Vote of No Confidence
-
So the rule is "likes are from humans unless they aren't"? How does this help me? Is there some other icon that gets drawn on the like to tell me which is which?
In any case, fuck digging in the weeds here. The point is: the number of times I click the "like" button has no relation whatsoever to my level of trust. None. There's no link. Whatsoever.
-
So the rule is "likes are from humans unless they aren't"?
The rule is "likes are from humans except on the likes thread and that one troll bot you got attacked by". Likes show icons for each person who liked, and you can see whether or not their name is 'likebot' pretty clearly.
-
-
The rule is "likes are from humans except on the likes thread and that one troll bot you got attacked by".
Too complicated. I like my rule: "likes mean absolutely nothing and anybody who thinks they do is a moron".
Likes show icons for each person who liked, and you can see whether or not their name is 'likebot' pretty clearly.
The bot(s) that were liking my posts were doing it on behalf of actual users.
-
"likes mean absolutely nothing and anybody who thinks they do is a moron"
Everyone knows that. They just like making integers ++.
The bot(s) that were liking my posts were doing it on behalf of actual users.
Ah. It's a good thing they've stopped, then.
-
Ah. It's a good thing they've stopped, then.
Right but I have no assurance that any given "like" comes from a human. This is the entire conversation, remember?
-
Right but I have no assurance that any given "like" comes from a human.
You have no assurance that any given post comes from a human, either.
-
You have no assurance that any given post comes from a human, either.
Correct, but since I put you humans and stupid chatbots on the same intellectual level (which is "bottom of the shit-chute underneath the outhouse" level), it doesn't matter.
-
Correct, but since I put you humans and stupid chatbots on the same intellectual level (which is "bottom of the shit-chute underneath the outhouse" level), it doesn't matter.
So if it doesn't matter if a post is written by a human or a bot, why does it matter if a like comes from a human or a bot?
-
So if it doesn't matter if a post is written by a human or a bot, why does it matter if a like comes from a human or a bot?
It doesn't! They're both valued at zero!
Jesus Christ, you see why I think you people are so dumb? I just said that.
-
Summary for everyone who doesn't understand @blakeyrat:
LIKES DON'T MEAN ANYTHING, AND IT'S NOT THE BOTS' FAULT - HE NEVER SAW THE POINT IN THEM ANYWAYS.
Now stop trying to change his mind by bringing reasonable arguments.
-
"doing nothing" isn't even a behavior, much less a change in behavior.
An alcoholic that does no drinking didn't change their behavior?
That said, I get your point, which is that you never were liking things, not that you used to like things and have now stopped.
end of reply to blakeyrat, beginning of random soliloquy.... That said that I said it, it's way easier to get likes by pointing out @blakeyrat contradictions than by agreeing with him... especially since if I agree with him, he's the only person that could possibly like that, and he will never click the like button on the post to show such. edit: hmm.. if only the first part of the reply was aimed at blakeyrat, should I reference him as "you" or "him" in the second part where I'm just randomly blathering to the forum at large.... some copy editing can fix this problem!Also, I'm glad Dischorse broke the <hr> tag so badly that all uses of @mention coming after an HR are completely fucking broken. oh wait. Now this one works. GO DISCHORSE.
Also also, WTF is this shit?
congratulations Dischorse, you fail. oh hey, it's not just the preview, the actual post looks like that too. Guess you'll have to use the raw button. Good thing our forum has a raw button so you can actually read it.VOTE OF NO MOTHERFSCKING CONFIDENCE
-
I agree. I also think he isn't being punished.
I think us poor Likes Topic veterans are the ones being punished. If it weren't for that topic, I don't think I have given enough Likes to have The Lounge forced upon me.
-
Seriously though, can anyone explain what the hell went wrong with that formatting?
-
If you aren't new here, you aren't very convincing.
-
An alcoholic that does no drinking didn't change their behavior?
I dunno, did they drink before? Not enough information to answer this.
That said that I said it, it's way easier to get likes by pointing out @blakeyrat contradictions than by agreeing with him... especially since if I agree with him, he's the only person that could possibly like that, and he will never click the like button on the post to show such.
If you're making decisions on what to post based on how many "likes" you expect you'll receive, seppuku.
-
I dunno, did they drink before? Not enough information to answer this.
al·co·hol·ic
noun
a person suffering from alcoholism.al·co·hol·ism
noun
an addiction to the consumption of alcoholic liquor or the mental illness and compulsive behavior resulting from alcohol dependency.I suppose there's 3 ways to interpret your post:
- the worst pedantry attempt ever (they didn't drink it to become alcoholic, it was hooked to their veins!)
- you no speaka da englishes
- you glossed over everything without bothering to read it and replied simply to try to find a loophole in anything I said because you were compelled to by the law of blakeyrat. nevermind, that's just a blakeyratified version of #1
If you're making decisions on what to post based on how many "likes" you expect you'll receive, seppuku.
That did not affect my decision on what to post, it was merely a statement of fact that coincided in a fortunate way with the decision I'd already made.
-
I actually can't eat at Taco Bell because hardly anything is vegetarian..
I used to eat at Taco Bell all of the time, because they were one of the first to not put lard in their re-fried beans. I still do, sometimes. Not sure what the problem is. As far as fast-food places go, I consider them one of the best. [Vegetarian for 33 years, FWIW.]
-
I sometimes go to taco bell, but only because it's the cheapest fast food. And also because I missed Mexican food all those years in NZ.
-
- replying to @morbiuswilters, man that's old.
- oh wait, it says that was posted in May, and it's May!
- lets go see if morbs has been posting stuff
- oh it was May of 2014
-
Never quite understood the whole idea that replies needed to be timely.
-
al·co·hol·icnouna person suffering from alcoholism.
Yes?
You can be a alcoholic and never once touch alcohol.
That's not pedantic dickweedery, that's simple science fact.
Without knowing whether the alcoholic made a behavioral change, it's impossible for me to say whether he made a behavioral change. (Sounds pretty obvious when you put it that way, doesn't it?)
-
Makes you think it was May 14th initially at a glance, doesn't it?
Shit GUI, right there.
-
Without knowing whether the alcoholic made a behavioral change, it's impossible for me to say whether he made a behavioral change.
τ
-
So you take option 1 then.
-
-
So the rule is "likes are from humans unless they aren't"? How does this help me? Is there some other icon that gets drawn on the like to tell me which is which?
I...guess? They only seem to be in the Likes thread, so if you post there, you'll get some automated Likes and some manual Likes.
The point is: the number of times I click the "like" button has no relation whatsoever to my level of trust. None. There's no link. Whatsoever.
Yes, you Like zero times and so get zero trust boost from it. I've already talked about how I see it as being a part of the community. You've carved out your special niche, to which you're welcome. It's just unseemly how you complain about where you've put yourself.
-
-
The bot(s) that were liking my posts were doing it on behalf of actual users.
There was also one guy, @nobulate whose mission was to like everything on the forum manually. He was accused of being a bot, but he wasn't.
-
-
I have no idea what you're talking about. Why would I want to promote you and what could that possibly have to do with my relationship with Jeff?
-
Why would I want to promote you
Oh I don't give a shit if you do or not. I never even suggested it.
and what could that possibly have to do with my relationship with Jeff?
I just find it funny that this is the one thing of his you completely 100% instantly cave-in and support whole-heartedly.
-
I just find it funny that this is the one thing of his you completely 100% instantly cave-in and support whole-heartedly.
Well, you could have just hit the Like button if you thought it was funny. Sheesh, always doing things the hard way.
I'll admit, your rankling does make it seem like a better idea.
-
I'm not rankled because I'm not in those forums, I'm rankled because:
-
People keep acting like hitting the "likes" button is the default action and I'm "doing something weird" by not using it.
-
I object to being denied access to my own threads, because that's simply wrong.
But mainly the first one.
-
-
Weird.
-
If it weren't for that topic, I don't think I have given enough Likes to have The Lounge forced upon me.
I could drop you back to TL2 if you want....
-
I could drop you back to TL2 if you want....
oh if you're going to do that.... no. too evil.
unrelatedly:
hmm..... if we actually ever ban someone (who isn't me.... but it probably will be) i'm totally going to call it getting trustholed to TL-1
-
I don't hit a button to tell a computer I like the posts.
Hitting the button does not merely tell a computer that you liked a post; it also tells the author (and any other interested humans). It is a simple and easy way to express your appreciation to the author.
Since when is clicking the "like" button the default behavior
It is not the default behavior, but it is pretty much a standard part of participation in lots of online communities.I am fully participating.
No, you're not. Expression appreciation to other participants is part of fully participating. Obviously, Jeff thinks so, too. I don't necessarily agree with making this specific aspect of participation mandatory to receive certain perks of full participation, but I don't find it even slightly onerous.Rescinding access to perks after they have been granted is, at best, badly implemented, and changing the rules arbitrarily was, well, arbitrary. I understand why you are upset by that.
However, you know what the rules are, and it would be utterly trivial for you to regain access. Instead you have chosen to give Jeff the finger by rejecting his rules. That's your prerogative, but whining about the consequences of doing so is wearing thin after all these months.
@blakeyrat said:If you wanna know if I found a post of yours funny, ask me.
We have how many members? We're all supposed to ask every other member whether they liked each of our posts? The forum software (and other forum software) provides a simple mechanism whereby members can express appreciation on their own initiative, without being asked, eliminating the need for an exchange of 2n2 "Did you like it?" "Yes/No" posts for each post with actual content.
Hitting a button doesn't imply anything other than "a button was hit".
I cannot speak for others, but every time I hit that button, it means that I found the associated post amusing, insightful, informative or otherwise worthy of appreciation. (Outside of /t/1000, of course, and the rare accidental click.) Perhaps you consider it meaningless, but I am not implying something, I am stating something explicitly when I hit that button.creepy example of software trying to manipulate it's users.
The entirety of Discourse is an example of Jeff trying to manipulate users into his vision of "civilized" discourse.he shouldn't be punished for not using likes.
He's not being punished; he's merely not being rewarded.you lose access to your own TL3 topics which IMO is punitive.
I think it's a stupid "feature," but not punitive.I think there is merit to the trust level concept, though I'm not defending every aspect of it.
The idea that long-term, active participants in a community can be trusted with more privileges and responsibilities sounds logical, but it is open to abuse. (Look at certain elected officials.) In Discourse, until you get to TL4+, awarding of which is entirely manual, based on the actual trust admins have for any given member, the privileges and responsibilities are mostly useless, and the criteria for obtaining them mostly arbitrary.Edit: Eesh! I actually Did It Right™. Sorry, I won't let it happen again.
-
Rescinding access to perks after they have been granted is, at best, badly implemented, and changing the rules arbitrarily was, well, arbitrary. I understand why you are upset by that.
Then shut up and sympathize.
That's your prerogative, but whining about the consequences of doing so is wearing thin after all these months.
Only when other people bring it up.
We have how many members? We're all supposed to ask every other member whether they liked each of our posts?
No; you're supposed to have enough self-confidence to not give a shit what other people think. You know, like adult human beings.
-
No; you're supposed to have enough self-confidence to not give a shit what other people think. You know, like adult human beings.
Caring what other people think (within reason) is a normal, healthy part of being an adult human. Caring too much is not healthy, but not giving a shit at all is also not good. There is a name for it: sociopath.
-
hmm..... if we actually ever ban someone (who isn't me.... but it probably will be) i'm totally going to call it getting trustholed to TL-1
i think getting trustholed to tl1 would be worse than a ban. at least if you got fully banned, you might leave. If you're TL1, you could just keep on trying to fight what you think is the good fight... at some low # of posts per day.... unable to post more than 3x in a row..... and with no image posting capability.....
Welcome to Forum Hell.
Otherwise known as, welcome to Dischorse.
-
killbot in the shed
Because apparently some people don't get the concept, I'll now explicitly post my approval of the above post. It made me chuckle for a few seconds but I'll have probably forgot about it in a few minutes. Don't worry though because these few seconds are part of why I'll load a new topic after I finished reading this.
-
Doing nothing is always the default behavior.
Sitting under your bed, hugging your knees and slowly rocking back and forward is the default behaviour (at least until the nice gentlemen in the white coats and the I-like-myself-shirt arrives).
Anything other than that like, say, participating on an internet forum, is a deviation from default behaviour. The -button is just as much part of the "participating on an internet forum"-behaviour pattern as is clicking the "reply"-button.
-
punished or sealed off from anything
Wait... not having access to the lounge would be a punishment?
Silly me, I got the whole thing backwards then.
On a less serious note, your perspective is wrong. The additional access is a reward for actively participating in the "Civilised discussion. On the internet." game. If I follow your argument to the extreme, I can claim that I am being "punished" since I am not president of the US even if I have never participated in any election campaign.
-
Correct, but since I put you humans and stupid chatbots on the same intellectual level
I'm not sure whether the alleged chatbots just passed a Turing test, or whether you failed one with this statement.
-
He's not being punished; he's merely not being rewarded.
A reward would be something new and extra. That's not what "liking" gets you. Instead, you lose access to things you already had. That's a punishment, in my book. And I don't know why folks think that's ok.Who actually gives a **** if this dude likes posts or not? Why is the software set up to try and force him to?
-
On a less serious note, your perspective is wrong. The additional access is a reward for actively participating in the "Civilised discussion. On the internet." game. If I follow your argument to the extreme, I can claim that I am being "punished" since I am not president of the US even if I have never participated in any election campaign.
He lost access to his own threads. That's a punishment.It'd be more like you were president, and then got removed from office due to arbitrary reasons that had nothing to do with your job performance. (I'm sure there's a Clinton impeachment + "job" joke in there somewhere...)
Even not having access to the lounge feels a bit wrong to me, though a much grayer area I admit. A user should never have to jump through hoops to satisfy software. The software should jump through hoops to satisfy the user.
Do you honestly give a **** if Blakey likes things or not?
-
Do you honestly give a **** if Blakey likes things or not?
No. I just like to argue with you.
He lost access to his own threads. That's a punishment.
He did not "lose" access. He took an active decision to drop the access.
A user should never have to jump through hoops to satisfy software. The software should jump through hoops to satisfy the user.
No. The software should jump through hoops to satisfy all stakeholders. This includes each individual user but also, in this case, the "game master" that decides under which rules we are allowed to conduct civilised discussions. This means that there is sometimes a tradeoff between the requirements and behaviour of different users. Since not all stakeholders are created equal, the requirements of the game master weighs more than the requirements of one individual user.
This has nothing to do with the software being in the way of the users. There are more than several other threads on this forum that discuss the instances where this is the case, but in this particular case the software functions as intended.
-
No. I just like to argue with you.
Fair enough
He did not "lose" access. He took an active decision to drop the access.
He had access but the software took it away. He never chose to drop it. He was never asked. That isn't an active decision.No. The software should jump through hoops to satisfy all stakeholders.
No it shouldn't, not if the stakeholders are creepy and their "satisfaction" depends on forcing unwanted things on others.I'm sure there are Facebook users who would love the ability to prowl through other folks private photo albums. The software should not satisfy them.
This includes each individual user but also, in this case, the "game master" that decides under which rules we are allowed to conduct civilised discussions.
If you're ok with a literal "master" whose arbitrary rules cause parts of the software to appear and disappear on a whim, then we'll never agree. That sounds cloud cuckoo land, properly insane to me.This means that there is sometimes a tradeoff between the requirements and behaviour of different users. Since not all stakeholders are created equal, the requirements of the game master weighs more than the requirements of one individual user.
Who is the "game master"? Why does he/she/it exist? Why are they more important? Why are the actual users of a simple discussion forum subject to the whims of some shadowy "master"? Why is their word law?
@Mikael_Svahnberg said:This has nothing to do with the software being in the way of the users [...] in this particular case the software functions as intended.
The software stops him accessing his own threads.
The software is functioning as intended, but the intentions were creepy and crazy.Discourse should just let people use this forum as they want. Stop trying to force and manipulate people to jump through hoops because "Discourse knows best".
-
No it shouldn't, not if the stakeholders are creepy and their "satisfaction" depends on forcing unwanted things on others.
Let's start here. Satisfying all stakeholders imply that you need to make trade-offs. In this case, the privacy requirements of the many outweigh the requirements of the stalker. In your FB example, if the stalker is the government (or facebook itself), I am not so sure that the privacy requirements are respected.
If you're ok with a literal "master" whose arbitrary rules cause parts of the software to appear and disappear on a whim, then we'll never agree. That sounds cloud cuckoo land, properly insane to me.
As a kid, my brother and I used to play Monopoly to the extent that we created hyper-inflation in it. But we never tried to play ving-et-un with the Monopoly set since it was not designed for it.
All non-trivial software impose arbitrary rules on how you use it. This inludes (but is not limited to) what parts of the software you can access or not access depending on what you have done with it previously, or what your current job description/security access level is, or which doors you open, or whether a monster jumps up on you from the dark, etc.
[...] Why is their word law?
Because they created the requirements specification for the software. We may argue whether they did a good job at requirements engineering, but that is another discussion. The host of this forum chose Discourse, and the thereby implied set of rules, for us to play in. Again, we may argue about whether any proper requirements engineering was done, but this is still not a fault with the software itself, and is still a different discussion.
Discourse should just let people use this forum as they want. Stop trying to force and manipulate people to jump through hoops because "Discourse knows best".
... Namely this discussion. Discourse does not know best. It knows one way of holding discussions on the internet. Other examples include Usenet News, IRC, mail, or even IP broadcasting. There are levels of usage in Discourse. For example, you may:
- Ignore its existence altogether and focus on your collection of navel lint
- Read only
- Read and post
- Respond to other posts
- Like other posts
- Link to posts on the forum from other sites
- Try to break the forum software
- Moderate the forum
- etc.
All of these (except possibly items 1, 7, and 8) are rewarded in some form or other1. Not because "Discourse knows best", but because those that specify the requirements for Discourse thinks (or maybe even knows) that this will encourage usage and attract more users. But the key is that you do not have to play by these rules. You can choose to select your level of usage in any way you like, and you can decide to ignore the rewards offered to you by the software. You may even change your behaviour over time, thus losing or re-gaining access to parts of the software and the data managed by it.
1 INB4: item 7 is rewarded on WTDWTF.
