to join in the topics.

I think there's been maybe, the odd topic or two I stuck my toes in but nothing that I'm confident in that I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Geostigma]

I don't know if this applies to anyone else (but may to some?) but I don't frequent the Debate section because I often know dick-all about the topic at hand. Presidency? Nope. Gun control? Nuh uh. Poor people? Shrug.

Not to say that I'm either oblivious, but rather self-admittedly ignorant to a lot of these things and outside the realm of the thinking circle of my brain and I often don't feel smart enough to join in the topics.

I think there's been maybe, the odd topic or two I stuck my toes in but nothing that I'm confident in that I know what I'm talking about.

Same.

I do like browsing and reading it though. That's why I like thanks in it because the few posts I have liked in there have taught me something or opened my eyes a bit I guess. So I thanked the posts

 

[Jason Tandro]

IS it too late to change the name of the Blind Debate forum to "Thanks, But No Thanks?"

 

[Channy]

Do it, do it now or there will be mutiny on the board.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

IS it too late to change the name of the Blind Debate forum to "Thanks, But No Thanks?"

This is especially funny because earlier, I was musing to myself that if we were to ever implement a "Dislike" button on TLS, it should be called, "Thanks, But No Thanks"




Also - Insofar as all you other folks who enjoyed showing appreciation to poasts, but aren't often in the debates themselves, I totally get ya. I learn a lot from those threads, too – but I think that the advantages for the people doing all the tl;dr-ing in those situations makes it worth giving them a way to do so in more of a vacuum for certain topics.

This is also why I left it open to the idea of topics that necessitated it, or whose primary participants preferred it, and any of those topics can hop on out when they wish (should both parties agree to doing so).

Again, there isn't a picture perfect way ta do it, but if a poast is exceptionally great justice and you have a need to Thanks them, there're always visitor messages, or you can find something small to add, like "Hey thanks for this. Now I have a way to explain ____ to people when it comes up in conversation."




X

 

[Cthulhu]

The anti-thanks should be something passive-aggressive or double-speaky like that, yeah, . like a sarcasThanks. Thanks!.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Oh my science, I had TOTALLY forgotten that we'd implemented a sarcasm tag for fonts. HOW DID I FORGET THIS!??!




X

 

[Cthulhu]

because IMO it doesn't actually convey sarcasm that much, . I think the internets at large settled on using \s or something.