Post Ratings Discussion

Should we have a fish hook rating?

  • Yea

    Votes: 1,032 85.5%

  • Nay

    Votes: 175 14.5%
  • Total voters
    1,207
Well this thread got cringier than usual real quick.

Honestly, you can be really blunt here and be mostly fine; doubly so if you show even a tiny amount of decorum or politeness. Usually you have to do something ultra stupid to get banned here; or be really really autistic. Even then, being an ultrasperg usually just results in threadbans usually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuskEngine
When Null said Cat was unbannable he meant that it wouldn't be worth dealing with the headache of people complaining. (People want Cat to be a mod; they would definitely whine if he was banned.) But if Cat got under Null's skin enough he would ban him. He banned Applecat despite her being relatively popular with both users and staff. I don't know why some people are lassoing Dynastia into that category as well though, lol.
 
Last edited:
Holdek said:
When Null said Cat was unbannnable he meant that it wouldn't be worth dealing with the headache of people complaining. (People want Cat to be a mod; they would definitely whine if he was bann.) But if Cat got under Null's skin enough he would ban him. He banned Applecat despite her being relatively popular with both users and staff. I don't know why some people are lassoing Dynastia into that category as well though, lol.
Click to expand...
Applecat isn't banned.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: APerson
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Cat used to be a mod at one point? I don't know what happened with that. I also remember Null getting pissed off at Cat's shitposting on one occasion. I'd link to it but I can't remember where it happened. So no, I wouldn't say people are "unbannable", I would just say there's really only room for a very select number of community shitposters.

Also what's the deal with people whining over notifications for ratings? I legit turned those off within a couple weeks of the ratings system going live. There's an option to do that in your profile options.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bernard and Adamska
Holdek said:
When Null said Cat was unbannnable he meant that it wouldn't be worth dealing with the headache of people complaining. (People want Cat to be a mod; they would definitely whine if he was bann.) But if Cat got under Null's skin enough he would ban him. He banned Applecat despite her being relatively popular with both users and staff. I don't know why some people are lassoing Dynastia into that category as well though, lol.
Click to expand...

Null's own words.

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/ban-dynastia.13206/#post-1019312

Dynastia is unbannable.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Holdek
Last edited:
  • Feels
  • Agree
Reactions: OtterParty, Le Bateleur and (deleted member)
If users were banned for being abrasive and blunt, then we would see a lot more users being banned. Who was the last long-term user to be banned? Kirby? Kirby earned it. KoM wasn't "banned" I don't think. Waifu wasn't banned until her 3rd or 4th incident. If you look at most bannings it is over people being inappropriate and causing drama, not for stating a position and defending it. If Dynastia was tricking girls into sending nudes and posting them on chat then he would be banned. If Cat got a lolcow SWATted and it was tied to this site, he would be banned. If Cat or Dynastia did any of the things that long-term users did to get banned here in the last year and not JULAYYYYY!!!! spergs did in their first five posts, then they would be banned. Their leash might be longer, but they're still on a chain.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: waffle, Bernard, Mr. 0 and 1 other person
yawning sneasel said:
If users were banned for being abrasive and blunt, then we would see a lot more users being banned. Who was the last long-term user to be banned? Kirby? Kirby earned it. KoM wasn't "banned" I don't think. Waifu wasn't banned until her 3rd or 4th incident. If you look at most bannings it is over people being inappropriate and causing drama, not for stating a position and defending it. If Dynastia was tricking girls into sending nudes and posting them on chat then he would be banned. If Cat got a lolcow SWATted and it was tied to this site, he would be banned. If Cat or Dynastia did any of the things that long-term users did to get banned here in the last year and not JULAYYYYY!!!! spergs did in their first five posts, then they would be banned. Their leash might be longer, but they're still on a chain.
Click to expand...

I can think of a few who got banned for being very very disagreeable.

https://kiwifarms.net/members/scumhook.7445/
Foulmouth
NZDrow
Ole Stumpy
BgHeff
Homer
Peppy
Slep
The Pickler
Chelonian
The Whitest Knight
Xalver
Countless Threads that became grave markers for their OP's in spergatory

So while you seem to laud Null for attempting to remove positive ratings(affirmation) you seem to have not suggested to remove the other force that can drive conversation - Neg ratings and warning points. Since we are willing to upend the entire site because we are concerned with Affirmative ratings creating group think. Why not remove the force on the other side of the equation?

Why not make it so that no one can neg rate anyone or be banned for at all a week or a month?

If you feel so confident that these forces are in no way a key part of directing discussion. Why not try an experiment? We tried removing Pos ratings, why not remove the rod?

People would be much willing to share their opinions if there were no negative consequences for it. Makes sense right?

As EDF and /cow/ would both agree the neg ratings and the ban system are the real application of control. If we are responding to their direct concerns, why not remove the negative disinsentive forces rather than just the incentive ones?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Disagree
Reactions: Mesh Gear Fox and APerson
Why not remove negrates? Because people will generally hold off on issuing then unless they really feel the need to drop them. Negs are generally more honest. Most are too concerned with revenge rares to give them out. People complain about holdek because he will negrate and people complain about that anus guy for it. I don't negrate unless i feel needed because people get bitchy. Negrates aren't a problem they aren't given out enough to be a problem.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mesh Gear Fox and APerson
yawning sneasel said:
Why not remove negrates? Because people will generally hold off on issuing then unless they really feel the need to drop them. Negs are generally more honest. Most are too concerned with revenge rares to give them out. People complain about holdek because he will negrate and people complain about that anus guy for it. I don't negrate unless i feel needed because people get bitchy. Negrates aren't a problem they aren't given out enough to be a problem.
Click to expand...

That is horribly biased of you. The power of disincentive is much more effective than incentive forces. Fear is one of the most effective forces and deterrents.

If we are going to let the forum be upended to combat group think, why not remove all disincentives from dissent. People who are more risk adverse would be the people who respond by disagreeing more rather than people who are non-risk adverse. People who are non risk adverse would not be effective and people who are too timid to disagree would now be free to do so without concern for the consequences.

Really this is about you not wanting to tackle the key issue behind this. Peer pressure and risk aversion and taking. I propose you remove the risk. Peer pressure would not be as severe an issue without the risk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Autistic
  • Agree
Reactions: Zeorus, OtterParty, MrTroll and 1 other person
How is what I said biased?

Remove the risk of being downrated? If the risk is that great then perhaps this community is a poor fit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back