Originally posted by @uzlessWhy? In fact the rec System is a wreck.
You should be able to click on the thumbs up/down (or hover your mouse over it) to see who has rec'd the post.
It will be provide a little more accountability.
This is the case since the beginning. Surprisingly chess Players who often merit themselves to be very rationale are not able to use a tool as intended.
I remember "rec wars" in different ways.
Now we could add the Labels to the recs (and probably the real target?) to the thumbs down. What would happen? In undisputed cases : nothing.
In disputed cases I imagine aggresions ad hominem (in both cases. how could A rec that post or how could B thumb it down.)
If you want accountability then you should ask for People to be identified by their real Person.I imagine that a lot of Players wouldn't want that...
If you want to twek the thumb System: Just abolish it. It doesn't serve a real purpose.
Question: Who did ever discover a wortwhile thread via the "recommended" list?
Originally posted by @ponderableYou just got rec'd.
Why? In fact the rec System is a wreck.
This is the case since the beginning. Surprisingly chess Players who often merit themselves to be very rationale are not able to use a tool as intended.
I remember "rec wars" in different ways.
Now we could add the Labels to the recs (and probably the real target?) to the thumbs down. What would happen? In und ...[text shortened]... real purpose.
Question: Who did ever discover a wortwhile thread via the "recommended" list?
Originally posted by @ponderablei have found lots of funny posts via the rec...the rec thread should re-start every 2 weeks though to keep it fresh. Many of the single recs get buried in the back pages.
Question: Who did ever discover a wortwhile thread via the "recommended" list?
10 Apr 18
Originally posted by @uzlessVery well.
i have found lots of funny posts via the rec...the rec thread should re-start every 2 weeks though to keep it fresh. Many of the single recs get buried in the back pages.
I thumbed up your post. It is well if the System is stil working to a degree.
As for my self I have visited the list, but it is mostly clogged by the debates Forum...
Originally posted by @uzlessThis is a great idea and I’ve not heard a decent argument against it.
You should be able to click on the thumbs up/down (or hover your mouse over it) to see who has rec'd the post.
It will be provide a little more accountability.
The main reason people want to remain anonymous is because they habitually and lazily thumb down the poster rather post itself.
Which incidentally is why the system is broken Ponderable, I.e. the recommended posts list is full of petty partisan driven voted posts, rather than being a reasonable reflection of quality or interest.
Originally posted by @divegeesterHow many times do I publicly have to come out against this ego-driven idea before you actually run across one of my arguments? Do you actually mean you've never read my posts in the numerous threads where we argued about this?
This is a great idea and I’ve not heard a decent argument against it.
The main reason people want to remain anonymous is because they habitually and lazily thumb down the poster rather post itself.
Which incidentally is why the system is broken Ponderable, I.e. the recommended posts list is full of petty partisan driven voted posts, rather than being a reasonable reflection of quality or interest.
Okay, I see. You said "decent" argument. Nice backhanded way of claiming none of my arguments against this have been "decent".
Actually, right here in this thread is a decent argument. Whoever said that arguments would boil down to "X said Y about Z", and Why did you agree and Why didn't you agree and all of the RHP forums suddenly devolve into a few personalities and their little ego wars. Do you really want these forums to turn into this kind of wasteland similar to Trump and his twitter wasteland?
All of my arguments against this boil down to the concept that votes on posts should be anonymous. Otherwise, people get needlessly "called out" for actually daring to speak out against those whose egos are so big that they think they should get away with any posting nonsense they can dream up without facing anonymous criticism. All points posted here would become more about who did and who did not agree with the poster while the original point disappears in the ego-driven miasma of indignance. Eventually, after a campaign of beating their naysayers down for daring to exercise their right to disagree, no one bothers sticking their neck out to disagree anymore and the most ego-driven posters dominate the forum. Welcome to Fascism, and the death of the forums this would bring with it.
The main argument YOU posess seems to be this rather unintelligent claim that people who disagree with you only do so because they dislike you and therefore don't really disagree as much as voting against the person. Nice try, but you insult everyone who disagrees with the post by reassigning their agenda. Rather than accepting that people will disagree, you already try to deny their disagreement by this specious claim that they downvote the poster.
I disagree(!) with your ego-driven post that people cannot possibly be actually disagreeing with your posts. Most down votes ARE a "reasonable reflection of quality or interest", as hard as that is for you to swallow. People disagree with you because (wait for it) they disagree with you, not because of some specious claim you make that they do so for some other reason that is somehow more kind to your fragile ego.
Originally posted by @suzianneAs I said, I’ve not seen a decent argument against the OP. You are a classic example of the reasoning in my precious post.
How many times do I publicly have to come out against this ego-driven idea before you actually run across one of my arguments? Do you actually mean you've never read my posts in the numerous threads where we argued about this?
Okay, I see. You said "decent" argument. Nice backhanded way of claiming none of my arguments against this have been "decent" ...[text shortened]... im you make that they do so for some other reason that is somehow more kind to your fragile ego.
Originally posted by @divegeesteragreed
This is a great idea and I’ve not heard a decent argument against it.
The main reason people want to remain anonymous is because they habitually and lazily thumb down the poster rather post itself.
Which incidentally is why the system is broken Ponderable, I.e. the recommended posts list is full of petty partisan driven voted posts, rather than being a reasonable reflection of quality or interest.
13 Apr 18
Originally posted by @suzianneSimple way to fix all of what you said....
How many times do I publicly have to come out against this ego-driven idea before you actually run across one of my arguments? Do you actually mean you've never read my posts in the numerous threads where we argued about this?
Okay, I see. You said "decent" argument. Nice backhanded way of claiming none of my arguments against this have been "decent" ...[text shortened]... im you make that they do so for some other reason that is somehow more kind to your fragile ego.
Just ban anyone who calls out a rec'r. You are banned for 7 days for asking why somoene thumbed up or down a post.
Originally posted by @uzlessIt wouldn’t need policing, people want to hide for a reason. Suzianne is the worst offender, she often turns up in a thread, takes a swipe at her detractors, thumbs all of their posts down irrespective of the content, thumbs up all the posts of the person she “likes and then disappears.
Simple way to fix all of what you said....
Just ban anyone who calls out a rec'r. You are banned for 7 days for asking why somoene thumbed up or down a post.
All this rhetoric from her about people being to scared to speak out is a smoke-screen. It’s interesting to observe.
