Can we have a "booooo" button?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: FyreByrd

Wouldn't a cogent response with reasoning and supportive links be better.

This 'aint Facebork.

A 'cogent' response with sound reasoning and supports would indeed be better - but doesn't work on those making these fallacious rebuttals. Maybe a 'booooo' button would serve the purpose - expecially as those fallacious rebuttals always seem to garner plenty of 'stars'. Perhaps a counterpoint to 'stars' would help point out these errors and encourage people to think before just reacting.

Perhaps, I give 'people' too much credit. Sigh.

Ahh Frank Sinatra's "Luck be a Lady Tonight". One of my favorite tunes and I don't particularly care for Frank S. Listening to Phat Tracks on KJazz 88.1 FM (www.jazzandblues.org...) - my favorite Jazz program.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: kurthall

A simple face-palm is never enough.

I don't know whether to be appalled or delighted.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Perhaps a counterpoint to 'stars' would help point out these errors and encourage people to think before just reacting.

We had something like that some years ago, and we got threads with only the opening post and many "negative stars". In the same way some people appear to flock over other people's posts to star them, regardless of what they say, the same thing happened then, with those groups acting to make other people's posts look bad.

That feature was removed.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Perhaps a counterpoint to 'stars' would help point out these errors and encourage people to think before just reacting.

We had something like that some years ago, and we got threads with only the opening post and many "negative stars". In the same way some people appear to flock over other people's posts to star them, regardless of what they say, the same thing happened then, with those groups acting to make other people's posts look bad.

That feature was removed.

I can understand that - and I know how important the site's 'metrics' are to advertising revenues - but playing to the lowest denominator is in direct contradiction of 'deny ignorance'. In fact, it supports that very ignorance' and just ignores what is true, what is sane.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
I can understand that - and I know how important the site's 'metrics' are to advertising revenues - but playing to the lowest denominator is in direct contradiction of 'deny ignorance'. In fact, it supports that very ignorance' and just ignores what is true, what is sane.

I don't understand it, do you mean that not allowing negative votes is playing to the lowest denominator?

a reply to: ArMaP

Only indirectly as there is no counterbalance to the Stars.

There are posters on this board post absurd material without any support of any kind - just to get a reaction? Yes?

They have followers (and perhaps have mutilple log-ins) that star everything without thought or reasoning? Yes?

Newcomers see this and think this is good because of all the stars when, in fact, these post do nothing to either promote the seeking of true nor the desire for truth. By definition, without a counterweight where members can 'disapprove' the form and un-supported content of any given OP, the site sets-up a reinforcing loop that promotes ever greater ignorance.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Yes, there are many absurd and even disgusting posts on ATS, and yes, there are clearly what look like groups (organised or not) that star and flag every post/thread from those hypothetical group members (even if only ideologically), and that gives a wrong impression about those posts/threads, but from what I witnessed when we had "negative stars", the negative effect is (naturally, I suppose) stronger on those that look at the posts, so that acted as a kind of censorship, the worst way to spread ignorance, so I prefer things as they are, even if most people do not use the stars and flags in the way they were intended.