This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It looks like a developer finally got around to hiding scores for 24 hours on this site (Thanks, FatherInire). I'm curious if people thought that the scores being shown immediately changed how they interacted with or saw the forum. For me it made things feel a lot more confrontational and higher-stakes, I'm glad we're hiding scores again. Immediately visible scores encourages dog-piling and "ratio-ing" in my opinion which goes against the goal of this forum.
I don't like this at all. Votes should be visible immediately or not ever. I don't want to feel like I should check vote counts the day after commenting, it was one of the worst things about the subreddit.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't understand why votes are shown after 24 hours. If votes should be hidden, they should be hidden forever. If the idea is that people will refrain from commenting because they don't want to be downvoted to oblivion, this change doesn't solve that. People will still see how downvoted they are the next day.
More options
Context Copy link
I am really enjoying not knowing my own vote counts. As a rule, my comments here tend to be on negative points these days; it was not always thus but majority opinion has shifted well away from me here. I mostly shrug and accept that it will always be so, but I am glad I won't need to do that every time any more.
Ever since I started posting two reddit accounts ago, my score is often pretty positive and often 2 (+10/-8). It's pretty funny how most of the controversial posts are where I disagree with some center-right-wing claim, and the positive ones are either on non-political topics or where I agree with some center-right-wing claim. Score generally isn't that related to the quality of a comment though, poster is as correlated as score is
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No scores is ace. I don’t mind reading comments, and don’t care for popularity contests. Feels chill, which is really nice.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm opposed to hiding scores.
Rather than rehashing arguments on either side, I'd like to ask, how will the decision over whether to keep this change be made?
I've previously registered a prediction that hiding scores will ultimately reduce quantifiable site engagement without a commensurate rise in quality (whatever the consensus definition for quality may be). I know I will be less keen to read content here if I cannot selectively consume higher-quality (per upvotes) content and skip over the lower-quality ones. There is already too much information online to treat every post as equal under some kind of egalitarian guise. Hiding votes permanently also makes the entire system less robust--what's to stop trolls from posting GPT created content that barely does not explicitly break rules but still waste readers' time?
Does the site admin have access to data that might inform a good decision other than gauging the sentiments of a dozen people who reply to this parent comment, and, ironically perhaps, the upvote/downvote ratios of the dozen replies?
In the future we'll come here for the GPT posts alone. They'll have greater erudition, insight, and upvotes.
More options
Context Copy link
We do have data about comments per day etc. See www.themotte.org/stats, www.themotte.org/daily_chart, and www.themotte.org/weekly_chart.
Actually the daily and weekly charts aren't working right now for some reason but they normally do.
Daily chart and Weekly chart are throwing 500 errors at me, but I hadn't seen the stats page yet. Thanks for linking it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I personally don't agree there's any good reason to hide scores. It's just kind of stupid and pointless, imo. But it doesn't really hurt anything either, so I guess it's all the same to me (now that the bug has been fixed).
More options
Context Copy link
My behavior definitely changed, I'm glad the feature's been re-implemented.
In the bot thread there was discussion of identical comments getting more upvoted. I think this was because of exposed voting scores.
My Reddit-Lizard-Brain gravitated towards comments with higher upvotes and would reinforce those with more. I assumed they were an indicator of quality, when the best thing to do is to read a whole thread.
When I'm coming late to a thread the upvote-as-proxy helps me consume it faster, but with exposed scores it felt like its value diminished and was more focused on agreeing vs reading.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm definitely not a fan of scores in general but some measure of engagement can be encouraging.
More options
Context Copy link
Re: up/down votes, I've seen downvotes for some comments I made and I've managed to sit on my vindictiveness to immediately go downvote the downvoters, but that's only because Scott beat niceness into me over on SSC and ACX.
I am certainly petty, spiteful, and vindictive enough to abuse up/downvoting for partisan purposes - "this guy is One Of Us, I must support him"/"oh you downvoted me, you son of a gun, see how you like it when I spam you with downvotes!"
That's why I don't like up/down voting systems or likes or anything of that nature, because whatever the good intentions, they invariably turn into popularity contests. For every "take this upvote for a good, informative, well-argued comment" vote, there will be fifty "I'm voting for you because the other guy disagreed with you and the other guy is my outgroup" votes.
Slashdot's voting system generally solves this problem, which is understandable given it was designed in the late 90s; you have a limited number of adjectives with which to flavor feedback (which can be used either positively or negatively), post voting is capped at 5 points, and users chosen at random only have 5 votes to bestow.
Importantly, there's no button that directly maps to "you're wrong/I don't like your argument/fuck you(r account's posting history)"- the only way to do that is to make a counterargument- and if you really feel the need to downvote something, and you have the random power to do so, you're burning an uncommon resource to do it.
It doesn't fully eliminate low-effort sniping (but even removing votes entirely doesn't do that; Tumblr and Twitter arguably have it as a design goal... as does 4chan, in its own way), but that's the cost of being able to distill community sentiment into a simple number-adjective pair (to help outside observers pick up the high points of the conversation and to be able to digest it quickly through auto-hiding the less well-rated posts).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know. Concretely against your points, I don't see how ratioing, which I would've thought of as a downvote substitute for forums that only have upvote equivalents, is relevant in our setting, and vote-based dogpiling in the CW thread would also require people to explicitly have a thought process like "this comment is already very low, I want to make it lower", which would surprise me especially in our contrarian setting.
Concretely, for me, I just scrolled through the thread a bit and found that the hiding of vote counts changed my interaction for the worse. I've been concerned by the optics and implicit consensus building by [outgroup I perceive as being overwhelmingly represented]'s propensity to use downvotes as a disagree button, resulting in posts that are perfectly fine contributions to the discussion but insult their sensibilities or aesthetic preferences sitting in the negative numbers, for a while now. To correct what seemed to me as a misvaluation of posts, I'd upvote posts that were _under_valued and downvote posts that were _over_valued for what in many cases would just be the actions of [outgroup]; if a post were already sitting at its proper score, I'd do nothing. (I often enough do actually withdraw my vote if I come back to a part of the thread later and see that the tides have turned and a post I upvoted is now overvalued.) Now that I have to vote blind, all I can do is instead guess if this is the sort of post that made [outgroup] seethe or rejoice resulting in votes over- or undervaluing it; the urge then is to vote based on this guess, which for all means and purposes would just turn me into [outgroup]'s toxoplasmotic mirror image. (Whenever they feel strongly about a topic, they vote based on agreement; whenever I expect they feel strongly about a topic, I vote based on my expectation of their disagreement.)
But see, that's the popularity contest element! You're not upvoting because "I think this is a good comment", you're upvoting because "Uh-oh, the other lot downvoted it, I need to restore balance".
No, you don't need to do this. What you need to do is write a comment about "hey, stop dogpiling this guy for partisan reasons".
And what is the proper score? You think it should be A positive to B negative, someone else thinks it is right as it is, another person thinks it is too positive. Nobody made you the arbiter of what is and is not the 'correct' proportion of upvotes or downvotes, and that kind of well-intentioned meddling just results in people cross-voting to settle what they view as 'unbalanced' voting, so we don't actually in the end have "this is good/this is bad" results on comments so we can judge what are and are not within the spirit of this site when it comes to 'tough but fair' argument, we have "I upvoted/downvoted for political reasons".
I would prefer to do away with voting altogether, since this kind of "I must carefully comb through the thread and make sure to upvote X and downvote Y" activity is breaking the entire system.
I tend to give out upvote subsidies when there are visible scores to try to preserve a friendly atmosphere here. I don't believe that anyone engaging politely according to the rules should get a scarlet letter fixed to their post saying "We all hate you. We think your ideas are stupid". I'll do this even when the comment isn't particularly logical or insightful.
IMO a large part of the reason social media platforms outmoded message boards is that they provided lurkers and semi-lurkers a "no effort" way of showing content creators that people were seeing and appreciating them. There are obvious downsides but messing with the DNA is dangerous.
And that is what causes a problem for me; we have vpn upthread saying "I know I will be less keen to read content here if I cannot selectively consume higher-quality (per upvotes) content and skip over the lower-quality ones". If he and others are using upvotes as a marker for "this is good content", then your upvoting for "let's be nice, even if the comment is bad" ruins the measurement. Now he is reading bad content that got upvoted and is scoring highly, and what conclusion can he draw from that other than "this place has gone to the dogs if bad content like this is getting upvoted" and then leave?
You're trying to be nice. I don't think niceness per se is the function of this place; no, we should not be abusive assholes, but the idea is to have good content that provokes debate, is informative, and backed up by some kind of argument. An upvoted series of "you're great" "no, you're great" for whatever side - conservative, progressive, right-wing, left-wing, up or down or side-to-side - is going to be rubbish.
Be nice - but if the person's comment is poor, then we should be able to respond as to why it's poor. Refraining because it's shooting fish in a barrel is the better way to deal with really bad content where the person is not being provocative for the sake of it. But refraining because 'this is outgroup bait', or even worse, upvoting as a pat on the head is the equivalent of "here's a gold star for little Timmy because he's so special (in the special needs sense) and won't get anything on merit, so let's patronise him".
I feel you've missed my point. I'm taking -5 posts up to -4. These posts are no worse than right-wing comments that are scored +10. In fact, the downvoted posts may be better, and I only think they're illogical or uninsightful because of my bias.
No one is bringing a bad post up to +50 as a participation trophy. My intent is only to balance out the obvious bias of our electorate.
VPN wants quality, and quality will go away in proportion to this forum becoming a pure right-wing crank self-congratulation society.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Did you leave out a word or two here? I'm not sure how message boards provided lurkers a way of showing that they liked a certain post. You're referring to traditional linear forums, right? Some of them provide an upvote feature or even upvote/downvote, but many don't.
One word:
So the verb "provided" corresponds to "social media platforms", not "message boards". The meaning is backwards from what you thought I was so saying. Reddit and Twitter provide an easy engagement buttons for lurkers. Old forums did not.
Some forums have added upvotes nowadays, yes. Around the time Digg and then Reddit were on the rise, though, phpBB forums usually had nothing. Some had a karma system where you left messages for other users, but critically, these features were karma-gated. So lurkers could not "commend" or "upkarma" a post they found interesting. This was supposed to encourage quality participation. In practice, content creators would get less reaction for their effort. You could post on a social media platform and see the number +30 next to your comment, or on a forum and get no reaction.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm guilty of voting to restore balance, but let me explain:
I think the voting ethics ought to be something like the original reddiquette. If a comment adds to the discussion - if it expresses something relevant clearly, even if you disagree - then you should upvote. If you can't bring yourself to do that, then at the very least, you should not downvote. In a well-behaved forum, the score of an unpopular, but valid comment should never fall below 1.
On this site (but not on Reddit for some reason) I noticed posters who play devils advocate, or disagree with the majority were regularly be downvoted below 0. Examples: ( 1 2 3, all negative at time of linking ). This is bad. These might not be quality contribution material, but they're fair comments and shouldn't be downvoted. To quote the rationalist maxim, "Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Never. Never ever never for ever". I see a lot of bullet holes here. I do my part to patch them up as best I can.
Okay, that's a reasonable reason for upvoting for balance. But the important thing is that the comment needs to be of some quality; popocatapetl's "I'll upvote even bad content just to be nice" is what causes real damage, because if we're using "upvotes = good", then upvotes on poor content just for the sake of 'niceness' skew that measurement.
I really dislike the upvote/downvote or likes or other methods, because I've seen people degenerate into chasing upvotes or likes or reblogs, and get very distraught about "I left a post or comment and nobody responded to it, why aren't my reblogs/likes going up? Does this mean I should stop writing completely?" The danger is when people do invest their sense of "I'm doing something right" into "but I only know that by how many upvotes I get".
Feck the begrudgers. If they downvote you, let them! That never stopped me, it shouldn't stop you!
More options
Context Copy link
Right, same issue. I am an egalitarian voter when scores are visible. Too high a vote and, so long as the post, while net improving the forum, has any noticeable flaw – I won't add to it. Too low a vote – and I'll prefer to avoid participating in the dogpile. And of course if my opponent gets to zero while not being utterly insane, I upvote him to encourage engagement.
When scores are not visible, well... gotta vote on the merits. But perhaps it makes for a worse environment in the long run.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't see how "popularity contest" is the right framing for this. I'd have thought that usually people say that a venue "devolves into a popularity contest" if people participating in it are largely motivated by maximising their popularity with some subset or all participants. Unless you think that "people think your posts are good" is an instance of "popularity", in which case anything that has upvotes and downvotes at all is a popularity contest, I don't see what voting on posts with the objective of moving them closer to what I perceive as the correct score has to do with this.
Do you actually think that a practice of making those comments, rather than voting, would make the discussion better? Any meta post like that takes up space that could be taken by posts talking about the substance instead. I think certain subreddits generally not renowned for good discourse are actually renowned for having a high percentage of posts basically like that, wher chains start with "I'm gonna get downvoted for this" and continue with "outgroup bots are sure are in force today".
So? I get one vote. I'm going to use it to shift the score in the direction I think it should be shifted in. The others are free to do the same.
Whoever designed the upvote/downvote system did make me an arbiter of one vote's worth of the aggregate position... you can argue for or against that design, which is in fact what I believe we were doing in this subthread. It seems to me that what you are doing is simply asserting a counterfactual in strong terms.
At least I (n=1) also want to cross-vote to settle what I view as unbalanced voting. If enough others also feel that way (which I think is the case), then the cross-voting will happen regardless of the well-intentioned meddling, and therefore you couldn't say that well-intentioned meddling results in cross-voting.
Well, my point is that we already don't have those results! I don't have time to litigate this in detail at the moment, but even years ago back on Reddit I could have produced endless examples of posts whose rating was clearly based on agreement rather than quality. This generally isn't the case for posts that are comfortably near the center of the community Overton window, but those are the posts that are usually the least interesting.
I don't see how telling someone off for voting opposite to what they believe to be the prevailing bias will do against this problem, unless you also argue convincingly that their perception of the prevailing bias is wrong (which you aren't doing). Already back then, I'd argue that the way to solve the problem is to make votes public, as in show a list of who exactly up- and downvoted a given post. Make people accountable for upvoting those one-liner quips about how quokkas are in denial but really [outgroup] just wants to eat babies, or downvoting effortposts that present a surprising argument that implies [ingroup] may have been wrong.
Are you voting to shift the score because:
(1) This is actually good/bad content
(2) This guy is One Of Us/One Of Them
(3) Oh no, people are being mean, let me swoop in and act Lady Bountiful/The Saviour
(4) I have my own notion of what constitutes 'balance' and so if I think this is an unbalanced vote, I'll upvote/downvote to swing it, regardless of whether the content really is good/bad
Again, my objections are based on if upvotes are being used to measure quality, then they should only be used for quality, not rebalancing or being nice or "I think too many people dislike/like this" or any other reason.
I don't want somebody 'rebalancing' a vote I gave as criticism/approval just because they have a different notion of what should or should not be considered acceptable. And that seems to be where the upvoting/downvoting is drifting away from "this is quality content" to other reasons, which is why I'd be just as happy to have it permanently scrapped. I don't count up or down votes that I get. I certainly don't look at the upvote/downvote score when I'm reading other comments and deciding if I like or dislike the content based on that, as distinct from "what is the body of the piece?"
As to "prevailing bias", that's a subjective measure. I have a pro-life bias, but even if I vehemently disagree with posts about abortion, I don't go around "This site has a pro-baby killing bias, I must redress that by downvoting every pro-abortion comment. And then find other comments by the person who posted a pro-abortion comment, and downvote those, in order to defeat the prevailing pro-baby killing bias on here!"
Somebody else might genuinely consider "For some unknown reason this place permits unreasonable bias against the perfectly moderate notion that twelve year olds should have the right to be employed in brothels providing full service for clients, I must therefore vote opposite to what I believe is the prevailing bias". That is not voting on "is the argument advanced about why twelve year olds should not be legally permitted to be whores a good argument", that is voting in favour of one's own bias.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Now that we can't see that our click has raised the vote count number, someone needs to change the colors of the arrows. It's confusing the way it is right now. When you hover over the arrow it becomes teal. Then when you click it, it stays teal. It should immediately change to a drastically different color, so you have feedback that your click registered successfully. As is, I feel an involuntary sense of uncertainty every time I upvote, now, as if I'm wondering whether my click registered.
Also, I miss being able to see the vote count on my own posts, even before the 24 hour period is up.
More options
Context Copy link
I think they are better hidden. That said, I tend to upvote comments that I would not normally bother with as long as the score is negative, just to pull it towards 0. No delay will make it less effective, since people downvoting are probably more motivated.
Now feature I would really like is an option to add a tag to a collapsed top comment. Maybe two types of collapsing as well - some top comments I'm not interested in at all and want to collapse for good, others only temporarily. Would be nice to be able to tell these apart at a glance.
So, Reddit's "hide" feature? Except that only applies to posts, not comments, as far as I know.
It does seem to only apply to posts, and giving it a bit more thought, I'm not so keen on there being no easy way to undo it after a few seconds, but otherwise yes, a hide feature.
But if I had to choose, a text field for a tag/description on top level comments, still visible after collapsing, would be certainly the priority. It really would improve the readability of the thread later in a week.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this was a good change. Seeing the vote counts would cause me to pass judgment about whether I thought the votes were reasonable, which didn't happen when they were hidden on the subreddit.
Edit: I don't like that I can't see the vote counts on my own comments. I'd like a way to know if my comments are being read by anyone; my short comments rarely elicit responses from the users here.
You can still see the votes after 24 hours. Maybe this period should be waived for your own comments.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
oh I thought it was a bug.
More options
Context Copy link
I think it could have some unintended consequences. Upvotes and Downvotes suck in low effort comments. Instead of a saying "this is the stupidest thing I've seen all week" people downvote and move on, now they might be tempted to actually say it.
More options
Context Copy link
Aside from the culture changes, this seems to make new comments show "?", but after voting it shows "NaN", which I think is because someone is doing
"?"+1in Javascript. Honestly, it's kinda cute ("Not A Number" votes!) and I am tempted to suggest leaving it.It was cute, but it should also now be fixed :)
(thanks again to FatherInire, who's really been on top of this one)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link