New feature: Vote comments up/down

I don't think marking likes/dislikes is a problem, but I'd rather have them in the order they were posted, at least as an option.

Yeah, this isn't like reddit where the most popular comments will appear first in the thread, is it? It's just about gauging their popularity right?

No, all this does is display the number of up and down votes under the comment. It doesn't change the order.

Edit: testing if this messes with the votes

i like that it has up and down displayed separately, rather than trying to add the two up like some sites do.

are ups/downs preserved if a comment is edited?

Good question. I just edited my comment above and it didn't affect the ups/downs, so looks like it's ok.

you can vote a comment up AND down if you want, weird...

Don't call it 'up/down' then. Have it as 'likes' or 'useful' or summat.

in the new theme, we might be able to replace the words with icons of thumbs up/thumbs down or something. Basically if the concept works and people make use of it we can tweak it later, and then maybe add further functionality.

I've just voted everybody down :twisted: :bb: :twisted: :bb:

Now I'll see if I can vote me up :groucho:

Edit: yes I can!

Edit again: not that I'm competitive or anyfink

Can vote twice, that ok? (edit: can't any more. could have been that by the time i clicked 'upped (1)' on someone's post, 2 other people voted up?)

Are votes anonymous (to end users at least)?

I#m ambivalent and have thus voted both ways.

I have voted everyone DOWN

Yeah, I think this function will be useful for casual browsers to be able to distinguish between the type of thing the site supports and that which it doesn't. For example, some people have complained about sexism on the site, and when asked examples of this they have pointed out threads which were started by newbies who were then heavily slagged off or even banned by regular users and administrators. This up/down voting should enable casual readers to be able to see what kind of comment/behaviour is really part of the ethos of the site and what is not.

So please do use the votes to indicate which posts you agree with and which you did not. And also of course please do respond to comments you agree/disagree with to let us know what you think and why.

why can't you vote up or down the original post in a thread?

I can already see the shitstorms.

Railyon wrote:
I can already see the shitstorms.

[youtube]3eASOI_4-ww[/youtube] :D
PS. Fuck you Serge, I just voted you down!!! :p [youtube]0Kz7YUdy-Cg[/youtube] Love you really!

Just don't turn libcom into Facebook please.

Might be an interesting feature. The only worry I have is that it might encourage sniping or the type of ganging up "bullying" sort of competitive culture of many areas of the internet. Although this is a much better type of feedback (the up or downs) for constructive conversation than telling someone they are "fucking stupid", haha.

888

why can't you vote up or down the original post in a thread?

yeah, TBH I think this would be good. It would at least give an indicator of how much we agree with whatever article was posted. Although we wouldn't want people who had contributed content they had put time and effort into having people casually vote it down if they disagreed with some of it. That might discourage people from posting content again, so maybe we should steer clear of it. Although maybe we should at least try it first to see what happens

You can bookmark original posts, which is pretty much a 'like' button already. I think it's better people discuss why they don't like a post rather than just clicking a 'dislike' button though, so i think it makes sense to treat nodes (original posts) and comments differently.

Dear god this is fucking stupid.

wojtek

PS. Fuck you Serge, I just voted you down!!! :P

I've got the most 'down' votes now, which means you all walked into my trap and I win!!!

I even voted you up for voting me down :wall:

Please do not do this! Why on earth do you want to take Libcom down some kind of populist road?

This makes me want to go through all the old discussions to vote different comments up and down…

Actually we've got something similar to this on the AF internal forums. The main difference there though is, you can actually see who voted you up or down... and so, if you're a grudgebearer, you can batter them next time you see them at a national meeting :bb:

KriegPhilosophy

Dear god this is fucking stupid.
Downed (4)

It's already working.

I haven't tired reloading the page but if I click the up/down button again it undoes my vote.

I don't know if I entirely approve yet. I worry it might dissuade people from joining discussions by giving them a too-easy option of 'upping' or 'downing' rather than coming up with a response. Just a thought.

It looks crap, it doesn't work (you can vote both ways on same post), it adds additional 'noise' to posts. Please get rid of it.

Expect more comments like that after the redesign. Then in a year's time ask them what it used to look like...

I'm unsure of this cos there have been times where Libcom has been needed to be told it's full of it and this seems like it could be an easy tool for intimidating people into not doign that. You do kinda need people to say unpopular thigns at times.

On the other hand, I accept that it's here to stay, so I'm just gonna vote down on the annoying people on here.

For people who are criticising this, I have already mentioned but a major motivator for us doing this is the recent "macho posting on libcom" thread, and feedback we have received from female comrades in particular who feel that for whatever reason the atmosphere here discourages their input.

As us admins cannot read every comment immediately, nor respond to every reported post immediately, this measure should hopefully enable us to automatically flag up offensive or discriminatory comments immediately to let casual readers know that certain types of views are not reflective of this website or its users as a whole. And so should hopefully make it more welcoming.

Now, if it becomes clear that it is not having this effect, then we can withdraw it, but it is worth trying first. So we will be trying it out for a period of time to see what effect it has. We appreciate that some people may not like it, but we feel that we have to give it a go and assess how it actually works in practice.

How do I bookmark an article?

Click the word "bookmark" under it. It adds it to your list of bookmarked articles in your account

And prizes for the most popular?

Will be a boon to those who want to easily categorise certain views as 'the libcom line'

Steven.

For people who are criticising this, I have already mentioned but a major motivator for us doing this is the recent "macho posting on libcom" thread, and feedback we have received from female comrades in particular who feel that for whatever reason the atmosphere here discourages their input.

As us admins cannot read every comment immediately, nor respond to every reported post immediately, this measure should hopefully enable us to automatically flag up offensive or discriminatory comments immediately to let casual readers know that certain types of views are not reflective of this website or its users as a whole. And so should hopefully make it more welcoming.

Now, if it becomes clear that it is not having this effect, then we can withdraw it, but it is worth trying first. So we will be trying it out for a period of time to see what effect it has. We appreciate that some people may not like it, but we feel that we have to give it a go and assess how it actually works in practice.

Fair enough, but it at least needs to be working before it's piloted, otherwise how do you tell if it was actually useful...?

Armchair Anarchist

Fair enough, but it at least needs to be working before it's piloted, otherwise how do you tell if it was actually useful...?

Seems to be working perfectly fine, no? You click once and your 'vote' is registered, if you click a second time it's removed. If you click both up and down, that could express that you have strong mixed feelings.

Armchair, the way this module works does allow you to both wrote something up and down, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work. We plan to have a look at how much the feature gets used, and what kind of up/down ratios posts get so we can work out thresholds for potentially automatically reporting/hiding or promoting popular comments, etc

I'm just marking everything down at the minute.

Steven.

Click the word "bookmark" under it. It adds it to your list of bookmarked articles in your account

Ha! 4 and half years on libcom and I never noticed that before :oops:

dislike

Pretty much. I could just about tolerate 'like', though again, i don't really see the point beyond a shallow gesture.

I just like reading the stuff people post; it's worked so far.

like is a fucking stupid idea, what do you do when some one posts something usefull/interesting about something shit happening?

and not have an option for people for people who disagree? yes lets just pretend everyone gets along and doest have an opinion if they aren't posting.

Fwiw, the only usage I've observed of this kind of thing is on revleft, where you can be named under someone's post as 'thanking' them for it - and where the various politico factions/cliques tended to kind of smugly bloc vote 'thanks' for each others' posts; which puts another angle on debates. Maybe that was mainly the maoists though, as I have only argued at length on there with those poor deluded souls.

But this seems a pretty banal form of offered 'participation'. As for 'defining the ethos of the site' that would depend - like most democratic procedures - on how many users/lurkers/casual visitors bother to 'exercise their right to vote', and how often, so wouldn't necessarily be very 'representative' at all. And if the ethos can't be seen from the actual content of users' posts - or from using the site by engaging in debate - then it surely won't be divined from this. In the context of an ongoing debate it implies the spectators' scoring of approval/disapproval, winners/losers etc. And how about giving the 'democratic' option for users not to be scored/voted on?! Reducing the expression of opinion and approval to mouse clicks introduces a competitive and majoritarian angle that seems a bit pointless.

revol

I was about to up vote this comment until the irony dawned on me. ;)

The Pavlovian admins are conditioning us already. Woof.

of course it's me fucking around, the whole thing's stupid so DOWN they all get including you, even though i agree with you

i downed sooooo much on this!

i think revol68 et al make some serious points.

i'd still welcome non-anonymous likes/ups though.

I liked that this was being experimented with, I hate posting and there are some insulting, meaningless posts that don't even deserve a polite response. Don't let me get in the way of all the constant posters saying that no one would like this, though...

revol68

see already you can see votes down and yet no argument offered as to why, now there's a good chance it's choccy fucking about but can you not see how this kind of thing leads to ill feeling and most likely create a more aggressive/defensive mood on the boards?

like I said earlier I'm not happy about up and down voting in general but am especially opposed to down voting. afterall it's one thing to quickly click a "like" button, it's kinda the lazy version of "good post" or "I seconded" but down voting means you are disagreeing and so you should make your case why and you certainly shouldn't be able to do it anonymously.

FULL [s]COMMUNISM[/s] AGREEMENT

Cause x like you are all talk, x. This is exactly what I was talking about, I like to read discussion with a point that goes somewhere. Not have some x try to score a point off me.

admin: no flaming - and the flaming here was particularly ironic considering the point trying to be made…

You hate posting? The what are you doing on a forum?

A bulletin board designed to encourage those who don't like discussion, hilarious.

Here's a perfect example. There are many people who post on messageboards that don't seem to have any interest in what other people say, that don't even read the whole thread before they put their two cents in. Most of your (way too many) insights on this this thread, Revol, have been speaking for people like me who don't like to post and making light of it I have been reading your commentary for years and it's one of the reason I don't like to ever give my opinion on anything. Your style of discussion is disgusting and I hate it, most peoples manners on the internet are something they would never have the gall to replicate in everyday life. If everyone posted like Devrim, who is always unfailingly polite, then it would be.different. Until then, I appreciate being able to tick off that I don't like your style or the slander and empty rhetoric that it stands upon without having you try to play it off like a joke or turn it around on me.

What does "fair" have to do with anything?

As others have said, I think this voting comments up/down system is a tad lazy and discourages people from articulating what they think, I know it's dissuaded me from doing so just now on a different thread.

I have decided that I hate the new quasi facebook feature.

why cant we have a system that allows us to administer low level electric shocks to people who post stuff we don't like?

Jason Cortez

why cant we have a system that allows us to administer low level electric shocks to people who post stuff we don't like?

Low level electric shocks FTW!

Instead of this voting daftness. I suggest that when someone quotes your posts, you are notified by a pm/alert. This will keep debates going along nicely. Don't know how hard this would be to implement as my programming knowledge is non existent.

hopefully its achievable.

I know that you're working on a new site design, so perhaps my request will be resolved during that process. The comment options (reply/report/up/down/quote) are a bit confusing, especially with the up/down voting I could miss and hit for the comment above the actual comment I'd like to vote for. Can you make the comment option bit visually more linked to the comment it self? Some basic coloring in the css like tab would do the trick.

The only use I can see for this is UP as a means of acknowledging a poster who makes a post which states the case completely and clearly for everyone, rather than posting "This" or "Well said" or whatever.

If you agree but can expand or clarify, that requires a post.

If you disagree, that requires a post. [or admin action if the disagreement is about something that is not really debatable i.e. abuse etc]

THE END.

Epilogue
It would be strange if a discussion forum hosted only those views which were the consensus or mainstream. One of the points of discussion is to achieve some kind of consensus, and a forum is where that takes place. I would expect the historical posts on a forum to represent (many instances of) a process of discussion which leads somewhere. By definition, then, the forum will contain views which are not representative of a consensus (as it documents the process of achieving such).

To assume that any one post on a forum is representative of the site's consensus is idiotic. Therefore to seek to highlight those posts which are not representative, just in case the reader thinks they were, is to assume that the reader is an idiot!

Hello.

I’ve been reading the site for a while but have yet to post because I dislike the aggressive/ macho tone of much of the discussions. I’ve read this blog and comments with interest, and as far as I can tell the new vote up/down looks like a good addition.

On many occasions I’ve found the substance of a discussion really interesting, but have not got involved because of the aggressive tone of some of the posters. If other ‘lurkers’ feel this way then the up/down vote will allow that to be expressed - and will mean I for one will be more likely to get involved in a discussion, knowing that some people (silent as they may be) have my back if the discussion gets aggro. Basically it will be good to know that while individual posters may act like dicks, the group as a whole at least recognises this.

Disappointingly (but predictably) the comments under this blog are by the usual suspects, and are exactly what I’d expect from people who like to dominate discussions.

Seen as revol68 has the most to say about this I thought I’d engage fully with his concerns, so below is my argument for the up/down votes.

revol68

a vote down option is hardly more likely to encourage shy or nervous posters from posting their thoughts

Because a shy and retiring poster such as yourself would know exactly how they feel?
I disagree, for the reasons given above.

revol68

That's before we even get into the whole post modernist crap of pseudo accountability and feed back.

It would give an impression of what users thought was unacceptable posting behaviour, yes.

revol68

an opinion backed up with nothing more than a click is worthless.If you disagree with something enough you should post why, not click a button

If you agree with someone but have nothing to add to what they’ve said, an up vote does this perfectly well.

If you think someone is being unreasonable, bullying, macho etc, then by voting them down you can express that without the unreasonable macho bully shouting you down. Being able to show you dislike bullying is not “worthless”, and being able to do so without then being subsequently bullied for it is important.

revol68

If people are put off posting for whatever reason we should seek to address that

Agreed. And this feature is a step in that direction.

I am put off posting by posters having massive tantrums and shouting down everyone who disagrees with them. I am put off by regular posters immediately dismissing changes that intend to encourage new users (e.g. such as the emphasising of the posting guidelines a short time ago) as being bad or populist.

Frankly I also find it depressing that so-called revolutionaries are so terrified of a minor change to a website. And rather amusing that it’s “populist” to take on board widespread criticisms but also: “wah wah wah, I don’t like it, why won’t the admins listen to ME?!”.

revol68

If you can't be bothered enough to articulate why you think something then I'm afraid your opinion is next to worthless

If there’s a debate and I disagree with an opinion, then voting down is pretty pointless as it doesn’t offer an alternative. However, if I think what someone has said is unacceptable for its tone, e.g. if the poster is being macho/aggressive, then voting it down is far from worthless. For one, it allows me to express this without getting into an unpleasant argument with an aggressive poster. And more importantly, if several posters vote it down it demonstrates to any lurkers that, while one poster might be a dick, in general the users of libcom do not believe that this behaviour is acceptable. Which will help change the atmosphere/impression of libcom as being a macho and unwelcoming place. Which will encourage more people to give it a chance. Which will widen participation in discussion.

revol68

A voting up and down system as a means of alleviating a perceived culture of macho one up manship and encouraging a wider range of voices to be heard?

Vote up = I agree with this post
Vote down = I think this post is unhelpful/ unpleasant

God yes, how terribly macho. It’s so much better to post 12 times on one thread shouting loudly how everyone else is wrong. That’s much more conducive to discussion.

Btw, while voting up/down might not be ‘getting involved’ in a discussion, posting 12 times on one thread is about the same as shouting in someone’s face. Hardly discursive. And a hell of a lot more macho than a simple up/down vote.

revol68

also this kind of anonymous superficial "interaction" is everything communism rejects and sits perfectly well with the consumerist logic of capitalism.

I’m mainly quoting this because it’s hilarious. So, moving on...

revol68

it just produces another layer of interpersonal bullshit that gets in the way of the actual substance of a discussion

No one is suggesting that the up/down votes replace discussion.
Like I’ve already said (as have you in fact), a vote up is a quicker way of typing “I agree”. If you agree and have something to add, then great, comment too.
And if you disagree with the substance of an argument, obviously a comment is necessary to begin a discussion. But if you disagree with the tone of a post, if you believe it to be aggressive etc, then you are able to point out that this is unacceptable without diverting the thread into a argument.

So in fact it should do the opposite of what you claim – it should allow discussion to remain on topic and substantive, rather than turning into an unrelated row and/or losing posters by remaining aggressive in tone.

revol68

Revolutionary groups have always rejected anonymous voting as bourgeois, if you can't hold your hand and head up in front of the rest of your class and stand by your vote then you don't deserve to have one.

It allows you to agree with a post, or mark a post as unhelpful/unacceptable. The votes don’t do anything per se, but they will hopefully create an environment in which non-regular users feel more welcome. If you’re going to make an analogy, it’s less a vote and more the nodding and shaking of heads while someone speaks.

And being unable to back up your opinion is very different to being afraid of backing up your opinion. If my opinion is baseless, then fine maybe I don’t deserve a vote. If however my opinion is being silenced by my supposed comrades who can’t shut up long enough to let me speak, then maybe you’re not as revolutionary as you think.

revol68

this kind of thing leads to ill feeling and most likely create a more aggressive/defensive mood on the boards

Funnily enough the only people being aggressive and defensive about this are posters who are often aggressive and defensive, i.e. the people afraid of being voted down and suddenly being shown to be less popular than they think they are.

revol68

You hate posting? The what are you doing on a forum?
A bulletin board designed to encourage those who don't like discussion, hilarious.

This is exactly the problem. Someone who says they don’t like posting on libcom because of the tone and attitude of some of the posts basically gets told to piss off. I can’t imagine why people don’t feel able to enter a discussion.

And just fyi, a discussion isn’t the same as who can shout the loudest/ post the most frequently.

revol68

Certainly my experience of macho bullies is that they are very quick to anger in the face of reason, resorting to posturing such as threatening violence (hilarious on the internet) or vague claims to being "the real deal" and how others are "all talk".

“Quick to anger” – You’ve posted 12 times about two words on a website.

“posturing” – You’ve basically told an infrequent poster to piss off.

“how others are “all talk”.” – You’ve accused libcom of bourgeois consumerism. Said that these two words are an example of “everything communism rejects”.

...

Anyway... in my experience, macho posters also like the sound of their own voice, like being in the in-crowd while claiming to speak for everyone else, hate criticism, cannot admit when they are wrong, and like to have the last word

revol68

I also pointed out that it doesn't actually help encourage reluctance lurkers or the like to get involved as the ability to down vote anonymously adds another layer of judgement

As you are a regular poster who has been registered on the site for 8 years, might I suggest that you won’t know how reluctant new users will feel when posting on the site, or why they choose not to do so.

Speaking as someone who has read the site without posting for quite some time, I am far more worried about people shouting about how wrong I am/ telling me to piss off etc, than I am about a couple of votes.

And like I’ve said, I expect down votes to be used less to show disagreement with an opinion, and more to signify that a post is unacceptable in its tone.

Thanks for that thoughtful contribution Evie. As you say here:

On many occasions I’ve found the substance of a discussion really interesting, but have not got involved because of the aggressive tone of some of the posters. If other ‘lurkers’ feel this way then the up/down vote will allow that to be expressed - and will mean I for one will be more likely to get involved in a discussion, knowing that some people (silent as they may be) have my back if the discussion gets aggro. Basically it will be good to know that while individual posters may act like dicks, the group as a whole at least recognises this.

This is basically the main reason we are trying this out.

Also, just to reassure you that even in the absence of up/down votes the site admins and most of the regular users will have your back if you are attempting to engage in discussion in a productive fashion, again someone being aggressive bullying. So I would urge you to speak your mind on here, and report any breaches of the posting guidelines. Cheers,

Revlol68...

Yeah, that needed to be said.

Is my post (the one with the "epilogue") macho, aggressive, or bullying? It's been down-voted three times so far. I thought it was a fairly straightforward expression of my view on the up/down system, in a jocular form.
Evie

revol68

a vote down option is hardly more likely to encourage shy or nervous posters from posting their thoughts

Because a shy and retiring poster such as yourself would know exactly how they feel?
I disagree, for the reasons given above.

This could mean that up-votes for your posts will be encouraging, and down-votes for aggressive posts might also be encouraging. I can see how that would be helpful to a shy poster.

But the reason for voting is left unspoken and although it might discourage aggressive posters, they might not know why they are being discouraged, they may have good ideas or be founts of knowledge but be in the habit of expressing themselves aggressively. I think they need to know the reason for the down vote if they are to alter their behaviour rather than just ceasing to post.

Another forum I used to use a lot, slashdot.org, has a system where posts may be marked (by users) as, for example, offtopic, insightful or troll. Maybe Down could be replaced by Aggressive or Bully or something?

EDIT whoever keeps voting my posts down is going to be sent to the gulag.

[quote=Evie]Hello.

I’ve been reading the site for a while but have yet to post because I dislike the aggressive/ macho tone of much of the discussions. I’ve read this blog and comments with interest, and as far as I can tell the new vote up/down looks like a good addition.

[quote]

The vote up and down feature is not going to change the tone of the discussions.

gypsy

hopefully its achievable.

Who the fuck voted that comment down? WTF!

gypsy

gypsy

hopefully its achievable.

Who the fuck voted that comment down? WTF!

just memic what youtube does.

"5 people have peado-mustaches"

just in, voted every comment down
load of shite

The idea has its advantages. I'd like to be able to put 'likes' to a news article or library piece to acknowledge the work of whoever wrote/posted it. I've been trying to bookmark pieces I like or even just post thanks instead.
In terms of posting dislikes/downs etc the issue is what are they for.

-Are they to stop poor behaviour? Doubtful, is someone going to look at the dislikes and change their behaviour? Probably not, mainly because they'll have no idea why they've been disliked.

-Are they to show posters that we think something is unacceptable? On one level they do, but again we're not justifying it and we're not actually challenging it in a meaningful way. If there is something wrong with a post why isn't it being reported? Or challenged?

Evie

On many occasions I’ve found the substance of a discussion really interesting, but have not got involved because of the aggressive tone of some of the posters. If other ‘lurkers’ feel this way then the up/down vote will allow that to be expressed - and will mean I for one will be more likely to get involved in a discussion, knowing that some people (silent as they may be) have my back if the discussion gets aggro. Basically it will be good to know that while individual posters may act like dicks, the group as a whole at least recognises this.

I see your point but it is also showing that no-one cares enough to actually say anything about it. Sympathy rather than solidarity.

Evie

Disappointingly (but predictably) the comments under this blog are by the usual suspects, and are exactly what I’d expect from people who like to dominate discussions.

I might be missing something but revol isn't a very frequent poster here any more I don't think. The board culture when he was 'king of the shitheap' is largely gone.

Evie

If you agree with someone but have nothing to add to what they’ve said, an up vote does this perfectly well.

up :)

Evie

Which will help change the atmosphere/impression of libcom as being a macho and unwelcoming place. Which will encourage more people to give it a chance. Which will widen participation in discussion.

Out of interest is this a personal impression, and is it one you formed just from lurking?Evie

If however my opinion is being silenced by my supposed comrades who can’t shut up long enough to let me speak, then maybe you’re not as revolutionary as you think.

You can post no matter how many times someone else posts. Unlike a real-life meeting everyone gets to talk and one person going on doesn't use up all the time and kill discussion.

revol68

Certainly my experience of macho bullies is that they are very quick to anger in the face of reason, resorting to posturing such as threatening violence (hilarious on the internet) or vague claims to being "the real deal" and how others are "all talk".

*threatens revol*

revol68

I think for your idea to work it would need to be made clear that the down button was for "unacceptable" behaviour and the like and not for political differences or whatever.

Yes, but even then apart from the issue of anonymity (bearing in mind we are on the internet), there's the question of who sees the info, and where it is displayed. Do we have a raw number on the post and then details on a drop down? For anyone to see or just the writer? or those who up/down

One other thing is that it would be quite easy for a group to make a concerted effort to vote people down. Whether it be a 'left' grouping (SWP putting 'down' on anything criticising them for example.) a far-right grouping, assuming the BNP 'attack dogs' can cope with the captcha or another unfriendly grouping such as a bunch of Ron Paul libertarians.

The ethos of the site has to be defined via debate, but I think it has to be expressed in the same way.

gypsy

Instead of this voting daftness. I suggest that when someone quotes your posts, you are notified by a pm/alert. This will keep debates going along nicely. Don't know how hard this would be to implement as my programming knowledge is non existent.

Good shout. Also I would have thought a mobile-friendly version of the site would be more of a priority, it is a pain in the arse to navigate round on a mobile.

ps no down votes on this post please

revol68

Embarrassing amount of paragraphs opening with "I think" in that post, I'd downvote myself for that alone.

Twin Peaks FTW!

I quit Facebook after watching The Social Network and seeing what a capitalist racket it is.

Shallow copies of Facebook's banalities, like anonymous "Up" and "Down" posts, just confirms how alienated the internet is making us as social beings. Psychological studies (e.g. Stephen Ilardi at University of Kansas) have shown that prolonged use of electronic media causes depression.

So this voting reminds me of immature grade school popularity contests where you like people with no other criteria than they are your friends.

Just another reason for me to stop posting on the forums and spend more time face-to-face with friends and comrades.

Thanks, libcom, for making that decision easier.

Facebook doesn't have a "down"

Just looked at this thread again - 48 new posts - it looks like everyone has gone mad.
Voting up or down is bollocks!

Dunno whether I think it's a good idea or not and there's valid points either way, probably trying it out is a good idea, but a couple of points.

revol68:

Likewise the number of short posts I make doesn't drown out other voices, this is an internet forum not a real life meeting, it isn't zero sum, my posts have no bearing on your ability to post.

jef costello:

You can post no matter how many times someone else posts. Unlike a real-life meeting everyone gets to talk and one person going on doesn't use up all the time and kill discussion.

This isn't true. When you post you help create a culture; if you post loads then you have a much bigger say in creating that culture. That culture can be off-putting or inclusive, but just by posting so much it's kind of an expression of a feeling of entitlement to be someone playing a big role in creating that culture. I think that's macho, and it mirrors dynamics in face-to-face social groups where loud, confident people - who tend to be men - normally dominate.
It does drown out other voices, because if you post more than your opinion is disproportionately heard, and other people's disproportionately under-heard.
It kills discussion and use up time. It uses up time to read the comments. It kills the discussion by derailing discussions (in the direction of the interest of the person who's doing all the commenting).

I agree with Revol, so I have upped all of his comments to make this clear.

I think you should have to justify your up's and down's with small comments and none of them should be anonymous, then it would make sense.

Steven.

Armchair, the way this module works does allow you to both wrote something up and down, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.

It's like a questionnaire question with a yes/no answer, where you can select both yes and no - the information has no value.

Armchair Anarchist

Steven.

Armchair, the way this module works does allow you to both wrote something up and down, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.

It's like a questionnaire question with a yes/no answer, where you can select both yes and no - the information has no value.

yes it would, it would only have no value if people were to always answer both yes and no to every question. If what you are interested in is essentially a relative difference in numbers of yeses and nos then it does the trick, as if someone votes both up and down then numerically they cancel each other out and you can see it is equally approved/disapproved of.

That said, we may switch to a different module which doesn't allow both if it's a viable module at some point

mons

This isn't true. When you post you help create a culture; if you post loads then you have a much bigger say in creating that culture. That culture can be off-putting or inclusive, but just by posting so much it's kind of an expression of a feeling of entitlement to be someone playing a big role in creating that culture. I think that's macho, and it mirrors dynamics in face-to-face social groups where loud, confident people - who tend to be men - normally dominate.
It does drown out other voices, because if you post more than your opinion is disproportionately heard, and other people's disproportionately under-heard.
It kills discussion and use up time. It uses up time to read the comments. It kills the discussion by derailing discussions (in the direction of the interest of the person who's doing all the commenting).

It is true. You can still post regardless of how many other posts there are.
A person who posts more is not disproportionately heard, their opinion is disproportionately expressed (assuming they post the same thing and don't change, develop, engage). You can always skip posts, if the poster is genuinely repetitive or offensive then ignore them. They can't force you to respond.
It might drown out other voices to an extent, but it isn't the same as someone who dominates a meeting to the exclusion of others. While it might visually dominate the posts, it doesn't actually prevent them from being expressed.
Derailing is another issue, although to be honest the two most persistent derails in the history of libcom have been the situation in Ireland and criticising revol/forum culture.

If the person's behaviour is that disruptive then I stil fail to see how this will have any kind of effect.

So I can up, down, both up and down, or neither up nor down. If only I could both up and neither up nor down.

lol @ thinking internet relationships are any more or less alienating than any other social relationships (excluding fam obviously).

Well, there is perhaps one thing that has gone unmentioned in this discussion: what should we do about it? If perhaps the majority of users here do not like the new comments feature, then should it be kept simply because the admins happen to think it will improve the site? Although I agree with Evie’s concerns about the macho/aggressive tone that can sometimes be seen on this time, I still remain unconvinced such a comment feature will mitigate it, and I agree with revol68 and Hieronymous’s criticisms. All it seems like it will do is turn libcom more into a “libertarian communist” version of Facebook. The most innovative thing libcom should really be doing, however, is going beyond superficial capitalist-mediated “interaction” as much as possible.

So why not hold a vote to see if the majority of users actually agree libcom should have this comment feature? You could have the voting start at a certain date and then end it at another date. I don’t really see how this would be such a problem to do.

Of course, it's possible my suggestion in this comment here will just be ignored by the admins, but I, and I'm sure others, think it would be in the interest of the users who frequent the site and libcom itself.

Evie, I truly anticipate your response to Revol68.

Let's see how much this can be dragged out into a discussion about whether a click of the mouse is buying into the spectacle.

In the future can we not introduce a vote system.

Basically a poll could be open for a week.

Do you want to see the facebookisation of libcom-yes or no? Or something along those lines! Then we could go with the majority?

gypsy

In the future can we not introduce a vote system.

Basically a poll could be open for a week.

Do you want to see the facebookisation of libcom-yes or no? Or something along those lines! Then we could go with the majority?

Just don't allow people to vote both ways :wall:

What we plan to do is trial it for a month to see if it makes the site better.

People here have opposed pretty much every suggestion for change we have ever proposed, including for example changing the name from enrager to libcom, at the time, but later have come to appreciate it. So better than voting we think is looking at the concrete results.

Steven.

including for example changing the name from enrager to libcom

The beginning of the end. :cry:

Steven.

What we plan to do is trial it for a month to see if it makes the site better.

People here have opposed pretty much every suggestion for change we have ever proposed, including for example changing the name from enrager to libcom, at the time, but later have come to appreciate it. So better than voting we think is looking at the concrete results.

Vanguardism.

Steven.

So better than voting we think is looking at the concrete results.

Yep the dictatorship of the geekmods ;)

The discussion on the up/down thing has already been very interesting and productive IMO.

If nothing else, it's highlighted the inherent conservatism of many Libcom posters :D

Knuckle under and modernise, Revol! Modernise!!!!

Actually, I thought Evie was mostly spot on and she really should post on here more often. Revol, I love most of your politics but you do need an occasional slapdown :bb:

basically, this feature will serve as a tool of pseudo-self-empowerment for authoritarian personalities pretending to be revolutionaries ;-)

Where is all this talk about turning LibCom into Facebook coming from? Facebook is for stalking people, LibCom is never going to be anything like that.
Most forums I visit have a similar voting system and seem to survive just fine.

Furthermore, people seem to have got the wrong end of the stick when it comes to why there is a voting system. It is not there to mark down ideas you believe to be incorrect. It is there to mark down rude and unhelpful posts, such as, 'fucking stupid', 'bit gay mate'. On the other hand, well written posts that try to explain their ideas using a friendly and accessible style will be 'upped'.

revol68

Kronstadt_Kid

Where is all this talk about turning LibCom into Facebook coming from? Facebook is for stalking people, LibCom is never going to be anything like that.
Most forums I visit have a similar voting system and seem to survive just fine.

Furthermore, people seem to have got the wrong end of the stick when it comes to why there is a voting system. It is not there to mark down ideas you believe to be incorrect. It is there to mark down rude and unhelpful posts, such as, 'fucking stupid', 'bit gay mate'. On the other hand, well written posts that try to explain their ideas using a friendly and accessible style will be 'upped'.

maybe in care bear land that is how they are used but it seems hopelessly naive to me.

This is why communism will never work. Other people are not as amazing and selfless as me :p

Maybe just have a 'helpful' and an 'unhelpful' option then? It might not make that much difference, but it'd make it more explicit what the options are there for.

revol68

no.25

Evie, I truly anticipate your response to Revol68.

Instead of shit stirring, why don't you make one?

Because 9th Thermidor?

^ Lol, dude, your posts are grand.

Armchair Anarchist

Just don't allow people to vote both ways :wall:

bigot!

If anything we should be rejecting the binary and moving beyond that to pure expression.

Serge Forward

Actually, I thought Evie was mostly spot on and she really should post on here more often. Revol, I love most of your politics but you do need an occasional slapdown :bb:

I voted both ways on this, because I agreed with Serge's point about Evie and I disagreed with his assessment of Revols politics. Seemed fair to me.

I'm in favour of the experiment. It's often hard to tell whether things will work or not until you try them, at least as far as forum mechanics go.

The only potential development I could think of (without getting too Heath Robinson) would be to distinguish between tone and content. I might think there would be interesting content in a post by someone who was being a total dick, or I might appreciate the tone of someone trying to make peace in a fractious thread, even though I found the political content of their position uninspiring.

Also listening to revol wail has given me the best laughs for ages :lol:

ocelot

I voted both ways on this, because I agreed with Serge's point about Evie and I disagreed with his assessment of Revols politics. Seemed fair to me.

See? The new system works!

Incidentally, I had to vote you down for sitting on the fence. You either have 100% uncritical support for Serge Forward Thought or you're nothing but an imperialist lackey and running dog who gets voted DOWN :bb:

If Revol has been banned for calling out this shit and an admin got a wee bit butthurt cos he was mean to them that's seriously embarrassing. Fuckin state of this place sometimes.

Admin: revol was temp banned for going on a rant about macho posting on an unrelated thread, ignoring two requests not to derail and flaming with it.

Choccy

If Revol has been banned for calling out this shit and an admin got a wee bit butthurt cos he was mean to them that's seriously embarrassing. Fuckin state of this place sometimes.

Admin: revol was temp banned for going on a rant about macho posting on an unrelated thread, ignoring two requests not to derail and flaming with it.

this thread is now worse than the meme thread.

Kronstadt_Kid

Most forums I visit have a similar voting system and seem to survive just fine.

And most forums I had been visiting were a fucking shithole because of rep and voting systems and had frequent shitstorms over it, frequent as in at least once a month were kids were crying themselves a river over it.

To be fair, right now I see the voting system put to good use in discussions, but who knows how long it'll stay that way. I'd still want a public poll over this...

Kronstadt_Kid

Furthermore, people seem to have got the wrong end of the stick when it comes to why there is a voting system. It is not there to mark down ideas you believe to be incorrect. It is there to mark down rude and unhelpful posts, such as, 'fucking stupid', 'bit gay mate'. On the other hand, well written posts that try to explain their ideas using a friendly and accessible style will be 'upped'.

You have much to learn, young padawan. :bb:

Is that why he's banned. That's pathetic.

jef costello

Is that why he's banned. That's pathetic.

why? I didn't see the posts myself, but temp banning for flaming after warnings is perfectly justified.

no1

but temp banning for flaming after warnings is perfectly justified.

Strikes me as reactionary though.

jef costello

Is that why he's banned. That's pathetic.

Aye cretinous. I stand corrected that it was referring to a different thread, but looking at that thread... I'll take it there.

don't ban revol's account! just ban him from posting. he can communicate with us via ups and downs.

Admin edit - off topic

Steven

What we plan to do is trial it for a month to see if it makes the site better.

People here have opposed pretty much every suggestion for change we have ever proposed, including for example changing the name from enrager to libcom, at the time, but later have come to appreciate it. So better than voting we think is looking at the concrete results.

Steven, I certainly think you should try the up/down votes for a month. I’m all in favor of trying it out. It is, after all, through trial and error that you can find the best results. I am by no means conservative about trying it – if there’s anything workable and constructive libcom can do to improve the site or to make female comrades feel more welcomed, then I’m all for it. I am simply critical of the up/down votes because I have yet to see any good or convincing argument that it would discourage macho posting or bullying very much. Instead, others have argued, to my mind, rightly that it is simplistic, banal, superficial, and akin to a competitive popularity contest and Facebook. Look already at the results and you’ll see that most people vote “down” not based on whether a comment is offensive or discriminatory, but on whether they don’t “like” it or don’t “agree” with it. This is not to say that to some extent it may be put to good use, but it seems like you could overall achieve a better, more workable effect through other means and without this feature.

So I’m not opposed to trying it. However, after you try it for a month, the admins alone may not still be able to get the best idea of whether it works effectively in practice or not, so I think it would be in the interest of users as well to have a public poll to indicate whether they actually think it should be withdrawn, and not just the admins. Couldn’t the people here have at least some say in it? It seems like a generalization to say that “people here have opposed pretty much every suggestion for change we have ever proposed… but have later come to appreciate it.” I personally think libcom has made many new changes for the better and that make it a distinct website, but that does not mean every change will necessarily be helpful or workable. The criticisms here made of the up/down votes, again, seem to be legitimate ones.

'admin: quit flaming Serge, you have been warned'

Admin edit - off topic

I think Evie smashed revol for being a poster that is the worst culprit of so called macho posting (calling people fucktards and cunts rather than making a substantive point) and i have personally really enjoyed watching him try (and fail) to disassociate himself from that position :D . keep calm and carry on

Lol, contradictory as it may seem, ^ that. Evie, welcome to Libcom.

In revol's defence, he has been a lot better recently.. if you look through his tracker he's responded to a lot discussions in a constructive way and I think a lot of the stick he gets today is by reputation rather than how he behaves now.. the forum culture on libcom can be unnecessarily adversarial, but its not just revol, its all of you argumentative bastards.. ;) And I think sometimes its easier to blame loud individuals than to look at ourselves..

That said, with this thread revol was back to his classic style (and funnily enough, when people post like that, the thread turns into a car crash - goddamn fascist admins that don't want people to post like that!). And in spilling it over to another unrelated discussion, when there already was a live discussion about the same issue, he was obviously going to be edited. To then follow that up with flaming and continuing the earlier derailing with MORE DERAILING was then obviously going to result in a temporary ban. It's obvious because its in our posting guidelines. I don't see what's pathetic or cretinous about it..

This feature is somethting we're trying out to help the forum culture. It might not work and then we'll chuck it.. as much as some people don't like it, I don't get why it got this kind of aggro reaction.. and the fact that it did proves to me that something has to be done about the culture on these boards..

sorry to rev. I thought i was bantering. Obviously didn't translate too well.

In all seriousness, I think it should just be trialled before people get all up in arms 'oh the alienation of social relations in contemporary capitalism is being made ten times worse if libcom adds an up/down tool' (the irony of this considering this is an internet website where most of us have not met face to face should, of course, be ignored).

One tentative positive I think it has is that there is confirmation that people are having their posts read (yes I know, i am a Pavlovian dog). Often people write very long posts and I know from my own experience, it can sometimes feel like your shouting into an empty well, especially when there are no replies to the posts (maybe it is just my posts that are boring?).

Bordiga wouldn't put up with this bourgeois democratic bullshit.

(seriously, I think it's a horrible groupthink-ish idea, but can't be arsed to vote all the above comments up or down accordingly)

I actually think a lot of people now use Revol's past as a justification for not bothering with him sometimes. I've been the first to call him out when he has criticised 'forum culture' in the past given he's cited as a the single reaosn many people left, but his style never bnothered me, and we had some blazing rows on here and in person, which many regular forum users can attest to. Fuckin hell, we had rows on libcom from different rooms in the same house!

revol68

communal_pie

I think you should have to justify your up's and down's with small comments and none of them should be anonymous, then it would make sense.

or an even more radical idea would be that instead of forcing your thoughts into a binary in order for it to be quantified, you could just say what you think of the comment.

pretty mindblowing, eh?

The main problem for me is just that long threads tend to get difficult to read when everyone starts replying to one post, I think having an up/down feature with small comments attached (ideally limited in word count to avoid too much reading) is a decent way of avoiding this and staying focused on the OP. It also gives a chance to give more positive criticism directed straight at a reply without derailing the thread, which would be nice imo.

Arbeiten

One tentative positive I think it has is that there is confirmation that people are having their posts read (yes I know, i am a Pavlovian dog). Often people write very long posts and I know from my own experience, it can sometimes feel like your shouting into an empty well, especially when there are no replies to the posts (maybe it is just my posts that are boring?).

I know the feeling, it's about the only advantage I can see to this system.

How's this experiment working? Is it too soon to say if it's a success - and how long is it planned to run for. I must say it's put me off visiting LibCom - though that make one or two people happy!

Oversensitive the lot of you!

Those buttons are soo easily ignored. I've not even looked at them or read the scores since they were introduced.

I mentioned on some other thread that the re design is likely to cause a whine-storm but judging from the responses to this minimal change it's gonna get a lot worse and it's not a good i sign of what personalities frequent this site.

The count to ten thing you tell children should apply in these cases. Calm down and just wait till you can actually offer a proper opinion, which in this case will be months. There's no cost involved for users of this site and the least you could expect is that people are able to see that the proposal has it's up's and down's (hehe)

The admins running this site deserve some slack (more actually) and you should hold your petty criticisms back for a couple of months. Face it they are petty and going on about it tends to be draining for the people doing the work. Show some respect* for fucks sake.

*I tend not to use that word, but really, show some fucking respect, shut up, and stop acting like children.

cooked - you're don't work as a senior manager by any chance? ;)

plasmatelly

cooked - you're don't work as a senior manager by any chance? ;)

haha, I actually deleted a line about this nonsense making me feel sympathy with managers trying to implement change.

I deleted it because it would have been hyperbole and a lie :)

I do have less experienced people helping me out on the job atm... maybe I'm on the path to manager thought!!! I need to change jobs to a place where I'm the new guy... funnily enough I'm going to make a call for a new job after submitting this post. No joke.

Cooked

Oversensitive the lot of you! ... Those buttons are soo easily ignored... whine-storm...

Nailed it.
Cooked

The admins running this site deserve some slack...

But now you've just gone too far :bb:

Cooked, thanks for your comments. Don't worry though, we did anticipate this kind of reaction. Whenever we improve the site we always get loads of complaints (but our traffic keeps increasing).

In terms of this change, we agreed to trial it for a month and so far it's too early to make an assessment. Although we do note people's criticisms here so far. We have a couple of modifications in mind taking on-board people's comments, but we will still run this trial for the whole month to try and get proper data on how it is used, how many ups/downs posts can get, whether it is being used the way we hoped, etc.

plasma, for someone that no longer uses the site, you were pretty quick to response to cooked ;)

One thing I've seen since this feature was installed, is that someone seems to go around just voting everyone down for the sake of it. For example on this post, every comment has been marked down for basically no reason.

I think that ups and downs need to be modified otherwise you're going to end up getting reactionaries (an-caps, fascists,rightists, whatever) coming to the site just to vote things down.

Do you have to login to use this feature? If not, then I think that just be the minimum change. I'd also think again about the anonymity of the feature.

bulmer

One thing I've seen since this feature was installed, is that someone seems to go around just voting everyone down for the sake of it. For example on this post, every comment has been marked down for basically no reason.

I don't think it's just that thread. On many threads I've seen, people just vote down either for the sake of it or because they don't "like" it (which, last time I checked, were not intended purposes for voting down). As I said six days ago:

Oenomaus

Look already at the results and you’ll see that most people vote “down” not based on whether a comment is offensive or discriminatory, but on whether they don’t “like” it or don’t “agree” with it.

It seems pretty obvious that this is the case, and that people also continue to vote down just to vote down. Of course, this isn't true for every single thread, but on many of them it is.

bulmer

Do you have to login to use this feature? If not, then I think that just be the minimum change. I'd also think again about the anonymity of the feature.

Yes, you have to login to use the feature, but I really don't see what difference it makes. The same is true even if votes were no longer anonymous, I think.

Again, I'm very open to trying this feature, and I think it still seems to early to make the best judgement of it. However, I know I don't appreciate the very authoritarian attitude of some people here who have the preconceived assumption that the feature is "improving" site and those who criticize it are just "complaining." It may well be improving the site, but I say more time (and a public poll) needs to be given.

For the record, I wasn't referring to introducing this change as improving the site. This is a trial, to see if it makes things better or not. My point was related to changes we have made which have actually improved the site, which still everyone on feedback threads complained about at the time.

It does look like someone is voting everything down.
We are able to check who it is but we want to see what happens if somebody decides to try to abuse the system. So as it's a trial we're seeing what happens for now; to see if it self-regulates, because e.g. other users may vote up comments which they think have been unfairly voted down; or if people just ignore -1s because they're ubiquitous; or if admin action is required to prevent abuse by warning/banning individuals.

Oenomaus

but I say more time (and a public poll) needs to be given.

Agreed.

Joseph Kay

It does look like someone is voting everything down.
We are able to check who it is but we want to see what happens if somebody decides to try to abuse the system. So as it's a trial we're seeing what happens for now; to see if it self-regulates, because e.g. other users may vote up comments which they think have been unfairly voted down; or if people just ignore -1s because they're ubiquitous; or if admin action is required to prevent abuse by warning/banning individuals.

Don't mean to sound like an anti mod authority dude. But why should the mod's be able to see who has voted a certain way and not the other registered users of the site? Seems a wee bit weird.

revol68

Joseph Kay

It does look like someone is voting everything down.

Your skills are missed at Scotland Yard ;)

choccy

I'm just marking everything down at the minute.

Get on the phone to the PSNI. Some supergrasses would love you.

gypsy

Don't mean to sound like an anti mod authority dude. But why should the mod's be able to see who has voted a certain way and not the other registered users of the site? Seems a wee bit weird.

Because we're moderators and other users are not? :confused:

Fall Back

gypsy

Don't mean to sound like an anti mod authority dude. But why should the mod's be able to see who has voted a certain way and not the other registered users of the site? Seems a wee bit weird.

Because we're moderators and other users are not? :confused:

I reckon it would stop ppl being dicks if the voting was not anonymous to the public. Or even better if it was not done at all.

revol68

yeah it's especially fucked up if mods and admins can see who votes for what but others can't.
.

Aye it means that they can see if ppl have a vendetta against them but we can't. Not fair.

I look forward to the first "So-and-so was only banned because s/he (probably) consistently voted down so-and-so's posts" thread.

the button

I look forward to the first "So-and-so was only banned because s/he (probably) consistently voted down so-and-so's posts" thread.

Would be funny if all the voting so far would be made public. I have a funny feeling that many of the anti vote up and down -downs will have been done by mods.

gypsy

revol68

yeah it's especially fucked up if mods and admins can see who votes for what but others can't.
.

Aye it means that they can see if ppl have a vendetta against them but we can't. Not fair.

i have a feeling that admins have probably given themselves the same front end experience as us and haven't gone out of their way to hide the voters from regular users. but as admins (at least some) have access to the database, they could check there. and it would definitely need to be stored in the database in order to know if you've upped or downed already.

i could be wrong, maybe they see it on the site too. in which case i think that's a shame.

No-one's upped my post yet. :cry:

just upped you. ;)

gypsy

just upped you. ;)

snipfool

gypsy

revol68

yeah it's especially fucked up if mods and admins can see who votes for what but others can't.
.

Aye it means that they can see if ppl have a vendetta against them but we can't. Not fair.

i have a feeling that admins have probably given themselves the same front end experience as us and haven't gone out of their way to hide the voters from regular users. but as admins (at least some) have access to the database, they could check there. and it would definitely need to be stored in the database in order to know if you've upped or downed already.

Exactly. If it's being abused, we could find out who's doing it (which is unavoidable, since it has to keep a record to prevent multiple votes). But as it's a trial we're seeing what happens. If it can be broken by a couple of people with too much time on their hands throwing a tantrum they're not getting their way, then we'll need to change the way it works. Personally, i'm already glazing over small down votes as they're everywhere and therefore meaningless.

Down is the new Up.

revol68

ah diddums, you sound like Grayling.

Normally people are comparing themselves to the Kronstadt Commune by this point, aim higher.

revol68

at the moment I've been half arsed in my voting things down because unlike choccy I was smart enough to realise that if you vote everything down it's easier to work out. Best to keep it pretty much random.

i see your FUCK SHIT UP tattoo has served you well!

I almost UPPED The Button's and Revol's posts
but I remembered MY CODE

snipfool

i have a feeling that admins have probably given themselves the same front end experience as us and haven't gone out of their way to hide the voters from regular users. but as admins (at least some) have access to the database, they could check there. and it would definitely need to be stored in the database in order to know if you've upped or downed already.

Yep.

Voting everything down is a bit childish. I did it on this thread for fun, but I don't see the point in trying to fuck up something I don't think will work.

I do think it's funny that you're trying to mount a direct action campaign using the dislike button though. Very post-ironic-meta-facebook

lol you think i do it beyond this thread
BELLEND

I think it's great because most people don't vote thus a small minority can have an effect. Plus I can 'up' my own posts. I will 'up' this one.

People seriously need to get a grip. If you hate this feature then it's incredibly easy to ignore it, there's no need for seven pages of whinging about how this is the cancer that is killing libcom. The AF internal forum has a similar feature and it works fine.

Personally I think it would have made more sense if it tallied up the ups/downs rather than just showing you the number of each, but whatever. It's certainly convenient to be able to up something rather than clogging up threads with posts that just say 'this', 'what they said', or whatever.

~J.

Choccy

lol you think i do it beyond this thread
BELLEND

Somebody was, but it looks like they have given up now

revol68

Twats whinging about how easy is to ignore are missing the point, its the fact that its whole concept is anti communist, I'm not joking either. It's the ideology of late capitalism, inane ideas of feedback and accountability, with no substance.

:lol: LOL---

Oh. You're not joking. Nevermind.

You should not have to log in to see these bloody votes! The votes are meant for the public, not for a select bunch of nobodies who decide to make an account! :cry:

So I've been thinking about it and, as I said previously, the real test of the up/down rating system is a debate. On the most recent parecon thread, the pareconistas have had the fuck downed out of them. Granted, they deserve it, but I still think it could offput new users who are new to the politics of this site. The point being: just a simple up function serves the same purpose but avoids the potential hard feelings that come from an onslaught of down votes, especially for a new user.

I partly agree with Chilli - but instead of getting rid of it, I think it would be good to transform the 'down' function to express disapproval of a poster's behaviour, esp. if they are trollish or abusive or arguing in bad faith, but not disapproval of what they are saying.

Wouldn't that be mostly covered in the report button already?

Wouldn't that be mostly covered in the report button already?

Everyone will have their own criteria on how to use the buttons normally mine are:

Up - a strong view with which I agree 75-100%
- An excellent argument or point with which I may not have too much sympathy!

Down – a post with which I strongly disagree
- someone acting the raw prawn

Still piss-poor faux participatory wank.
Like Ayer's emotivism distilled, it simply comes across as 'boo-hiss i don't like this' without having to formulate a reason why or generate a sustainable counter.

Experiment has failed - time to end it.

Agreed comrade Spikymike.

Choccy

Still piss-poor faux participatory wank.
Like Ayer's emotivism distilled, it simply comes across as 'boo-hiss i don't like this' without having to formulate a reason why or generate a sustainable counter.

you say that, but that's not how it is working in practice. Look at the discussions were people have had loads of downs, like the pacifist on the Greek anarchists trashing the fascist offices thread, or the parecon organisation discussion going on now. There were lots of up/down votes but also lots of arguments put one way and the other.

So it's not like people voted and didn't bother making a point.

However, looking at both of those discussions it is clear that the majority feeling on here is opposed to pacifism and parecon, which I think is a good thing, and helpful for readers to be able to see.

I like the 'up' option as it allows those who might feel uncomfortable posting to show what they agree with. It also means you can support an opinion when you agree with it but don't have anything to add, writing a post just saying 'I agree with xxx' seems a waste of time so this avoids that problem.

It also can offer a little insight into what most libcommers agree with. Without it an opinion appears more popular based solely on what most people who post say and this can be bias towards people who have the confidence to post/ those determined to 'win' an argument through repeated posting. Of course the up problem isn't completely valid either as evidence of the dominant view on Libcom either but I think it's an improvement

I'm not too sure on the 'down' button though. Like others have said I think this may just discourage others from posting

Steven.

Choccy

Still piss-poor faux participatory wank.
Like Ayer's emotivism distilled, it simply comes across as 'boo-hiss i don't like this' without having to formulate a reason why or generate a sustainable counter.

you say that, but that's not how it is working in practice. Look at the discussions were people have had loads of downs, like the pacifist on the Greek anarchists trashing the fascist offices thread, or the parecon organisation discussion going on now. There were lots of up/down votes but also lots of arguments put one way and the other.

So it's not like people voted and didn't bother making a point.

However, looking at both of those discussions it is clear that the majority feeling on here is opposed to pacifism and parecon, which I think is a good thing, and helpful for readers to be able to see.

Anecdotes about a single thread don't really wash.

It's boo-hiss nameless finger pointing without having to construct anything resembling an argument and that's how it's being used in the majority of threads so far. Lazy faux-participation that doesn't get at the root of the problems with participation.

Yep quite a disturbing feature that is embedded into this sort of anonymous lazy fake participation.

It's bullshit. Time to drop it. It adds nothing to the content of the discussion.

It's an adaptation to the Facebook mentality.

disturbing lol, and you expect people to take your objectiosn seriusly, as if thie kind of crap diserves an actual responce

and THAT gets an up, hey, the 'wisdom of crowds'

I expect people to take "it"-- the objection-- just as seriously as you take the "like/dislike" applause-o-meter.

"Choose the next American Idol, vote for your favorite Dancing with the Stars couple, select the funniest home video-- all from the comfort of your couch."

Selling popcorn with that, are you?

For some reason this chorus reminds me that I haven't seen Brian Sewell doing his thing on TV for a few years. Whatever happened to him?

Choccy

and THAT gets an up, hey, the 'wisdom of crowds'

Face it pal you are as unpopular as fuck ;)

I love how Revol's empirical demonstration of the pointlessness of this faceless measure gets 6 downs but 'as if that kind of crap deserves a response' gets a stack of ups.

And Artesian actually has a point, however crude.

^ you abuse the term empirical

It's quite fun to watch, but meaningless all the same. Quite amusing on the what about the black vaginas thread that while 11 people consistently voted down choccy and revol only 9 of them voted up the admins.
I still don't really think it's worth it, even though it hasn't really been maliciously used yet I don't think.
In terms of wanting to acknowledge good posts we could have something like the thanks or repping on other sites but obviously different enough not to be shit.
Maybe put a little black and red star at the bottom of the post for each person that likes it and if you hover over it it says who...
And a picture of a boot stamping on a human face for eternity if we have a dislike function.

Life is great! I've started collecting down votes without even trying! Thanks guys. Especially appreciated are the down votes for totally innocuous posts which couldn't possibly offend anyone apart from those are simply offended by me posting at all. You guys are aces, you know that?

If it was the down vote for the Crass song you posted Noah, that was me. Sorry mate, it was the first down vote I've allowed myself to cast. I've seen things I disagreed with far more but that song was aggravating my head. The video was good and the song did raise a chuckle (not the band's intention). I liked the fact you criticised the then fashionable anti-Americanism. I love the sayings of 'Jesus' and the writings of Marx so I didn't understand what their problem was with those two fellows. I mean 35 years after the death of Jesus the capital city went up in flames and the two events were somewhat connected. As for Marx, he suffered as much as the rest of us proles, so why give him a hard time when he's happily ensconced in his grave. As for the rest of the down votes, if there were any, you got to know, this site is mostly inhabited by leftists anyway so who cares. All the best and when Ive got my head round my inherent shyness we'll meet up and munch momos and light up the chalice if that's your bag. I certainly love it.

Lol, you misunderstand me comrade. I love down votes! I've been mining for them forever. My post here is quite serious. Not giving a shit is my hobby. Keep on voting me down baby! Go on, you know you want to!

Schmoopie, I've just realised that you didn't down vote me, damn your eyes! It was the Cactus post the you gave the finest reward Libcom has to offer.
Also, it's a complete fallacy that Crass were humourless and very serious - they were consistently funny(on purpose).

Also, it's a complete fallacy that Crass were humourless and very serious - they were consistently funny(on purpose).

I am happy to here it. They really were quite an influence on me, giving me a little start on the road to rebellion – against family values, against the religious indoctrination at school, and against normality in general. I did give you a down vote but I removed it after writing the above. Nothing is set in stone, except the commandments of God given to Moses, and they are carefully stowed away in the church at Axum...

Night night