I've been thinking about posts that disagree with me (as I do), and two powerful arguments have been made against them.
1. "Taking points away"
A disagreeing post, particularly one that makes sense, makes "my" points seem less convincing. This is intrinsically unfair, as these are my own points. People can of course agree with my points, but shouldn't be allows to make them less effective. People can clean your car, but shouldn't set fire to it.
2. "Bad feeling"
Like it or not, being disagreed with tends to annoy me, and I often then post about it, which generally doesn't help the overall tone of the forum. Reading some threads, one could be forgiven for thinking that everyone disagrees with me, and this is a nasty place full of stupid people who don't accept my brilliance. It feels a bit too flame-y, in other words.
So, I guess what I'm asking is: what purpose does disagreeing with me serve, that's not covered by either getting a life, or shutting the heck up?
I would just like to make an announcement at this point.
I have, in the past, received positive rep from Martin Harper. Unfortunately, I can't prove it, as you can only see the last 20 or so comments. But it's true. I've probably had -ve rep too, but can't remember (which means it was either well-deserved or unimportant [shrug]).
The point is that MH, as someone else has said, actually reads the content of the posts he reps, and is brave enough to respond accordingly, where others of us can't be bothered, sometimes for the reasons Caro outlined so articulately above. Mr Harper, I salute you
Hey. a man can but dream...
In truth, I'm conflicted.
I think there are flaws in the system. Originally, the argument against them was put very strongly to me by another forumite, and I put this argument on to kickstart the discussion. I didn't say I believed fully in it, however.
In hindsight, I'd describe the system in the same way Winston Churchill described democracy - "the worst possible system, except for all the others"
I'd not want to be so judgemental; I'd say rather that it's too early to tell. Heck, even I may have posted the odd less-than-scintillating post in my early days.
Why not? You do everywhere else...
I always thought you would be a JK watcher somehow.
Why stop now, just when we're enjoying it.
Well.... It used to be Jerry, then Trisha... I have to keep up an understanding of the underclass somehow. And i was poorly for a couple of days last week, with only daytime telly to keep me amused...
Posted from carriage H, on the 20:45 from Paddington. Just pulling into Didcot
For me, negative rep is a reminder that there are people who disagree with what I think or say or have taken offence at something I have written that I have thought witty or clever.
So that's neg rep trying to understand the sender's point of view.
It is my choice whether to agree or disagree with the other person's opinion on my comment. I should always consider his/her comment but I don't have to agree with him/her. I won't get upset that a person disagrees with me and has chosen to let me know they disagree or taken offence with what I have written.
So that's neg rep from the receiver's point of view.
Arrogance expresses itself when you do not consider the other person's point of view or think he/she is automatically wrong when he/she disagrees with you.
And then they all went to bed with a nice, warm cup of Horlicks.
Oh, and I will neg rep anyone who persists in quoting the whole of someone's post in a reply without "directing" the response to the relevant part of the original post. S38, I'm on your case.
Partly going from the other thread going on outside, I do wonder if it makes sense for -ve rep to be automatically signed (or similar). It does seem strange for this to be the one area where you can do things anonymously.
One argument is that people may be 'too scared' to give -ve rep if the recipient can see who sent it. But given Silver membership allows you to see who sent you rep, even under the current system you can never be sure they won't find out. (Plus the workaround using ignore lists).
A second argument is "knowing who sent you rep is one of the 'carrots' of paying for Silver membership". But most people always sign their rep anyhow, so I'm not sure how much difference this makes. And if the "real" carrot is "knowing who sent you intentionally anonymous -ve rep", I'm a bit dubious about the morality of needing to pay for it.
If you look at the post, you'll see I was actually rather careful not to rule out that it might be too early to tell. Conversely, several 'formally respected' posters have ended up losing the plot to the point where everyone was sick of them. (Who remembers the "joy of NZ Ceroc" threads...?)I'd not want to be so judgemental; I'd say rather that it's too early to tell.
Yes! Absolutely. If you disagree enough with someone to neg rep them, then let the recipient know who you are.
Oooh. I missed that one. HarperLink anyone?Conversely, several 'formally respected' posters have ended up losing the plot to the point where everyone was sick of them. (Who remembers the "joy of NZ Ceroc" threads...?)
[QUOTE]
This is a major flaw as i have already expressed on the other thread. If you disagree with something, you should have the ability to tell them so via the rep system but not anonymously, this to me is no different to receiving hate mail in the post. AND BY THE WAY, I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY EXCEPT ONCE FROM MH - SURPRISE SURPRISE.
Blimey - can it be we've reached a consensus here? Even, dare I say it, some level of ... agreement?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks