See who stars a post.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: crazyewok

It seems you are the one with a stick up there.
You getting all mad because a majority of people think it's a dumb idea is funny.

If you notice it one sentence line and childish insults like yours im getting mad at.


Not those that disagree but have spelled out WHY its a bad idea. I have no issue with those.

Go find another thread to add zero substance too. I wont be replying to your posts on this thread anymore. A waste of bandwidth.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Blaine91555
by insulting volunteer mods

Where have I done that?

I have made no accusations or insults at ANY specific mods.

Mods are human they will make errors no matter how good the staff are. I was just discussing reducing human error.

No, you used the term "mod bias".

I would also like away to balance mod bias too. I see plenty of posts removed that are either borderline or shouldn't be and other posts that are out right T&C no no's that don't.

"Bias" is not human error.

a reply to: Blaine91555

We all have bias.

Thats human.

I have it and you have it.

And bias can cause error.

Its not a insult.

The trick is to always minimize it.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: BerenstEiner

I like the star system, honestly. It lets me give someone a little nudge of support with a simple mouse click rather than clogging up the thread with "I agree with (insert username here)" without having anything else to add to the discussion.

I think the system as it stands is elegant and beautiful.

Elegant and Beautiful.

Give me a break.

If you just star someone, you are not adding anything.

Speak your mind. Say somthing. Make it mean somthing.

a reply to: TDawg61

I would star this explanation.

...cos you do the same thing as I do

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I like the idea of alerting mods to give an applause...

Go for it! Just never do a before/after count to keep the intention pure : )

a reply to: crazyewok

I will post my opinion where I want to thank you very much.

I don't care too much about seeing who stars a post...as per many of the statements already made here.

But you know what I would love? The ability to take a star given in error away. just like we can with flags.

I have a trigger happy star finger sometimes, and when that happens all I can do is cringe.

Not sure about seeing who starred a post or who flagged one. People should stand by their actions as nameless avatars on a website so why not?

I think the bigger picture is the reward system for adding 'content' at ATS doesn't seem to provide much incentive. There are tons of posts that are one liners, all opinion, no support or link, no time spend in analysis. These posts generally don't 'add content' to a thread discussion. Sorry, but your one line judgement generally isn't valuable.

Running ATS is complicated, there is no doubt about that. If I was running it I would re-consider the recognition given for content. What does 'applause' get you? I do appreciate seeing someone like a post I wrote, but beyond that where does applause go? I got a PM about a joke I made and how it made someone laugh and that was worth more than 'applause'.

Possibly there should be restrictions on starting threads. ie...you can't start a thread until you reach a certain level of applause. Thus you have to significantly contribute to threads before starting your own.
Possibly there should be earned grace for transgressions. Instead of getting a suspension you get so much applause taken away.
Possibly applause levels could open users up to a thread section where general users can't reply but can read. A way to demonstrate value in adding content to ATS.

Anyway...just a couple cents. I hope more people would add value in posts rather than just sharing a one liner opinion. Any way to encourage that would be great!

originally posted by: BerenstEiner

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: BerenstEiner

I like the star system, honestly. It lets me give someone a little nudge of support with a simple mouse click rather than clogging up the thread with "I agree with (insert username here)" without having anything else to add to the discussion.

I think the system as it stands is elegant and beautiful.

Elegant and Beautiful.

Give me a break.

If you just star someone, you are not adding anything.

Speak your mind. Say somthing. Make it mean somthing.

I am nothing if not honest. If I agree with someone, but don't have something constructive to add to the discussion, I'm not going make the effort to pull some something constructive from my railgun behind just to have the pleasure of agreeing with someone. I am human, and because I am human, I am sometimes lazy. A star is a great thing to give out when you find yourself nodding when you read a post, but don't have anything of your own to add.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

I think the bigger picture is the reward system for adding 'content' at ATS doesn't seem to provide much incentive. There are tons of posts that are one liners, all opinion, no support or link, no time spend in analysis. These posts generally don't 'add content' to a thread discussion. Sorry, but your one line judgement generally isn't valuable.

This is more what im getting at.

I think you spelled it out better than I have.

This is a great debate.

But yet, only 12 flags.

And if you disagree, then your star means nothing if your star never sees the light of day. Why star if no one is gonna see it.

The power is in the flags.

More flags = more participation.

a reply to: crazyewok

And bias can cause error.

C'mon Ewok!? You've had a few ATS applause and I've sent some your way myself so you know I'm not someone who's against your posts.

BUT with the 'bias can cause error' line, it's like you're wanting a scrutiny committee to rule out the 'bias.'

Step it down my English brother and admit your idea creates more problems than it solves.

Oh man. Here we go again.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Sorry Kandinsky, you lost me a little.

What's a before/after account?


Thanks in advance.

originally posted by: Kandinsky

C'mon Ewok!? You've had a few ATS applause and I've sent some your way myself so you know I'm not someone who's against your posts.

And I appreciate it.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
BUT with the 'bias can cause error' line, it's like you're wanting a scrutiny committee to rule out the 'bias.'

Maybe it just because of the scientific world I live in.

Call it my own bias

originally posted by: Kandinsky
Step it down my English brother and admit your idea creates more problems than it solves.

There does seem to be more cons rather than pros.

But that was the idea of the debate. Compare the Pros and cons.

And yes it does seem to create more problems.

Now the question is, is there a better way to address the issues my ideas were attempting to address? IE
Posts with little substance or there to just bait?

Kinda still laughing about the beautiful and elegant quote.

Dude, get out of your basement.

a reply to: crazyewok

Are single sentence responses a 'bad thing' and contain 'little substance' ?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: TonyS

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
It would deal quite a blow to the sockpuppet population on ATS.

However, I see the current system as elegant in it's own way. It's usually pretty easy to spot a person, and their various sockpuppets if you apply some critical thinking. Of course, I'll never accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet or a shill, but I have my own thoughts on the subject and respond to these people with that idea in mind.

I think it's part of what makes ATS fun. Figuring out who's who and doing your own detective work to find out who the sockpuppets are.

I'm over the age of 30; what ever do you mean by sock puppets? Don't get it.

Sorry, a "sockpuppet" in forum terms is someone who creates multiple accounts and uses them to fill a thread with messages of support for the poster's original account. The sockpuppet can (in the case of ATS) also star posts of the other puppets to falsely inflate the numbers of "people like this post" in a vain attempt to gain more credibility as a poster.

Oh..thanks. I had no idea that goes on. Kind of sad when you think about it, working that hard to get approval. Sounds like some people didn't understand the "get a life" thing.
Thanks. (I'm trying to figure out how to load an avatar, not terribly well experienced at this).

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: crazyewok

Are single sentence responses a 'bad thing' and contain 'little substance' ?

Not always but it depends on what is said.

Eg your would be fine as it asks a valid question in my opinion.

When in doubt assume its me who be throwin' out stars.