Timeline for Why is there rep on Meta?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 8, 2017 at 21:20 | history | edited | peterh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Apr 8, 2017 at 17:44 | comment | added | Jason C | @peterh Unfortunately, I am afraid I do not understand what you are trying to say. The CAD proposal was attempted 3 times. It can be attempted again, and again, and again, if you (or anybody) would like, but I simply give up, that's all. However, we have strayed far from the topic at hand. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 17:38 | comment | added | peterh | @JasonC The SE slowly, but continuously grows since its start, despite that a51 seems a lowprio thing for the SE, I don't think anything would be a closed thing there. The main problem with it that they delete the failed proposals, they do this with the explicit intent to harden their restart, but it can be easily solved by archive.org or by saving them in time. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 17:31 | comment | added | Jason C | (And no you would not get suspended for "comment flag overusing". I myself frequently will raise many comment flags on NC discussions if I feel a finer level of flagging granularity is required over simply flagging an entire post and requesting a mass comment cleanup. Comment flags are fine, flag away. It's probably easier for you to just flag a whole post though, just in terms of amount of times you have to click. That said, often times I'll flag nothing if I feel a clean-up isn't worth it / the comments or post is ultimately doomed anyways. Case-by-case.) | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 17:29 | comment | added | Jason C | @peterh Of course I read into tone. Because in this case what he's asked has been asked before in a much more civil way. It might have been a different outcome had this been a new conversation. But I reasonably (I believe) demand a certain level of civil discourse, and I have no sympathy for folks with a clearly demonstrated sense of entitlement in cases like this. If the conversation has been had a dozen times before, yeah, you better bring it up in a civil way. There's no reason whatsoever to entertain this conversation in a non-constructive manner when constructive versions of it exist. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 17:24 | comment | added | peterh | @JasonC If I had to vote the tones what I've got here, the mods had to suspend me for commentflag overusing. No, if you measure yourself on the same scale, as you measure his posts, voting down for suspected secondary meanings, "poor tone" and similar, instead of simply interpreting what he asks, how can you read through on a comment flame of our most beloved verbal piranhas? | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 17:16 | comment | added | Jason C | @peterh All of them are heavily ranty. You may just have trouble identifying rants. He asks interesting questions, overlaid with a very poor tone and exceedingly non-constructive comments (e.g. how he Godwinned his own post in the comments above -- not a winning strategy). For a prime example, look at this post here compared to the linked duplicate. (PS I restarted CAD already once before, I officially declare myself defeated on those proposals, heh. It's very disappointing.) | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 17:12 | comment | added | peterh | @JasonC "Ranting" is only a label. Typically I've faced this word in situations as people didn't have a single meaningful argument but they wanted to criticize. Check his posts - all of them is without rants, he mostly asks naive, interesting questions. Despite that, he collects only downs, downs, downs. This has to be fixed, fortunately there is a way to resist, and we do. Btw, "dammit" I had supported your a51 proposals if I had seen them. Restart them. I'll be back on a51 in around 6 months. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 16:11 | comment | added | Jason C | @KyloRen Don't kid yourself. Your freedom is not why people "hate" your "opinions". Your inability to express a thought without ranting and your sense of entitlement combined with total lack of grasp of a bigger picture or any sense of empathy is more likely the reason. Your opinions on their own are fine, but you turn away even people that otherwise agree with you. Any poor reception you receive is on you, and until you take responsibility for that you can expect more of the same. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 14:45 | comment | added | peterh | @M.A.R. The "us" vs. "them" attitude is an unavoidable result after the massive oppression what we experience here. Your second statement is unclear to me - I think Shog's task in the SE is to produce a nice atmosphere for productive, HQ posters, if you post good content on the main sites, you actually elevate his stats, and worst misuses aren't coming from the CMs, rather from the inner circles of old site members. I don't understand what you try to explain. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 14:31 | comment | added | M.A.R. | There's this "us vs. them" attitude all over this post, and you're assuming that if I agree with, say, what Shog9 says, I'm trying to appeal to him? That's utterly ridiculous. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 14:24 | vote | accept | KyloRen | ||
| Dec 3, 2019 at 12:14 | |||||
| Apr 8, 2017 at 14:20 | comment | added | KyloRen | @peterh, been there done that, suspended many times. I am free, that is why people hate my opinions. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 14:18 | comment | added | peterh | @KyloRen I know it, and I know what I am doing. If you want to help, make a high rep (at least 200) on any of the SE sites and then join me here. The rule is very simple: share your opinions, what you've found here and on the SE sites, and do this by completely ignoring the votes. Simply be free, resist the psychological pressure of the vote counts, be yourself. Many will hate you for that, you will get sometimes suspensions, many will commit every possible to always "misunderstand" your posts on the possible worst ways - but you will be a free spirit and you wil be an example for all. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 14:12 | comment | added | peterh | @DanBrown I never understood, what drives them - the SE doesn't want this from them, the SE only wants good posts from them (on the main site). I think they have same internal, conscient or nonconscient suspiction, that doing this, "the system" will later somehow reward it for them. I try to explain them, that it is completely false, there is no "system", there is only a site which makes fun by writing posts and reading others, that is all. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 14:10 | comment | added | peterh | @DanBrown With 400 ups and 200 downs also I don't think you would be so bad. Check the vote stats of others, their up/down ratio shows a lot. On the meta talks I've found in many cases this phenomenon, this highly antidemocratic psychological stance, that people try to continuously demostrate their loyalty to the power ("community", mods, SE, anything). These people also tend to fight against differing opinions until the last shot. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 13:58 | history | edited | peterh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Apr 8, 2017 at 13:55 | comment | added | KyloRen | I really appreciate you opinion, but you are really being penalized for it. I am going to UV , as I hate this system. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 13:54 | comment | added | Dan Bron | Personally, I have no inner urge to show loyalty to any higher powers here, whoever they may be. I vote my conscience. I cannot see how you can say electing a politician using this system is democratic but voting on proposals on SE is undemocratic. Yes, there is a bandwagon effect which distorts things, and that is not applicable to secret ballots in political elections. But then voting here, while not secret, is anonymous, so you can't "show yourself as loyal" by voting. No, minority views are simply minority views, and that's reflected in the small number of votes for them. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 13:52 | comment | added | peterh | @DanBrown Thanks - as you can see in my posts, I don't really take care the downs. I get far enough ups to balance them, and I think this is exactly what this community needs. Simply people wanting to do against this single-tone model. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 13:50 | comment | added | peterh | @DanBrown The problem with it leads to a self-strenghtening effect: as the minority views are continuously expelled, the community focuses to a more single tone. It also increases its sensitivity to the lesser "uncommon" views. The result is an inbred community which oppresses any "deviance" always with the most harsh measures, full with people seeing any free expression as a deviation. Yes, in theory it is still democratic - but in practice, if you don't have some internal urge to always show your loyalty to the actual higher powers, they guarantee for you to not feel yourself well here. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 13:43 | history | edited | peterh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 22 characters in body
|
| Apr 8, 2017 at 13:43 | comment | added | Dan Bron | I just don't think describing anything about the SE model as "undemocratic" is a fair or accurate characterization. People ar voting for what they like, and voting against what they don't like. Is it an "unfair oppression" or "antidemocratic" in a political election if the candidate who most people voted for gets into office, and the candidate only a few people voted for and most people dislike does not win? Now, democracy has its own risks, including the risk of "rule by the mob", to the detriment of minority's, but that's a recognized problem of democracy, not SE. SE is democratic. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 13:38 | comment | added | peterh | @DanBrown As I explained, not this is antidemocratic. Giving vote for everybody is actually an useful form of the self-expression. What I complained about, if these votes are tuned to oppress minority opinions. Unfortunately, it is a quite common phenomenon on the site metas, and on a lesser form also here. I don't think it would be the fault of the system - simply we have such a community. Actually, if you have a nonmainstream opinion, you are in the continuous risk of downvoted to the hell. I think it is bad, so I communicate here ignoring the votes. | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 13:35 | history | edited | peterh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 357 characters in body
|
| Apr 8, 2017 at 13:30 | comment | added | Dan Bron | How is giving literally everyone a vote "anti democratic"? | |
| Apr 8, 2017 at 13:29 | history | edited | peterh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 410 characters in body
|
| Apr 8, 2017 at 13:20 | history | answered | peterh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |