Why did they ruin this site?

no, but I read, and I take notice. If you see a crime in real life are you weird for noticing and pointing it out??? Please explain...

Care to make any comment on why Bill is not punished for assault??

If you don't like to see name calling, why don't you just vote that post down? Seems to be easier than complaining about it...

Why just point it out? Why not step in and do something about it yourself? Why not just vote OB's post down, if it is offensive to you?

Because I refuse to use a function that should not exist on principle. Also, I don't care about Bill, he has consistently been a assh+le towards me but for the same reason that I don't care about being liked I don't care about him. I came to a2k for the intellectual stimulation, because discourse was possible here in a degree not possible most anywhere else.....that has been taken away by Craven and I want it back. I am making an argument for why it should came back,how Bill is treated in the popularity contest is part of my argument for why I should get it back.... but Bill is irrelevant.

Makes no sense to me.

It has been explained to you, more than once, how the function you are complaining about doesn't even have to influence the way you're using the site. You have complained, in the past, that some people would simply be excluded from the conversation, collectively ignored by the community.

And yet people are talking to you, even explaining ways to use the settings and functions on the site, or discussing your complaints about how free speech is being curtailed by the new functions. That seems to refute those claims on the face of it.

Regarding OB - if you don't care about him, why complain about the fact that his post (which wasn't even about you) has not been collectively voted down? If he has "consistently been a assh+le" towards you - why not simply set him on ignore? Because by taking away his ability to get on your nerves, you would validate other users' decision to put you on ignore when you're getting on their nerves?

So far, I don't see how you've made a compelling argument for why intellectual discourse is no longer possible on A2K. It's no secret that some of your ideas are, possibly, not very popular amongst the general membership.

In the last incarnation of A2K, that was made clear by the fact that OB, for example, referred to you in quite unflattering terms across the board. In this incarnation, it may become obvious in the fact the little number on a thread you start changes. Both are expressions of a "popularity contest", if that's the way you want to see it. Neither of them affect your ability to freely voice your opinions, or to have a discussion with members who wish to talk about the stuff you're interested in.

The difference really is that, if OB offends you, you can stop him from ruining your discussions. And if your topics or posts offend other members, they can stop that on their end.

The argument has been made by Craven and parretted by others that the voting system does not impact those who disragard the numbers, but this argueement is easily seen to be false. If ANYBODY pays attention to the numbers I have been impacted because if the numbers are used as designed low numbers means less participation in the discussion. The quality of the debate has been adversly impacted. I can't believe that everybody bought Cravens argument as presented, you all are too smart for that....right?

How is the argument that the voting system does not impact those who disregard the numbers false?



And, for that matter: why does less participation in a discussion constitute a negative impact on the quality of the debate? Are you working off of the assumption that quantity = quality?

My first impression is that I don't much like the changes. The whole votes thing discourages people from expressing unpopular opinions, which isn't a good thing. I know I can still see posts in time of posting order, but it strikes me as harder now. The arrangement was more intuitive to me before.

absolutely, the number of eyes and brains that work together towards a consensus opinion impacts the quality of the consensus opinion. Please see reading 13 page 277 to get a full view of what I am talking about.
http://books.google.com/books?id=6QzBCl2mnskC&pg=PT247&lpg=PT247&dq=group+%22dynamics+of+discussion%22&source=web&ots=ohiHcmP3_R&sig=q10YY2E69u8L5BCWzy3bxNNGcmc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPT246,M1


the old a2k worked because there were a large number of smart people with different experiences who were willing to share what they know. If those who are not mainstream leave because they are not welcome because their views offend the conventional wisdom, or if they are here but not willing to share unpopular information because the reception for their information will be poor, then the debate will have been negatively impacted. Human nature mandates that both will happen, there can be no doubt about how this voting system works out.

I should add that the ignore function is bad for discourse for much the same reason that the voting is. If people use ignore to ignore smart people who's views make them uncomfortable then a2k has been diminished. If someone makes others uncomfortable then there is something going on that needs to be explored. Facilitating aversion to figuring out why something is uncomfortable is a disservice to the membership. Ignorance of ourselves is not bliss. Ignoring trolls is a smart move, but one does not need an ignore function to do this....again, using technology to allow members to get away with not learning to do things for themselves is a disservice to the membership.

I am well aware that many members have said that they want such functions, but the social engineers at a2k should have taken notice of the thread we had going a while back about books on studies that go into great detail about how we humans are notoriously bad about predicting what will make us happy. Only fools give the people what they say they want and expect that everyone will live happily ever after.

1. You seem to assume that people here discuss topics in order to reach a consensus.
2. The study you linked to examined the dynamics in a decision-making group (e.g. a jury or a selection committee).

Why do you think your premise is valid for discussions on A2K, given that people here don't necessarily (maybe not at all) work towards a consensus, and given that A2K is not a decision-making group?

Oh enough with the silly emperor's new clothes argument. You've been responded to in your every silly post so far and you are still worried that someone might be swayed by the number? I thought you didn't care about popularity?

Express away, anyone who wants to debate someone who never changes their mind and just repeats themselves without acknowledging what others say can respond to you as they always have.

I don't know why everyone participates in discussion here. I do however know what the useful results of discussion are, and two of them are consensus and sharing of information. These have been negatively impacted. Bonding is another, and has not been effected so long as everyone is willing to conform to the mainstream emotional expectations of the majority. If I want a group hug there are already other places on the net to go for that that do it better than a2k ever will, I am here for the intellectual pay-off.

Consensus? I don't think I every saw you change your mind. Heck half the time you don't even acknowledge what people say and just repeat what you started with.

test

Are there a very great number of posts in which you have stated a change of opinion?

check out the thread on the US Air Force tanker program. In any case a change of mind is quite a threshold to judge by. My views are well investigated and thought out before I open my mouth, if I was that wrong that often that I would habitually completely change my mind then I should need make a habit of listening more before I spout off.

Much more often discussion leads to seeing the holes in ones arguments, or seeing more proof that ones positions are the best of all of the options.

Trying to move trolls to the bottom of the list is one thing. Trying to silence the minority is somethine else. Hearing unpopular opinions that everyone "knows" are wrong is desirable.

Depends on what you consider "great number", more than yours or more than hawkeye yes. But I'm not going to start hunting for my posts if that's your next question.

Who's silencing anybody here? Seriously, you guys are noisy. Certainly not silent.