Thumbs up and down

@moonbus said
This has been discussed in many previous threads; in one of them, Pondy listed the threads in which it was discussed. Do your homework for yourself.

Every time the topic come up you seem to spend a lot of time trying to silence the person who has brought it up by telling them how many times it has come up. Ponderable also does this. On one occasion I remember asking he or you if you were concerned about server space being used up by all the terabytes of discussion.

Why does discussing it bother you so much?

@moonbus said
Read those threads. You’ll see that the number of people who wanted thumbers’ identities revealed is very small, and always only those few who had been receiving a lot of TDs in the recent past. No poll was necessary; the number of thumbs given to the posts in those threads, pro and con, was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping thumbs anonymous.

Why don’t we discuss it again, without you getting your panties in a knot over it being discussed again.

@moonbus said
Tally the thumbs given to posts in this thread and draw your own conclusion.

If the thumbs weren’t anonymous then your suggestion might carry some credibility.

@fmf said
Anonymous thumbs down seem infantile to me. I remember Indonesia Phil getting seven anonymous thumbs down for a post about making a radio programme on his move from the UK. Infantile. Craven. Even a wee bit creepy.

Are we not adults? Look at the Philokalia example. His childish extrapolation and bizarre call for conformity, triggered by a tiny number of anonymous thumbs. Ludicrous.

Why does it matter to you whether Indonesia Phil gets TDs? Why does it matter to you what people you consider childish, fascist, racist (etc.) do here, so long as they don’t breach the TOS?

@divegeester said
Every time the topic come up you seem to spend a lot of time trying to silence the person who has brought it up by telling them how many times it has come up. Ponderable also does this. On one occasion I remember asking he or you if you were concerned about server space being used up by all the terabytes of discussion.

Why does discussing it bother you so much?

I’m not silencing anyone here. It just seems pointless to discuss it, given that the proposal is not new.

I’m responding to the proposal (yet again) because, if others don’t chime in and express their opinions, site admin might think your and kellyjay’s and fmf’s view of the matter is the general consensus at RHP.

@kellyjay said
If it is a setting every time is gets altered a time stamp goes next to it. So those that set it to anonymous and those that set it to reveal can say my status never changed. This will help stop those playing both sides of the fence.

What is “playing both sides of the fence”? What sides? What fence?

@kellyjay said
I've been complaining about this elsewhere, and it occurred to me
that here is where I should have been saying it. But I think it would
clear up some things where people are accused of giving either that
had nothing to do with it or those hiding the fact they are. Some
people use the thumbs up or down because they don't like the
poster, so as soon as they write anything ...[text shortened]... ver did it doesn't want to be known.

Personally, if I give one, I'd like them to know it was me.

It doesn't matter to me if someone knows I gave them a thumb down. I voted the poster to be shown back some years ago. The majority voted against it, as that was the point that they remain anonymous. I respected that vote then as they are paying members also and I understand the "WHY". That way they don't get ganged up on by a few posters who are also members.

Look at all the posts I get thumbed down by the same members as they just don't like me, it is just that simple, and doesn't bother me. I just keep on posting. I use my "Did you know" thread as an example.

-VR

@moonbus said
I’m not silencing anyone here. It just seems pointless to discuss it, given that the proposal is not new.

I’m responding to the proposal (yet again) because, if others don’t chime in and express their opinions, site admin might think your and kellyjay’s and fmf’s view of the matter is the general consensus at RHP.

You’re trying to silence KellyJay by berating him with your tales of how encyclopaedic the previous discussions have been and it’s pointless to discuss it all again.

If what you’re saying here is true, then why not just state your opinion and let other state there’s?

@moonbus said
Why does it matter to you whether Indonesia Phil gets TDs? Why does it matter to you what people you consider childish, fascist, racist (etc.) do here, so long as they don’t breach the TOS?

Because it's silly and the site is marred by such an infantile feature. Why does it "matter" to you as long as getting rid of it doesn't breach the TOS?

@moonbus said
What is “playing both sides of the fence”? What sides? What fence?

I have been accused of thumbing down posts; I don't do that. I would set it up if
given a chance so everyone knows I did it when it was me. With the time stamp on
the change of status, someone could do it and then deny it; if that isn't important
then, simply having the option would still be better than not, at least in my opinion.

@kellyjay said
I have been accused of thumbing down posts; I don't do that. I would set it up if
given a chance so everyone knows I did it when it was me. With the time stamp on
the change of status, someone could do it and then deny it; if that isn't important
then, simply having the option would still be better than not, at least in my opinion.

If you say you did not give some post a TD, I believe you. Why do you think it necessary to change the code to reveal everyone else’s identity here?

@divegeester said
You’re trying to silence KellyJay by berating him with your tales of how encyclopaedic the previous discussions have been and it’s pointless to discuss it all again.

If what you’re saying here is true, then why not just state your opinion and let other state there’s?

Do you honestly think people can't see through your attempt to silence dissent by submitting their names to you so you can grill them interminably in your own version of an inquisition? Seriously?

@fmf said
Because it's silly and the site is marred by such an infantile feature. Why does it "matter" to you as long as getting rid of it doesn't breach the TOS?

Getting rid of anonymous thumbs is tantamount to the site becoming Divegeester's and FMF's site of endless grilling of anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. The ONLY way right now to avoid the endless inquisition is to thumb anonymously, something you want to eliminate so you both can then bathe in the lake of apparent agreement in everything you say.


If this becomes the lay of the land here, I won't give my money to a site that doesn't mind taking their marching orders from a couple of social reprobates who get their jollies treating other members of the site like trash. I then give everyone else a couple months of being endlessly scolded about disagreeing with the stars before they too leave.

@fmf said
Because it's silly and the site is marred by such an infantile feature. Why does it "matter" to you as long as getting rid of it doesn't breach the TOS?

You just want to out your detractors.

But you probably know who most of them are anyway.

@divegeester said
You’re trying to silence KellyJay by berating him with your tales of how encyclopaedic the previous discussions have been and it’s pointless to discuss it all again.

If what you’re saying here is true, then why not just state your opinion and let other state there’s?

I am not berating or silencing anyone here. Everyone is free to state his opinion. I have stated mine: keep it as it is, anonymous ‘ayes’ and ‘nays’.