Vote of No Confidence
-
If only there was a TL4 in this topic that could do that without the whole PM stuff.
Such people must be the stuff of legend.
-
-
why do i read that as bi-mage rather than black mage? :(
-
When I criticize that exact thing, people make fun of me. Just FYI.
The things are not equivalent, in your case you lost access by virtue of choosing not to play by Jeff's rules as a conscious choice. I lost access by inadvertently not spending sufficient time looking at an arbitrary number of topics, whose number I did not even know and had no idea what the actual criteria was (especially because it's proper territory on a daily basis)
Not saying it's right but this is why you get mocked for arguing this because it's more your own choice you get locked out.
@Kuro, I would rather wait until I getting access back, should be today that happens since I will find the time today to boost my stats back up. Mostly because half the fun of sharing is the reactions. You know, the shared "how much worse it could possibly get" thing
-
The things are not equivalent, in your case you lost access by virtue of choosing not to play by Jeff's rules as a conscious choice.
No; I lost access because the rules changed-out from under me. I never used the "likes" feature. One day that gave access to the lounge forum. The next day it did not.
I made no change in behavior. It's unfair to change my level of access if I make no change in behavior.
I lost access by inadvertently not spending sufficient time looking at an arbitrary number of topics, whose number I did not even know and had no idea what the actual criteria was (especially because it's proper territory on a daily basis)
a.k.a. not playing by Jeff's rules.
Not saying it's right but this is why you get mocked for arguing this because it's more your own choice you get locked out.
It doesn't become true just because you repeat it a bunch.
-
My point is, I don't like Jeffrules however I don't actively avoid them by refusing to participate.
Still not saying it was right or in any way intelligent design though, because it wasn't. In some ways, TL3 is one of the stupidest design "features" in Discourse.
-
i actually scrolled down to look for a comment explaining the "bl"
-
-
Well, @abarker loves hats. And Red Mage seems to be the most appropiate-looking class for @boomzilla ...
-
-
Damn you! Now I want to read 8-bit theatre again! But I have work to do...
-
-
@loopback0 said:
Or the same person?!
Aren't you one of Boomzilla's alter ego's?
Aren't we all?
-
-
WTF...somehow this topic got changed to Regular a long time ago.
No confidence.
-
I made no change in behavior. It's unfair to change my level of access if I make no change in behavior.
You actively tried to revoke likes you had already given. You actively try to avoid giving likes now. I'd call that a "change in behavior".
-
-
You actively try to avoid giving likes now.
Not doing something doesn't count as "active" though. Is he "actively" avoiding lion taming as well?
-
No. But he's actively avoiding this stuff. It's not that hard.
-
I don't know about blakey,but i sure am.
-
Not doing something doesn't count as "active" though.
Sure it does, when you consciously choose not to do something, that is an active choice.
Here's the situation:
- Blakeyrat reads a post he likes/agrees with/makes him laugh.
- Blakeyrat must now decide between the following:
- Click the like button to indicate his appreciation to the person who wrote the post.
- Don't click the like button so that he isn't participating in Jeff's gamifaction of discourse.
Before likes were a part of Discourse's Trust Level, blakeyrat gave out some likes. Not many, but he did give some out. He actually went through a decision making process in step 2. Then it was announced that likes would count toward TL3, and he said this (lounge access required to view the whole post):
Fuck off. I don't want your fucking gamification bullshit in the first place.
In fact, I'm going to go out of my way and UNDO the likes I've given so far.
He later discovered that it was too late to undo some of the likes he'd given out, but since that point blakeyrat has actively forced the decision making process in step to avoid giving out likes (except for one he gave out on "accident" back in December). It is an active decision.
Is he "actively" avoiding lion taming as well?
I don't know. Does he readily have access to lion taming training?
-
You actively tried to revoke likes you had already given.
Yeah, the 4, 2 of which were testing and the other 2 were accidentally clicking bullshit on the phone where the screen spazzes all-over and it's impossible to not click stuff by accident.
That does not count as "using likes".
You actively try to avoid giving likes now. I'd call that a "change in behavior".
"doing nothing" isn't even a behavior, much less a change in behavior.
-
Blakeyrat must now decide between the following:
Click the like button to indicate his appreciation to the person who wrote the post.
Don't click the like button so that he isn't participating in Jeff's gamifaction of discourse.This situation is so backwards it's hurting my head. Since when did "liking" something become a thing people are just expected to do? Since when is clicking the "like" button the default behavior... ever?
Doing nothing is always the default behavior. Not pressing the "like" button is doing nothing. I am already engaging in the default behavior, so I am not "doing" anything.
Why is this something that has to be explained?
-
Since when did "liking" something become a thing people are just expected to do? Since when is clicking the "like" button the default behavior... ever?
We've been over this before. It's a way to communicate to the author that you appreciated his post without the need for a zillion posts. If you don't like any of the posts here, why are you here?
It's part of being a part of the community. If you want to fully participate, there's the "bonus" that some extra places and privileges are opened up for you. If you don't, then don't. But don't act like Discourse threw sand in your vagina<RAPE CULTURE>.
Why is this something that has to be explained?
Because your dumb<dumb what? dumb everything>.
-
If you don't like any of the posts here, why are you here?
I like the posts. I don't hit a button to tell a computer I like the posts.
Moreover, since half the people who do "hit" the button have bots that just automatically hit the button for them, I feel that there's zero value in knowing the number of people who hit the button. I certainly don't feel that it should convey any sort of special status.
If you want to fully participate, there's the "bonus" that some extra places and privileges are opened up for you.
I am fully participating.
-
Sure it does, when you consciously choose not to do something, that is an active choice.
No it's not, that's forcing responsibility onto people. It's ok to ignore things and not make any choice.Blakeyrat must now decide
He "must"? Why? Why can't he just ignore the feature?Before likes were a part of Discourse, blakeyrat gave out some likes.
So, he's a witch? I'm not sure how that would be possible.
-
@abarker said:
Before likes were a part of Discourse, blakeyrat gave out some likes.
So, he's a witch? I'm not sure how that would be possible.
I think he really meantbefore Likes were part of the TL3 conditions
-
I am fully participating.
LIES.
Moreover, since half the people who do "hit" the button have bots that just automatically hit the button for them, I feel that there's zero value in knowing the number of people who hit the button. I certainly don't feel that it should convey any sort of special status.
And no one gives a shit about your fantasies, so I guess we're all even.
-
-
@KillaCoder said:
Why can't he just ignore the feature?
Seriously, we all wish he would.
Wambulance may or may not be justified, he's still right though.
-
LIES.
If I wanna say something, I say it.
If you wanna know if I found a post of yours funny, ask me.
If you need numbers constantly counting up next to your name to justify your sense of self-worth as if your life were a game of Centipede in a dingy Chucky Cheese, seppuku.
-
Wambulance may or may not be justified, he's still right though.
About what? I maintain that he's wrong. He can absolutely ignore the feature. I seriously wish he would. Instead he whines about how ignoring the feature has other consequences. He has some sort of grudge against the feature.
If you wanna know if I found a post of yours funny, ask me.
Will do.
If you need numbers constantly counting up next to your name to justify your sense of self-worth as if your life were a game of Centipede in a dingy Chucky Cheese, seppuku.
Yeah, it sucks to have people encourage or compliment you. I wouldn't want to spoil your curmudgeon reputation, though.
-
Yeah, it sucks to have people encourage or compliment you.
Hitting a button doesn't imply anything other than "a button was hit".
-
Hitting a button doesn't imply anything other than "a button was hit".
Uh huh. And typing a post doesn't imply anything other than "some buttons were hit."
-
About what? I maintain that he's wrong. He can absolutely ignore the feature. I seriously wish he would. Instead he whines about how ignoring the feature has other consequences. He has some sort of grudge against the feature.
That sealing off part of the site because he doesn't want to use a totally unrelated feature is wrong, and a creepy example of software trying to manipulate it's users.
He doesn't want to use likes, he shouldn't have to use likes, and he shouldn't be punished for not using likes.
Software should serve it's users, not force them to jump through hoops. I think that's genuinely hostile design.
In the ideal case, he could ignore the likes feature (as he wishes), you could use the likes feature (as you wish), and neither of you would be punished or sealed off from anything. No one would have to argue who was right, since you both would have the freedom to use likes or not, as you wished.
-
That sealing off part of the site because he doesn't want to use a totally unrelated feature is wrong, and a creepy example of software trying to manipulate it's users.
I disagree with this sentiment, but I accept that opinions will vary.
He doesn't want to use likes, he shouldn't have to use likes, and he shouldn't be punished for not using likes
I agree. I also think he isn't being punished.
-
I agree. I also think he isn't being punished.
If Discourse handled topics you created better, I would agree, but if you lose TL3 (for any reason), you lose access to your own TL3 topics which IMO is punitive. If it were a manual action, I could see a business case for it (such as losing staff access), but since it is highly arbitrary the only justification I can see is that it would be technologically challenging. To be honest, the whole trust level feature seems to be a gimmick feature to add perceived value.
-
the whole trust level feature seems to be a gimmick feature to add perceived value.
QFT
-
To be honest, the whole trust level feature seems to be a gimmick feature to add perceived value.
I think there is merit to the trust level concept, though I'm not defending every aspect of it.
If Discourse handled topics you created better, I would agree, but if you lose TL3 (for any reason), you lose access to your own TL3 topics which IMO is punitive
Yeah, I can accept this opinion, but I still disagree about its punitive nature.
-
To be honest, the whole trust level feature seems to be a gimmick feature to add perceived value.
No, you got it all wrong! Y'see, it's about encouraging civilised discourse. And I think it's clear, based on this site, that it's worked brillantly.
-
-
half the people who do "hit" the button have bots that just automatically hit the button for them
That's not true. Believe it or not.
-
FREE YOURSELVES FROM THE MACHINES' OPPRESSION.
-
For example, I don't have any bots.
Well, other than the killbot in the shed, and that definitely doesn't "like" anything.
-
That's not true.
Every day there's a new discussion about someone using a bot to like everything in the Likes thread.
Believe it or not.
I'm going with not.
-
Every day there's a new discussion about someone using a bot to like everything in the Likes thread.
Which applies to Not The Likes Thread how?
-
Every day there's a new discussion about someone using a bot to like everything in the Likes thread.
Has it occurred to you that liking behavior in
/t/1000
is not representative of the rest of the forums?
-
Which applies to Not The Likes Thread how?
Gee, I dunno. My own personal experience where i went months with some bot automatically liking everything I posted? Maybe? You idiot?
Here's a thought: if you morons didn't want to make me think likes come from bots, maybe you dumbshits shouldn't have made bots that did nothing but like my posts for weeks at a time. JUST A THOUGHT.
-
I thought that was basically part of the @mention trolling and stopped ages ago. Did you not notice that it stopped?
-
Do you want some more apologies or something? One person trolled you with one bot. Hence, everyone.