Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Who let the dogs out?

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 17, 2011, 3:16 a.m. EST by OccupyNews (1220)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

http://occupywallst.org/forum/where-is-robin-hood-within-the-occupy-movement/

Every comment in the link above has a negative five by it? This means at least 6 or 7 people are against the idea of the occupy movement being a form of robin hood that actually helps main street either retain their remaining wealth, or fights with them to prevent the loss of their remaining wealth such as their homes.

Who were the negative scorers? Does this get to the head of the occupy movement?

7 negatives (some of the comments were at plus 2) takes a lot of cooperation. It was done in a relatively short time, so maybe it is one loon with a lot of different names.

May I suggest that the negative vote option be taken out? It should be enough to just vote for the comments one likes.

69 Comments

69 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 12 years ago

The downvote process now will make comments disappear. I know this because I mentioned it in a comment and it was like a test for a troll. How many downvotes would it take to make my comment on that topic disappear? So the troll being a troll figured out since they had so much time on their hands that they can have a ton of accounts and abuse the system. Which is why most posts eventually have half of the comments missing now. Just my theory. Or it's just all the trolls each down voting. I'm not sure. It could just be down votes for disagreements.

[-] 5 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

I had topics with two plus votes suddenly be down by 7 votes less than an hour later. This would lead me to believe it is one or two trolls doing the down voting.

The other advantage in having up votes only is that if someone trolls to the positive, it will become evident based on the quality of the response if it was trolled upwards, whereas downwards trolling simply makes the comments disappear.

[-] -3 points by Glaucon (296) 12 years ago

I get down voted for posting clear arguments against Occupy, not trollish posts. The only people not getting down voted are supporters of the movement. There isn't much of a discussion going on.

For example, my latest post is well written and produces a strong argument against anarchy. Most likely, anarchists will not comment and discussion will not take place. It's unfortunate.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-anarchic-dilemma-do-anarchies-self-destruct/

[-] 4 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 12 years ago

'The only people not getting down voted are supporters of the movement.'

Not entirely true. I was down voted yesterday for calling Frank Miller the cartoonist a douche after reading his extremely negative comment about OWS.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

You are correct. Several topics I have responded to and others have initiated actual dialogue were removed. The dialogue was respectful and reasoned. They are now removed.

It seems that posts that portray OWS in a negative light are not voted down along with those that are often outright rude and insulting.

With the volume of posts and replies on this forum I can understand the desire for a semi automated method of moderating posts, but this leaves too much of the moderation in the hands of those who would most be likely to attempt to influence the view of others on the stance of OWS.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 12 years ago

I believe we have infiltrators stifling the conversations. I just had a dialog on another forum where comments about replacing our congressmen were voted down. All it would take is a couple dozen feds on this site to completely nullify its effectiveness and render the site useless. I think that's whats happening.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

I think it's more likely that there are a few who are just doing what trolls do.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

PandoraK and gnomunny, you could both be right.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

It is entirely possible it is a mix of the two. After all, what better way to spread disinformation than to first troll then reduce the ability of others to speak, then leave the remainder to make assumptions.

I was informed by the designer this forum that it is a beta version and there are several things they are working on to improve it, so things will eventually work out for the benefit of all, even the trolls.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

even the trolls?

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

Yep, even the trolls.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

lol, I am afraid to ask, how exactly does one help a "troll"? Does it involve a spanking in which the troll spanker states, "this is going to hurt me more than it is you."

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

Maybe giving them their own special section where they can troll each other?

Now that I look at that question it brings up others which are making me shudder, and since you brought up spankings you get to shudder too.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

I just recall seeing cartoons growing up where the spanker would say, "this is going to hurt me more than it is you".

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

LOL, jeez, what I missed not watching TV all these years!

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

Spiderman was pretty inspiring. Peter Parker purposely letting the bad guy go by untouched because the bad guy had robbed the putz who ripped Peter Parker off, only to have the bad guy kill spiderman's uncle just an hour later, was a very profound moment for me at a very early age.

[-] 4 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 12 years ago

BS, there are too many posts supportive of occupy where every positive response is being down voted for your claim to hold water. The only places trolls and infiltrators like yourself are showing minimal restraint is in the threads directly calling you out for doing it. A small percentage of your posts getting down voted is not enough to cancel out the obvious, the overwhelming number of posts where this is happening are those posts where the topic and responses are counter to the negative ows spin and general misinformation that you folks work so hard to push. You have now found an easy way to try to oppose any truth posted to counter your spin, but as usual, you guys manage it with the restraint and finesse of a bunch of 3 year olds. Which is good for truth anyway, since I think down voting as an option won't last long, hope you guys enjoy it, you won't be likely able to abuse it for much longer.

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 12 years ago

I always post arguments and am open to discussion. Do you feel this is trolling? How is this post trollish? http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-anarchic-dilemma-do-anarchies-self-destruct/ It raises a real problem. Does it sound like it was written by an unthinking three year old?

[-] 3 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

Points of argument and open discussion are always desirable. Dialogue is how results are made, yet I have witnessed several actual dialogues become 'invisible'.

I do commend you on your practice of the art of dialogue.

[-] 0 points by Glaucon (296) 12 years ago

Unfortunately, this place is infested by trolls for and against Occupy. By trolls, I mean those who post worthless nonsense either to shock, bring someone down, or sell their own websites. This is perhaps not the best forum if you are looking for quality dialogues.

What do you mean by dialogues becoming 'invisible'? I don't no much about this, but my previous character, Thrasymaque, got shadow banned after making this post: http://occupywallst.org/forum/deconstructing-occupy-a-message-within-a-message/ I'll let you decide if that is trolling. I do not think it is.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

"Invisible" aka 'shadow banned' is what I meant...

My only issues with the forum are format, putting posts into categories would make it easier to navigate and return to ongoing discussions, and of course the 'shadow banning'.

Rude replies or even topics are another issue I have, rudeness does nothing to encourage dialogue. While I realize that emotions are sometimes high and volatile, it would seem that there could be some type of moderation to discourage poor behavior.

I've moderated forums for addicts and their families, everyone was entitled to speak, rudeness was discouraged, threat posts and posts by request were the only posts banned.

I do think if you are going to play 'devil's advocate' and present two sides, it would make it less likely there would be issues with your postings if you announced the position.

[-] -2 points by Glaucon (296) 12 years ago

The problem is that the moderates are one-sided. The primary goal of this forum is the spread Occupy's agenda, it is not to discuss the problems that might plague Occupy. I agree. Having impartial moderators who promote good dialogues without taking side would be wonderful.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

Actually it's to OWS's advantage to have dialogue occurring on this forum, there is always the possibility that something written here finds it's way to one of the assemblies, plus it does help keep the message rolling.

Positivity is always better than negativity especially online, because this (online) is the place those who can not or will not move out of their comfort zones come to learn what it's all about.

[-] -2 points by Glaucon (296) 12 years ago

I agree, but it doesn't seem that many OWS organizers and supporters see it this way. I think they want to keep growing before they deal with criticism. They seem reluctant to debate issues at this point, perhaps fearing they will lose supporters if they do. All I can say is that I have trolled at times and wasn't banned or otherwise bothered for doing so. But, when I posted a critical view of their imagery, I was shadow banned. At least they didn't remove the post, but the dialogue threads have been voted down and disappeared. Discussing issues here is a bit of a wasted time for that last reason. As soon as you get into sharp criticism with strong arguments, your ideas get voted down as fast as possible.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 12 years ago

That is just it, voted down...not removed or banned due to 'management', but due to votes.

I have no doubt there are pro OWS trolls as well as con OWS trolls, in fact it's pretty obvious there are.

It's rather amazing how much energy they expend in surfing the forum seeking out particular types of posts and replies to vote down.

[-] 1 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 12 years ago

No, in fact you are very intelligent and articulate, which is why I respected your input and defended it even though your stance on ows differed from mine, but it is exactly this high regard for your intelligence that made me suspicious when you went from discussing the unarguable facts that some of the people who originally contributed to starting the ows movement are known anarchists and that consensus decision making and non-hierarchical organizational structure are tools derived from anarchist political theory, which are not arguable, to pushing the concept that therefore ows is an anarchist movement with nefarious and violent anarchist intentions. This straw man argument might be easily argued as false, while still accepted as sincere if it came from someone of lesser intellect. But I know you are smarter than to actually believe the image of ows you were trying to sell, regardless of whether you choose not to support ows for other more defensible reasons, which called your motives into question and made me look closer.

[-] -1 points by Glaucon (296) 12 years ago

Interesting. You are using a blend of ad hominem, appeal to flattery, and appeal to motive. Instead of pointing out negative aspects of the proposer in order to discredit his arguments, you are asserting that his intellect is too sharp and respectable to believe in the claims he is making and thus we must assume he is operating under the guise of an ulterior motive. A combinative use of logical fallacies that is both cunning and very deep. Bravo!

Notwithstanding, it would be a logical fallacy on my part if I claimed that a statement conceived through the use of logical fallacies is necessarily false. A statement can still be true even if it has not been proven so. For our particular affair, it would be a lie if I denied that your allegation is without merit. You have touched upon a nerve that no one else has, and, for that, I will grant you with an appetizer of transparency.

However, before I dabble in veracity, let me remark on the straw man argument you accused me of conjuring. Indeed, if one claims that OWS is an anarchy and therefore is or will be pushing nefarious and violent anarchist intentions, one is making a cum hoc ergo propter hoc; that is, a correlation that does not lead to causation. Anarchy simply means a lack of hierarchy. It does not imply violence. In practice, there have been many types of anarchies; some which have engaged in violence, some which have not. The same is true of hierarchies.

The problem is I never professed that the increasing violence in Occupy's imagery and rhetoric was due to the fact that Occupy is an anarchy. I argued these two points separately, and you mistakenly combined them. To clarify my position, let me indulge in reiteration. I argue two claims: 1) Occupy is an anarchy, 2) The violence in Occupy's imagery and rhetoric is being increased in order to create an ever widening divide between policemen and protesters; the former group being demonized and the latter group being painted as angelical victims. There is no necessary relation between these two claims. I will admit that I do not know if Occupy plans to become violent in practice; this is a mere assumption. Perhaps this violence is simply used as a form of motivation? Still, I do not agree with it. I believe Occupy should change its promotional material to represent the various ideologies of the 99% and to encourage a coming together of the policemen and protesters. An imagery forged around the idea of peaceful cooperation between all humans in the quest to build a better world for everyone.

Now, the appetizer. But first, let us augment our thirst by drying our throats with a few crispy chips. How much more pleasurable it is to drink when one is really thristy! Oh? Pardon? You wish to indulge in Camembert and olives instead? Why, of course! Much better indeed! Your eloquence and elegance are unparalled in this part of the Nettosphere. If the others shared your perspicacity, wit, and savoire-faire, how much deeper would our discussions be, n'est-ce-pas? We might even approach the profound. Hop! I a simple chip, and you an olive topped with fancy cheese. Here is your appetizer! Drink slowly while I reveal a part of myself unbefore seen by the others.

If I remove one of my cloaks, let it be known that it is because you sought me with your gut instinct, and not with your mind. This I say with full respect, for what is a man who only thinks, but never feels? Kierkegaard wrote in his Diary of a Seducer - "I fling the night about myself like a cloak, and I harken towards you, not by the sound of your footfalls, but by the sound of your beating heart." This is indeed how you found me, is it not? By following my heart.

Thrasymaque (Thrasymachus in English) is a sophist, and, as such, he thought Arete with the use of arguments that were often meant to deceive. That being said, his role in the Repulic is important. Without an adversary of high intellect, how else would Socrates push forth towards truth by the use of dialogue? Great movements are forged by great thinkers, and great thinkers need great critics to rise above the rest. This was the purpose of Thrasymaque; to stir the pot, to propel thought to higher grounds; not to find truth. With Cephalus, Polemarchus, Socrates, Glaucon, and Adeimantus, Thrasymaque acts in the Republic for the betterment of manmind. Truth is only found whithin the interplay of their ideas. If Thrasymaque obsessed about the advantage of the stronger, an advantage presumably brought about by the force of violence, rest assured that the other actors will not.

Thrasymaque has walked off-stage and before you is Glaucon! Be glad, Glaucon is not a Sophist. He is Plato's brother and a musician. Perhaps you have noticed, Glaucon's thread on The Anarchist Dilemma is polished and clear, unlike Thrasymaque's prior attempts at confusing the crowd. I am an expert in the stories of the Ring of Invisibility and the Allegory of the Cave, but I do not profess to have the experience of Plato nor the sharp and agile mind of Socrates. They will appear in time, but, for now, let use drink these appetizers by ourselves.

[-] 4 points by looselyhuman (3117) 12 years ago

What a fucking narcissistic tool you are. Truly a superior douchebag. Sophistry in the classical sense, made true to its modern definition.

[-] 2 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 12 years ago

Oh very good!! :) After I called you out in a few threads in the hope I could get you to bite, I was most disappointed that none of them seemed to elicit any quick response, even the juiciest ones, and I so hate laying so much bait and being rewarded with nary a surface ripple for the effort, no sport in that at all! :( So I was pleased to see your reply, and am even more delighted to find my catch seemingly has me dangling from my own hook as well. (Or if not, at least has me well pricked though not yet without options for a clean getaway if I were inclined to choose that route. But how boring that would be!!!)

And upon finding my rather neat little trap here not sidestepped but expertly dismantled, and by prey polite enough to leave a snapshot and a note, a better reward for my efforts than expected, I must in fairness agree that you are right, nowhere did you actually conflate those arguments, nor have I observed you say much all that logically or factually inaccurate on the face of it to provide me with evidence adequate to the task of sufficiently backing my claim without requiring an excess measure of care and exertion for minimal reward as I will explain.

If the novelty of finding myself toe to toe with a formidable opponent were not so satisfying, my only consolation would be that you neglected to notice that technically I did not accuse you of ever arguing for the invalid claim I discuss. :)

I must fist point out that I did not "mistakenly combine" the separate arguments you reiterate here concerning anarchy, I did so knowingly, to allow me to state the fallacy most easily created by doing so. But I do not directly accuse you of actually making the cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument yourself, at least in this post. (That's the name truly? Glad my lazy ass stuck with straw man-- I had a hunch you'd "know what I mean" and I was right :) my opponent has clearly got "name that fallacy" game down. I prefer the simple versatility of the word Bullshit anyway-- It covers every contingency, from fallacies to weasel words!! )

I do intentionally mislead by using the terms "this argument" when I was discussing something less tidy than that; nothing so easily countered as a false statement on your part, more a picture being painted with separate arguments made across multiple posts while never technically making a blatantly illegitimate claim, all delivered with a earnest reasonableness to help it go down, and culminating in the last post that made me suspicious.

But nowhere do I state you actually made this argument in any particular statement. Indeed, when referring to the spin I perceived you creating as anything so specific as "this (straw man) argument" I take care to discuss it only in hypothetical terms-- A specific conclusion that "if" coming from a lesser opponent could be easily countered. Which is true, if someone of lesser intelligence were to set about spinning the same illusion, it would have come in the form of of a post making an illegitimate claim in one tidy package that could be easily dispatched, rather than the more subtle spin I accused you of.

But the only specific claim I attribute to you is "discussing the unarguable facts that some of the people who originally contributed to starting the ows movement are known anarchists and that consensus decision making and non-hierarchical organizational structure are tools derived from anarchist political theory" which are indeed claims you have made in a number of threads and are elements of the larger argument you even freely admit making in here which is that "Occupy is an anarchy".

I attribute no other specific statement, only argue that both my initial impression and then a closer inspection of all I'd seen over recent days when combined creates a distinct impression without saying anything in particular that out of line. As such I choose my words with care and only say I believe overall you are "pushing the concept that therefore ows is an anarchist movement with nefarious and violent anarchist intentions" and that I have difficulty buying you sincerity as "I know you are smarter than to actually believe the image of ows you were trying to sell". I never said you stated or made any argument, that would be easy, I wish it were so simple, it wouldn't be nearly as big a pain in the ass to counter.

cont below..

[-] 2 points by PandaMe73 (303) from Oakland, CA 12 years ago

cont.

And you don't have to have made any damning statement to overall be pushing the concept or selling an image. To paraphrase and extend an idea noted by a smart man "a statement can still be true even if it has not been proven" and an idea can be conveyed without stating it anyplace specific. In spin one way to do this is repeat one argument a number of times in different places, like OWS is an anarchy, and then once this idea is established drop next that Imagery indicates a somewhat anarchist worldview of the relationship and roles between police and public. With proper use of the anarchy hot button, which you are well aware of, and enough opportunities to see both statements in proximity, enough people will conflate the two and draw the intended damning conclusion without anyone having to get their hands dirty or leave irrefutable evidence either. This is aside from some of the blatant propaganda techniques in the last Thrasy post (The use of we, the use rhetorical questions with the intent of making a veiled statement, the presentation of no countering arguments but taking a purely one sided examination of the topic, even use of the term deconstruction)

You astutely noted that "a statement can still be true even if it has not been proven" as while my fallacies did not serve as evidence of my thrust which is that I have come to distrust your sincerity and wonder about your true agenda, my artifice still served to carry a truth not nearly as easily proven. In admitting to me that my senses were not leading me astray, even if you dispute my interpretation of it, you did the best thing to make me willing to accept that maybe @PandoraK is closer to the truth when noting it may just be a case of Devil's advocate that has been misunderstood. You did admit here that Thrasymaque was intentionally taking a slant and stirring the pot a bit, and that under the guise of Glaucon will present a softer approach, aside from watching to see if this pans out, I am satisfied to accept you as simply enjoying a game with no deeper motive, but I don't feel bad about saying something smelled fishy to me

I do not deny that intuition admittadly played a far greater part than hard evidence in my overall evaluation of your activities and motivations, though feeling alone is hardly the whole of it-- I don't call someone out if I don't have at least enough evidence to be confident in my own mind that I'm on the right track, even if it is too little to enable me to precisely call my target. Simply because I chose not to use what evidence and logic I found to justify my gut feeling to also substantiate my charge, it does not mean I drew my conclusions without the aid of any at all, even if I concede that the decision was made based on a mix of heart and mind. In light of this and for the sake of caution I have framed my stance as based on my overall familiarity as someone who has had an eye on you and followed you from thread to thread because you have many good ideas, and as such just my opinion. I have even asked people to take me with the same grain of salt as I have said they should take with you. And that is precisely because I haven't proven it or made a real case.

With someone as tricky as you, which everyone agrees on, you are not an easy opponent, right or wrong, I do not have the time to do so. Nor would I do it even if time were no issue since it would require in the course of our back and forth, that I repeatedly bump the thread I felt most damaging to public perception while also condensing and plainly highlighting with a timeline and links for any who missed it the first time, an even clearer picture than the one I felt you had by implication roughly sketched over time. So I decided to forgo my customary approach of building the soundest argument possible using the tools at hand, since even the best outcome remained a net loss, a great amount of effort to do no more than destroy the village in order to save it.

Either way I must add more in a few days if this doesn't serve to satisfy, I have no wish to indict you, and if you speak truly here there is no need regardless of the past, and any scrutiny you receive here on should not do any harm to your reputation but only vindicate you the faster if no have no hidden intent. I for one became suspicious and upset with what I perceived only in equal measure to how highly I regarded you, so temper your view of my strong reaction to thinking you may not be entirely as you try to appear with that fact. I don't call people out merely to be impossible to sway, I do it so I can elicit their reaction and go from there, for now, I will regard my self as interpreting you harshly, yet still cautious to see the pattern of your continued input

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

The answer would be the removal of the negative vote. eBay had to do the same thing for their top five hundred guides. People that were out of the 500 started voting negatives to anyone who is at 500 or lower so they could get in themselves.

The solution was to only allow positive votes.

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

The posts are not getting removed or the used is not getting banned, you can just click the [+] button to see the comment that have -4 or lover rating.

Let's keep the button for a while and see. We all can just dislike the trolls posts.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

If you click on the robin hood link, you will see all the comments collapsed because of negative scores. There is no way to tell how many replies there are for each collapsed comment.

This is not conducive to reading the comments in the fastest manner possible.

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

Create new bookmark and paste the following instead of url, it will expand all the collapsed posts when you click the bookmark.

javascript:$('.collapsed').removeClass('collapsed');

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

wow, I did not know that. I wish I had a way to save that command so that I could use it when necessary. ironically, we would be the 1% using your recommendation.

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

I guess you didn't bookmark it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookmarklet

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

I'll bookmark it and hope to remember where I bookmarked it.

[-] 4 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

lol, I tried sending an email to make the following suggestion but was sent an auto reply that they get too many emails a day to read mine....so here it is, below.

Negative votes encourage selfishness..

People who want their comment near the top of a topic will simply give everybody around them a negative.

ebay went through the same issue with the top five hundred guide writers.

Others would vote a negative to a top 500 guide writer to help get their own guides higher.

Eventually, ebay got rid of the negative vote and only allows positive votes. I hope you see the wisdom of that concept.

Alessandro Machi www.occupynews.net

[-] 2 points by me2 (534) 12 years ago

I agree with this.

[-] -2 points by Glaucon (296) 12 years ago

True, I often down vote others when I want my message on top. Using only positive votes would make more sense.

[-] 3 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

Well, I am going to give you a plus for being honest.

[-] -2 points by Glaucon (296) 12 years ago

It's normal. Content flows form form. If there is a loophole, people will take advantage. It's natural. Are you an anarchist?

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

Only when I sense smugness. (not implying that you are smug).

[-] 3 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

I guess the trolls noticed the dislike button and started clicking it. So, everyone,

IF YOU AGREE WITH A POST, JUST CLICK ↥like BUTTON

it takes less then a second. ;)

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

Does this get to the head of the occupy movement?

[cntl] f

find [+] will find any closed post

.

and yes

no negative voting

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

Although I posed that question, I then basically refuted it by stating that it probably is either one troll, or a small group of trolls intent on demoralizing those who don't realize they are being voted down by trolls but think it is actually being done from the heart, and not the arrow.

[-] 2 points by Windsofchange (1044) 12 years ago

It is getting to be like Yahoo with the thumbs down trolls on here.

I agree with your suggestion.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

Could be anybody doing the voting down. Even those with an agenda to demoralize the occupy movement could be doing it.

I'd like to see a "scorecard" by each member that keeps a running tally of their likes and dislikes, although I'd rather just see the dislikes go away moreso.

[-] 2 points by Windsofchange (1044) 12 years ago

It's best that the OWS site manager disable the dislike option. So it doesn't give the trolls a tool to marginalize others on this forum. I hate seeing legitimate replies(and it could be people respectfully disagreeing with others) with -6 points and their comment has collapsed because of all of those dislikes. That's just not right.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

Awesome comment, winds of change.

[-] 1 points by Glaucon (296) 12 years ago

An alternative solution would be to give each user the option to immune the comments of their favorite writers from being collapsed when they view a thread. This would be the opposite of an ignore option which would hide all the comments of users on a forum participant's ignore list. The ignore option should also be implemented.

[-] 1 points by Windsofchange (1044) 12 years ago

Yes, the immune option sounds like a good idea. Thanks for sharing.

[-] 1 points by OccupyMyHouse (1) 12 years ago

The baha men did, of course!

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

There's no reason whatsoever to rate votes. Who's to say that OWS supportive is a positive?

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

While I agree with that to some degree, if only positive votes were tallied but they were only updated once a day, it would be kind of interesting to see which comments were the most popular.

Although by the time a day has gone by many topics would have disappeared because of all the new topics.

[-] 0 points by me2 (534) 12 years ago

The likes / dislikes have become meaningless.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

The problem me2 is that the negatively scored comments get collapsed so they are not viewed.

This too is a direct parallel with how the 1% does not listen to the 99%

[-] 2 points by me2 (534) 12 years ago

Yes it was better before when the collapse function didn't work.

Still, everything is so polarized any meaningful post will get a flurry of likes and dislikes that will net out. Hence my comment that they are meaningless.

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

Unfortunately, it is easier to give a negative to all the other responses so that way a specific commenters own reply rises to the top.

[-] 2 points by hidden (430) from Los Angeles, CA 12 years ago

No, they are not! More people need to start actually clicking them!

[-] 0 points by dildo (5) 12 years ago

Woof Woof Woof Woof Woof

[-] 0 points by dildo (5) 12 years ago

Woof woof woof woof woof

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 12 years ago

Woof Woof Woof

[-] -1 points by BillyD (6) 12 years ago

Know what's black and brown and looks good on an OWS protestor?

A German Shepherd. Bring in the K9.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

Although I just disliked the comment above, I still would prefer that dislikes were removed.

[-] -1 points by RexDiamond (585) from Idabel, OK 12 years ago

Why does it fuckin matter? Good God, why do you nerds care if people hit the like or dislike button? Is that a major factor in ows achieving something of worth?

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 12 years ago

yes, because it collapses comments and they can't be easily viewed. I guess I find that offensive.

[-] 1 points by RexDiamond (585) from Idabel, OK 12 years ago

OIC, then I agree. I noticed threads were collapsing automatically the other day. It is very annoying.