I have made a lot of questions lately. But yet , another one is coming.

This question is a suggestion.As you can see lately , questions on meta tend to have a lot of arguments,discussion.And I usually see that the VOTE UP,VOTE DOWN button are use for standing agreements or disagreements. Which is not the purpose of those buttons. Because vote down means that the post is poor,not good. But in discussion , no one is right or wrong.Every one have their rights to express their believes or what they are thinking.

My opinion: we should create a special tag called "Community Attention"

If a question is tagged by that tag,....

  1. that question and its answers shouldn't be link to reputation change on the site.(because it hurts someone feeling to make them feel like they're wrong on trying to say what they want.)

  2. we should change the vote up , vote down into "agree" and "disagree" buttton. After a user press either of the button , the voted are then shown in a bar in percentage of agreement and disagreement and no reputation is deducted or increase from disagreement or agreement.

  3. Let the community argued in a creative way. And which one got the most "agree" vote of more than a fixed number (created by moderator), it should be the right things to do for community at that time.

I think this is a more efficient way to make our community stronger. Everyone will feel more free to share what they think than it was now , becaused of that Vote-down. To make it associate with the Stack Exchange mottos:

We aren't running it, the Community does.

Thanks for reading

I'm really looking forward to see "Community Attention" tag Xb

PS. What is the purpose for meta if you guys aren't accepting new ideas or any complaint

  • 1
    If you are worried too much about being downvoted just don't post. Nobody is forcing you into anything. – Shadow The Vaccinated Wizard Apr 6 '14 at 7:16
  • 1
    @ShadowWizard Am I worrying too much? How did you know? Or you just assumed it? Now this got -5 score and I'm not worry at all. I stil eating my lunch with pleasure. Because I already know that nobody would listen to me here . ESPECIALLY YOU – Poomrokc The 3years Apr 6 '14 at 7:27
  • @ShadowWizard look at this meta.stackexchange.com/questions/135/… and am I still the only one to take action against it? – Poomrokc The 3years Apr 6 '14 at 7:36
  • 2
    If you want to create a special tag to avoid downvotes then yes, I can assume you worry too much about downvotes. As for that post you linked to, can't see how it's related to anything you wrote. – Shadow The Vaccinated Wizard Apr 6 '14 at 7:46
  • Sorry, you're just going to get downvotes for disagreeing with anything. Or really posting much of anything here. Yeah, there have already been a lot of complaints about it. – bjb568 Apr 6 '14 at 8:04
  • 1
  • @bjb568 Thanks for information. – Poomrokc The 3years Apr 6 '14 at 8:22
  • This is probably a closer duplicate but is closed as a duplicate of the stromgly related link; separate-vote-in-favour-and-against-a-feature-request – Richard Tingle Apr 6 '14 at 8:26
  • 1
    @RichardTingle Yes It's relate. But have ANYTHING CHANGED since that post. There is no point saying that's it related or not . The point is, HAVE ANYONE TAKE ACTION AGAINST IT? Do you think marking this question as duplicate will make something better? If so , mark it. – Poomrokc The 3years Apr 6 '14 at 8:28
  • 1
    @Poomrokc that's not the way feature requests work. Ive actually got a link about that. But related doesn't mean duplicate, it means related – Richard Tingle Apr 6 '14 at 8:30
  • @RichardTingle Then what's the point of saying it? You want me to read the previous post you gave me? Yes I read it. Now what!? Can I change anything? – Poomrokc The 3years Apr 6 '14 at 8:33
  • 2
    Well in the first case anyone who supports this should probably support it as well. Also being this agressive to someone who broadly agrees with you probably isn't going to help your case – Richard Tingle Apr 6 '14 at 8:35
  • 2
    @Poomrokc let's try a different direction. What you suggest, in essence, is disabling votes on Meta. The existing Meta users, myself included, strongly disagree with this suggestion. You are free to express your objection and to request changes, nobody here is closing or deleting your post, right? But you can't expect everyone to agree or the team making changes just because you want them. – Shadow The Vaccinated Wizard Apr 6 '14 at 8:46
  • 1
    @ShadowWizard Allright You're right , I'm wrong – Poomrokc The 3years Apr 6 '14 at 8:47

Meta sites are a little different, and Meta.SO is different among Meta sites as well. The entire point of Meta sites is discussion and generally up/down votes on Meta sites actually are used for agreement and disagreement with a post, so this is not unintended behavior.

As for the idea of a tag that allows it to be divorced from reputation, this is already implemented, but not as a tag. Community Wiki posts are posts that do not give (or take) reputation for the asker or the answerers.

While it won't help for questions, you can actually make your own answers as community wiki by clicking the community wiki check box. This will post the answer as community wiki and no reputation gain or loss will be associated with it. It does also, however, release all control of the answer to the community.

  • Doesn't that only make the answer community wiki? – Qantas 94 Heavy Apr 6 '14 at 7:06
  • While I agree with the ideas, -1 for posting wrong information. Rare case in Meta, it kind of proves a point. – Shadow The Vaccinated Wizard Apr 6 '14 at 7:15
  • @ShadowWizard - After doing some additional testing, it does appear my initial test was flawed because I did it on a site where I had moderator powers (I wanted to make sure I'd be able to clean it up.) Repeating the test shows that it was incorrect, so I have updated my answer accordingly. Thanks for speaking up. – AJ Henderson Apr 6 '14 at 8:12
  • Cheers, moderators should really have "mortal mode". ;) – Shadow The Vaccinated Wizard Apr 6 '14 at 8:24
  • @shadowWizard agreed, there are times I seriously consider making a test user for trying things as a low rep user. – AJ Henderson Apr 6 '14 at 14:51

I like the point you are trying to make here and the purpose for your post. However, there is functionality that allows this type of discussion without effecting rep which I will try to make clear by then of this post. But first...

And I usually see that the VOTE UP,VOTE DOWN button are use for standing agreements or disagreements. Which is not the purpose of those buttons.

Actually, that is what they mean on meta instead of if the post has been researched and well-formed, at least that's what people say. Now, I know somewhere I saw that this only applies to the tag but people seem to use this reasoning for all or most tags. I will have to find where I saw that and edit with a link.

But in discussion , no one is right or wrong.Every one have their rights to express their believes or what they are thinking.

Absolutely correct! But, this goes back to the previous point that, if the buttons do indicate agreement/disagreement, then they are not saying that you are right or wrong but that they agree/disagree with your suggestion, point being made, etc...

Now, on to the mechanism for sharing "freely"

Chat...This is the perfect place for this (depending on the room I suppose). But we do this in the Android room. We bounce ideas like this that we have occasionally to see what others think. This allows us to talk through it with someone else before posting. Then we can make our own informed decision on if we think it is worth posting.

How this could be a problem

is that if we let people post things using a certain tag with no possible consequences is that we may get very very bad discussions and a lot of them which could be a pain for everyone. The rep system not only awards people for good questions but also discourages bad ones. We want to make sure that people are searching to see if there idea has been asked and handled before and to make sure that they are thinking them through thoroughly.

  • Chat isn't a bad idea, though there isn't a chat room that really readily polls the entire SE community. – AJ Henderson Apr 6 '14 at 6:08
  • @AJHenderson no there isn't that I know of but I'm sure there are chats where people hang out that are avid users of meta which would seem like a good place to bounce these ideas around before posting hence, possibly avoiding some dreaded downvotes. But it is a good place, as I explained, to see at least what some other opinions are on the topic before posting. – codeMagic Apr 6 '14 at 6:11
  • Yeah, agreed. And I didn't think about the fact that Meta.SO does have it's own chat room since it is set up as it's own SE site. SO I suppose Meta's Tavern might work. – AJ Henderson Apr 6 '14 at 6:15
  • @codeMagic But chats are accessible by smaller group of people. If a chat room has an agreement of something , how to make it affect the site? They must post a question like me? And got a bigger group of people to make the same arguement agian. I just to mean that questions are accesscible through all users, while chatroom contain only small group of peoplae. If you could understand me – Poomrokc The 3years Apr 6 '14 at 6:17
  • @PoomrokcThe3years - yeah, but if you flush out the details of the idea with a small group familiar with what the community likes first, it is more likely to get a good reception in the larger group. Meta.SO has its own culture and you tend to get the best responses if you can work within that. Talking it over with a small group first can help you learn how the community looks at things. – AJ Henderson Apr 6 '14 at 6:21
  • @PoomrokcThe3years what AJ Henderson commented is what I was trying to get at. No, you won't reach a "large" amount of people (possibly) but it is a place for these types of discussions. See my edit as to why this might not be a great idea. – codeMagic Apr 6 '14 at 6:24
  • @codeMagic you're right. Maybe I'm just too narrow minded – Poomrokc The 3years Apr 6 '14 at 6:25
  • @PoomrokcThe3years I'm not saying you are narrow minded. I'm just suggesting that there are things in place for this and why doing something like this might not be a great idea. Your reasons for wanting something like this are good I'm just not sure how practical it would be at this point. – codeMagic Apr 6 '14 at 6:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .