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).Having only likes and no dislikes is maybe the worst possible option, but nothing would be best. — 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.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
Nah you were part of the control group.Did you do that to me? Or have I just been an arsehole of my own accord? — Sapientia
Didn't notice :)Note that I'm just going to ignore the parts where you disagreed with anything I said — Baden
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.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.
I accept your apology.*masturbates furiously* — The Great Whatever
No problem. I agree that taste is going to be a large part of it....these issues largely come down to taste so I didn't intend to present an argument just some thoughts. — 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.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
Options > Edit Profile > Show Ratings? > NoI did not know this was an option. Good to know. — 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.Anonymity would be a good idea if the single, unanimous goal of this forum was to conduct formal philosophical discussions. — darthbarracuda
In addition to the reasons I have already presented, I think it would make longer conversations difficult to follow. — Postmodern Beatnik
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.Philosophy is naturally anti-social. — bert1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.