I never knew what + 1 meant ?

So, here's the problem.

First, we all know there are several people who would get downvoted just because people don't like them. That is why I'd be against having the -1 button actually *do* anything.

Second, knowing people on this site, if the downvote doesn't do anything, people will start making the stupidest posts possible to try to get the most downvotes.

Third, this is probably the least important addition to the site for the Devs to work on.

@abgemacht - I really didn't mean that we should actually spend any time or energy on this. Just making conversation because of some of the incredibly stupid things that I have read lately.

But..."Second, knowing people on this site, if the downvote doesn't do anything, people will start making the stupidest posts possible to try to get the most downvotes." I just can't imagine anything more stupid than some of the stuff I have read in the last few weeks.

Oh trust me, they can be stupider.

That is one of the most frightening statements that I have ever read.

jimgov, you weren't around during Tettleton's Chew's heyday, were you? Just pick any one of his threads (well, maybe skip back about six months from the most recent; almost everyone muted TC). http://www.webdiplomacy.net/profile.php?detail=threads&userID=35891

I do see that you joined a while back, but maybe you missed TC anyway?

I was gone for a while, so maybe I missed him. I did, however, go to your link and follow it to some of his posts. I would have muted him pretty quickly. Or at least his threads.

@jimgov - you would ban people from writing on a free public forum, even if it is in humour, or they are trolling, or it is their honest thoughts on a subject.
There are people around the world fighting and dying for the right to free speech, to remove all forms of censorship. Who are you or any of us to sit in judgement, we have equal rights to post most anything we want here, how seriously we value that right is a personal subjective matter.
Where would it stop, ban guns just because you can massacre a classroom of 6-year-olds in 90 seconds, ban fast food because it causes health issues, ban alcohol, religion, drugs, etc, etc.
By engaging people with informed and jovial friendly debate on issues you can change a persons outlook or world view.
By telling them you want to silence them for their views what message are you sending.
You talk about lunatic posts but think about what your saying because it is the most crazy threatening post I may have ever seen on this site.

And here they come...no, I would not ban people from making their crazy posts. The group as a whole, by "voting" with the -1 button, would. Just because you have issues it does not mean that everyone has to hear them. And if, as I said, the group voted with the -1 button, then the group had decided that they have heard enough. And that, sir, is democracy in action.

Anyone who's thin's JimGov is dead wrong, give him a big old ** -1 ** here.

If we can get 10 "-1"'s, JimGov will silence himself for a week.

If we can get 100 "-1";s, JimGov will leave the site...if he has integrity and is true to his beliefs, that is...and not just another troll.

jimgov - this forum is remarkably tame right now. Krellin has calmed down a bit, Draug doesn't really troll anymore. Most of the trolls from a year or two a go are gone now.

I mean, Putin doesn't even comment anymore.

And another one arrives. Yes, I expected certain people to start their daily troll run. And if we could, as a community, come up with a certain way to vote to ban people from the forum for a certain time, then I would LOVE to take you up on the offer. It's just that you coming up with the rules won't work. Sorry. You know, democracy and all that stuff.

@gold - I know. But there does seem to be a few that are always stirring the pot. They think they are clever or witty or something. But the second they get a little push back, they freak the fuck out.

Have you tried muting threads or people, that seems to work wonders for me.
If you don't like a persons individual comments or a particular thread why not mute rather than wait for democracy to take place. If you had people personally muted would you really care if other people could read the posts when you know that they too have the power to mute?
Why try and get people banned just got because you don't like them?

Like I said earlier...I wasn't serious about banning people. I was just throwing that out there to get some feedback on who was the most annoying. Yes, I have been muting threads. No people yet. I have only found a few people that I think I would want to mute, but haven't pulled the trigger yet. Killing a thread that I am not interested in is one thing. Muting a person is another. But if the community decided that was best.....

Relax, Jim.

I think we should introduce the -1 button and then use it for this thread.

I am completely relaxed. Completely. It does confuse me, however, when someone comes on here to troll...someone that you all KNOW are on just to troll...that they don't get shot down in a million ways. But I throw out a little tongue in cheek idea and I need to relax.

You could always use the mute thread button, red.

Hell no.

Lol. I knew that answer before you made it.

Hell yes.

First of all, the trolls do get shot down in a bunch of ways. They are constantly mocked and ridiculed. Second, you have the tools you need to avoid them -- mute.

Admittedly, my primary concern with your ideas is that I think it would hurt substantive discussion. Like several others, I hold political and religious opinions that are in a small minority on this site. I try to do my best to defend them in an honest and rigorous way. In return, I appreciate that if somebody wants to attack me, they have to actually post their problems with what I'm saying, not just lob anonymous -1's. Since I see your concern as a very unimportant one given the tools available to you to avoid those you dislike, I would therefore oppose something that would increase herd spirit on the forum.

(Nor is it just minority opinions. I see no reason why I should be able to -1 somebody else's opinion, however popular, without actually responding and saying why. It seems destructive of good dialog, not constructive).

@semck - A very well thought out and reasoned explanation. +1

troll puts up troll thread and then says, "Oh, just kidding..." and starts calling people trolls. Nice...

Why not just outsource the entire forum to a subreddit?

Why? Do they do something like this?

"Why not just outsource the entire forum to a subreddit?"

Yeah, then I could get all my diplomacy and creep shots in one place.

Semck, where exactly do you get the idea that your views represent a minority? I feel like it's pretty safe to say that, of the most prolific posters, we're pretty equally split politically, and much more Christian than many places on the internet.

ghug,

If you restrict to "the most prolific posters," I might agree with you (although I'd still say more like 70/30 than evenly split, but close enough). However, more occasional posters seem to be a lot more likely to be left- than right-leaning, for whatever reason, and this would apply to the whole site.

In any case, my point would remain, more or less, even if the split were perfect.

I'm going to disagree with that too. I think either one of us could list as many conservative contributors to the forums as we could list liberals. The fact that the occasional one-off poster is more likely to be left-leaning is just a result of the political distribution of the average heavy internet user.

"The fact that the occasional one-off poster is more likely to be left-leaning is just a result of the political distribution of the average heavy internet user. "

I'm missing how explaining the cause of something makes that thing false.

ghug, I'm curious too, who you classify as "most prolific posters." PE and Putin have disappeared, and they're both more on the liberal/ atheist side. Thucy only shows up every now and then nowadays, and I've rather slowed down my posting as well. Off the top of my head, I would list:

you (ghug), semck, 2WL, CA, abge, draug, krellin, bo, philcore, blankflag, redhouse, SYnapse, jimgov

Could you clarify your list? I'm genuinely interested.

@semck, my point is that we're a relatively conservative little cross-section of the internet, and the fact that the occasional, one-off poster happens to be closer to the average doesn't mean that we are, as a whole, as skewed as that average.

@dub, Since when is PE on the liberal side? I know that Libertarians have their own little category, but I'd definitely put him on the right rather than the left.

I don't have a concrete list for you, but if we were to take your list as an example, I know that semck, CA, Draug, krellin, philcore, redhouse, and I think SYnapse are conservative, abge, 2WL (I think), and I are liberal, bo is centrist, blank is crazy conspiracy theorist, and I have no idea about jimgov. I'm sure that that count is a bit skewed because you were thinking about it in the context of this discussion, but I think the point still stands.

Hmm... perhaps this is where our definitions of "liberal" went different directions. PE is certainly socially liberal (at least, I cannot think of a time when he wasn't), but I agree his economic et al. stances are more conservative, as a libertarian is wont to do. I was thinking towards "social liberal" and not other kinds of liberal. My apologies on the miscommunication.

And yes, using that little list makes your point well enough, though again, I will point out, I think draug, at least, is more socially liberal than the rest of the fellows you listed as conservative, and so clearer definitions might be in order.

Censorship by popular vote. Jimgov would get my first round of -1s to show him why his idea is fucked in the head and the ass.

I don't like it. Many would -1 a post with disagreeable content, rather than a disagreeable argument. I don't think it would have any desirable effect.

And yes, social liberal and fiscal conservative. Help those who need it and are trying to help themselves. Care for those who can't care for themselves. But welfare to the lazy is wrong. And do *not* distort that to make it look like I think everyone on welfare is lazy. Far from it. We should open up our borders to all without criminal pasts or where their crimes didn't seriously violate reasonable laws around the US. We should make it easier to seek residency here while cracking down on illegals who go on to commit offenses over here.

Draug, would it be fair to say that if the "lazy" element of the welfare programs were given a government issue job (digging ditches, sweeping floors, working soup kitchens, anything piddly but still work) to earn their "pay," would you be okay with the "lazy" element of welfare programs?

Yes, if one of able mind and body were given a government sponsored job, no matter how menial, then they are earning their keep. I have a problem with the guy who sits on his ass drinking a beer (how the fuck does one get beer on welfare anyhow?) in his section 8 apartment doing shit all day. And his baby momma off pumping out another one every 9 months to a year to increase the amount of welfare they get.

Again, this is not the typical case. I understand that.

On the other side, I have a problem with unemployment stopping, ever. If a person was let go without cause and is collecting unemployment, then they should be able to continue collecting as long as they actively continue looking for a job.