I can see both sides to this. But whatever happens, as I said, will at least likely end up pleasing more people than the present system does.

Having only likes and no dislikes is maybe the worst possible option, but nothing would be best. — The Great Whatever

Do you, perchance, have an argument for this? It might be helpful to actually defend your view (not just to get your way, but also to enlighten others).

Some of this seems like overreaction to me. Let's just cut to the chase and get rid of all visible information as it might taint our judgement.

If the point of likes and karma is to create some positive incentive to post or some positive reinforcement for doing so, allowing that without the possibility of negative feedback encourages a maximization of posting at the expense of quality control, because there are no negative repercussions for 'bad' posts, only positive repercussions for 'good' ones.

At the same time, though, negative karma can lead to mob-rule. The fear of public internet shame (look how many dislikes you got, what an idiot!) can lead to people not posting things that may actually be good content. Furthermore, other people can subconsciously be drawn in to think that the posts with negative karma are automatically "bad" (why??? - because anonymous internet users disagree...therefore it is wrong?). Instead of forming their own opinion, they base it off the karma system. It would be best to get rid of the system entirely, but if it has to be here, make it positive.

Also, negative reinforcement usually does not deter trolls, but it does deter people who are honestly looking for a discussion. It is possible to just ignore posts that you feel are not of quality.

If the point of likes and karma is to create some positive incentive to post or some positive reinforcement for doing so, allowing that without the possibility of negative feedback encourages a maximization of posting at the expense of quality control, because there are no negative repercussions for 'bad' posts, only positive repercussions for 'good' ones. — The Great Whatever

First, the antecedent of your conditional is false. That's not the point of likes (and there would be no accumulated karma score if option 3 succeeds), so you can't get any sort of modus ponens argument going here. The consequent also doesn't follow from the antecedent: allowing likes without dislikes doesn't remove the possibility of negative feedback. It just affects what form that feedback must take. Without anonymous dislikes, one must actually go through the trouble of formulating a counterargument.

I discovered I could disable the upvotes and downvotes feature at PF about two months ago, and did so straight away. I would have done so the moment I joined had I known I could.

*masturbates furiously*

If anyone's wondering why that didn't get deleted, it's because it's in Feedback. Viewer discretion is advised.

Did you do that to me? Or have I just been an arsehole of my own accord? — Sapientia

Nah you were part of the control group.

Note that I'm just going to ignore the parts where you disagreed with anything I said — Baden

Didn't notice :)
Hey , these issues largely come down to taste so I didn't intend to present an argument just some thoughts.

One possible objection here might be that certain names will inevitably gather certain reputations within the community anyway (and certainly within the minds of individual members). Thus a person with a strong reputation might receive undue deference and a person with a weak reputation might receive undue umbrage.

This does happen and I get the feeling that it's influence is greater than that of rep. It's pretty annoying when you see people get behind a good poster whose made a bad argument. I've never been on a forum that had reps so can't compare what they are like.

Of course I don't think that we should post without names. The point was that in a forum context we can't reach the ideal of looking only at the content of the post and maybe we shouldn't be aiming for it.

In the end theirs nothing really at stake in these discussions. It gives people a chance to voice their opinions but I doubt there has been one person who changed what they wanted to vote for after reading the posts.

Actually, I'm generally in favor of anonymity as well, but it might be unworkable in this format.

*masturbates furiously* — The Great Whatever

I accept your apology.

...these issues largely come down to taste so I didn't intend to present an argument just some thoughts. — shmik

No problem. I agree that taste is going to be a large part of it.

Of course I don't think that we should post without names. The point was that in a forum context we can't reach the ideal of looking only at the content of the post and maybe we shouldn't be aiming for it. — shmik

I'm not sure we can achieve this in any context. It's less a problem of format and more a problem of human nature. So I take your point, but I do think there are smaller and larger influences, and that we make the most progress by focusing on the larger influences—especially if they can be removed with minimal loss.

What's not to like?

I did not know this was an option. Good to know.

Anonymity would be a good idea if the single, unanimous goal of this forum was to conduct formal philosophical discussions. But this isn't the case. We would lose the sense of community and informal "friendship", as well as the ability to talk nonchalantly in a thread unrelated to philosophy specifically. I think it would be artificial and unattractive to current and future members.

I did not know this was an option. Good to know. — darthbarracuda

Options > Edit Profile > Show Ratings? > No

Anonymity would be a good idea if the single, unanimous goal of this forum was to conduct formal philosophical discussions. — darthbarracuda

I still don't think this is true. In addition to the reasons I have already presented, I think it would make longer conversations difficult to follow. We often find ourselves needing to refer back to previous points we have made (perhaps to build on something we have already said, or to clear up a misinterpretation, or some other reason). But even if this were true, I think the point you make about community is strong enough to counterbalance whatever we lose by attaching usernames to our posts.

In addition to the reasons I have already presented, I think it would make longer conversations difficult to follow. — Postmodern Beatnik

Completely agree.

Interesting self-observation I just had: when I post an argument that I am not completely sure about (more of just musings or general impressions) that gets liked, it gives me the superficial sense that I am "right" without actually knowing why I am right.

Now if I post an argument that details a position that I am passionate about, and garners likes, it's nice to see other people appreciating my ideas.

Kind of strange.

I voted for the 'get rid of them completely option'. Philosophy is naturally anti-social. But I guess being philosophers is not all we are, so I'm not that bothered if they are kept in whatever form.

Philosophy is naturally anti-social. — bert1

Only aspects of it are. Forums and other forms of dialogue are naturally social, but introspection and unshared thoughts are not. Both can count as doing philosophy.

Philosophy is naturally anti-social. — bert1

A distinctly modern notion. The ancient philosophers would have argued that philosophy simply cannot be done in isolation and without cross-examination. It was the image of Descartes shut up in his room that started the trend towards believing that philosophy could be done alone. But even then there were letters containing objections and encouragements traded back and forth before any of his works were completed.

Post should accumulate the likes, not the poster.

So the software is updated now and I've disabled the reputation system. As I expected, there's no option to retain likes for posts--it's all or nothing. I'm going to ask for that feature next time I send a list of feature requests.

If enough people who voted for option 3 (which is not possible) would prefer the all to the nothing, kick up a fuss about it here.

I've disabled the reputation system — jamalrob

(Y)

there's no option to retain likes for posts--it's all or nothing — jamalrob

No great loss.

No great loss. — Baden

(Y)

Ditto!

Meow!

GREG

I wonder if we're going to see a lot more of these: (Y)

(N)

The number under your name is now the number of posts, by the way.

(Y)