all 8 comments

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The system in it's current form is a paragon of anti-shill beauty.

I find myself clicking insightful for things that are well-written, but that I don't agree with.

Why not try to use the insightful/funny as intended.

If we had agree / disagree buttons in addition to insightful and funny, we would be able to more clearly see the general consensus.

Who do you mean by we?

Additional differentiation may be used against a user in the not so distant future. I think it's safe to assume that TPTB will eventually attempt to roll out a version of the Chinese sesame score in the West.

This info could be used against individuals in a situation similar to that. Sometimes vague is good.

Wizzwizz4:

I'm struggling to imagine a situation where someone would vote insightful for "well written" comments that they "disagree" with...??? This explanation seems a bit contrived. A shill would do exactly this. However, they have an ulterior motive. This is surprising behavior.

  • What information gathering are you interested in?
  • Why are you Interesting in sorting through it?
  • Why propose significant changes, because you don't use the system icons as intended?

If you're a curious individual, then additional info can always be inferred through people's comments. It's inexact, but that's how the social sciences are evaluated.

Also, I like the idea of making the intelligence agency's put a bit of effort into spying; when trying to figure out a person's perspective.

I vote to leave the system as it is. The Intel agency's should have to collect and sort their own stolen data.

Let's avoid making things convenient for them... ;-)

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Why not try to use the insightful/funny as intended.

I click insightful for things that are insightful. The nagging voice in the back of my head saying "why are you supporting something you disagree with", however, makes it hard to do this.

Who do you mean by we?

Us. You and me and the other users of Saidit.

Additional differentiation may be used against a user in the not so distant future. I think it's safe to assume that TPTB will eventually attempt to roll out a version of the Chinese sesame score in the West.

What does this even mean?

This info could be used against individuals in a situation similar to that. Sometimes vague is good.

I think I sort of understand what you're getting at, but it's perfectly optional to click the buttons. Plus, this info wouldn't be public.

I'm struggling to imagine a situation where someone would vote insightful for "well written" comments that they "disagree" with...???

If they're insightful, maybe?

This explanation seems a bit contrived. A shill would do exactly this. However, they have an ulterior motive.

Oh, quit it. If I were a shill, I wouldn't be expending so much time in trying to help people, and I'd probably spend more time on the site. I'm sorry; healthy scepticism is good, and I shouldn't take it personally.

  • What information gathering are you interested in? Seeing whether a particular opinion matches the consensus of the readers.

  • Why are you Interesting in sorting through it? So I can see whether a particular opinion matches the consensus of the readers. It was just a thought.

  • Why propose significant changes, because you don't use the system icons as intended?

I think you're the one not using them as intended, if you're using them to show agreement or disagreement.

If you're a curious individual, then additional info can always be inferred through people's comments. It's inexact, but that's how the social sciences are evaluated.

This is a good argument against the change.

Also, I like the idea of making the intelligence agency's put a bit of effort into spying; when trying to figure out a person's perspective.

I like the idea of this too, but it's relatively easy to estimate whether someone's pro or con by the language they use. One of Project Debater's simpler components does this – and before you start saying that Project Debater's a government project because of this, this technology's been around for a while. I could probably make a version with 70% accuracy in a week.

Plus, an individual's votes are not public. Comments are. So they'd still need to sort through the comments, unless the /s/SaiditCanary s stopped coming.

I vote to leave the system as it is. The Intel agency's should have to collect and sort their own stolen data.

Let's avoid making things convenient for them... ;-)

Not having this feature would not really make it harder for them.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I click insightful for things that are insightful. The nagging voice in the back of my head saying "why are you supporting something you disagree with", however, makes it hard to do this.

This is an interesting statement.
You are staying that something in your own mind is telling you that you could be wrong.
However, you continue to ignore it. In spite of the nagging feeling.

That nagging feeling is trying to tell you to re-examine your beliefs, and opinions. Are you willfully suppressing this feeling, because it contradicts your existing world view? Something is going on there. that you might benefit by look into.

I suspect that I would probably get along quite well with your nagging conscience. You should create an account for him/her/ze.

Not having this feature would not really make it harder for them.

You seem to know quite a bit about them.
Feel free to publicise your SaidIt-related personal info.

Please stop asking everyone else to publicise their info, so you can conveniently sort it.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You are staying that something in your own mind is telling you that you could be wrong. […]

That nagging feeling is trying to tell you to re-examine your beliefs, and opinions.

*facepalm* This nagging feeling is the I Am Right part of my mind, that insists that I should deliberately sabotage anything that goes against My Viewpoint. It's the one that would stop me from questioning my beliefs, and would instead seek to discredit everything which disagrees with me. The one that would be sated by pressing that "disagree" button so I can get on with listening to people.

You seem to know quite a bit about them.

I'm assuming that the intelligence agencies have access to the latest and greatest in freely-available software. As I said, I – not being an expert, and working alone – could probably put together a program that sorted pro-XYZ statements from con-XYZ statements with about 70% accuracy in a week, by stringing together other people's code.

Please stop asking everyone else to publicise their info, so you can conveniently sort it.

I would never. I take it as an insult to my character that you'd accuse me of such a thing, and the only thing stopping me from being offended is that you don't know me well.

I'm one of the people who argued against people's votes from being made public — I was trying to link it when I found this; not cool to address people without writing /u/username somewhere – but anyway, I'm one of the people who argued against people's votes being made public.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

K.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Concede starts with a C, not a K.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Catastrophe starts with C.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you still have a point to make, make it. Saying "K." is saying "I have nothing further to contribute." That doesn't do your stance justice.

You made some good points there. You were just surrounding it with this… blah. Reasoned discussion is hard, and I don't expect you to be perfect at it straight away. If you don't want to debate any more, say something like:

I don't want to talk about this any more.

or just don't reply. Saying "K." makes it seem like you can't think of a way to refute my position, and are resorting to being snarky and dismissive for want of an argument.