[Non-political] News that makes you Laugh/Cry/Both...

[Prak]

I sort of like the idea of upvoting/"liking"/etc, for the simple reason that it allows you to say "I agree with/support this!" when that's literally all you have to say. I think I once responded to a post on here by just putting up an image of the Facebook like. It's handy, and a good joke once, but it's not like I can just do that all the time.

I actually don't really disagree with you, Stahlseele, just putting this out there.

[Kaelik]

somebody on dumpshock actually asked for a +/- system to be implemented on the board . . such an moronic idea . .
The whole concept is stupid in my eyes.
You go somewhere like forums/boards to communicate with people.
What communication is there in clicking one single button?
Why did i receive a -? no idea, no information in there, ne ground for discussion, not even enough for a good flame war!
Hey, he got a +! why? for what? when? from whom? and is that such a good thing? if he got it for making a sexist or racist or whatever remark from another bigot for example, then why should that count as a + if it's clearly not positive at all?
The whole thing just boggles my already failing mind . .

I remember for a while on BG people basically used "you have bad karma" as an excuse to not address your arguments. Good times.

[Koumei]

I recall one forum took the piss a bit: you gained karma for posting and just for existing. You could gift any amount of karma to others. And there was a karmic stock market you could play, and you could place it in a karmic bank to gain interest or you could take out karma loans.

[Maj]

I sort of like the idea of upvoting/"liking"/etc, for the simple reason that it allows you to say "I agree with/support this!" when that's literally all you have to say. I think I once responded to a post on here by just putting up an image of the Facebook like. It's handy, and a good joke once, but it's not like I can just do that all the time.

I actually don't really disagree with you, Stahlseele, just putting this out there.

This is exactly one of those posts I would upvote.

[Ancient History]

I participated in a Chaos Dwarf forum for a while; their version of karma was slaves. You got slaves the longer that you were there, and if you could give and receive slaves freely to demonstrate appreciation for a great post or something.

[erik]

Oh god. Due to this thread I just went back to the travian forums that I used to post on years ago. I saw a locked thread and memories came flooding back. I shuffled through ancient posts for like 2 hours. Ah, happy memories.

There is a thread called "Derepping complaints" where people posted to complain about getting -rep for whatever reason. The thread became a terrible joke because whoever posted with a complaint invariably received additional -reps for that post in that thread.

Anywho, the forum has a tagging system for threads and that thread has these tags

derep, dont post in thread, erik=clik, pwnzer was here

Hahhaahahahaha. I forgot what a horrible troll I was there. There is actually a tag explaining who clik is because I would sign my reps/dereps as "clik" since that was how I was commonly known in game back then, but my forum account was 'Erik'. I don't feel bad for trolling there since the forum was mostly for trash-talking about a javascript web-game. Without forum-taunting the game was incredibly boring.

I don't really have a point. Just thanks to this topic for getting me to go return there and have a few laughs.

[Stahlseele]

I sort of like the idea of upvoting/"liking"/etc, for the simple reason that it allows you to say "I agree with/support this!" when that's literally all you have to say. I think I once responded to a post on here by just putting up an image of the Facebook like. It's handy, and a good joke once, but it's not like I can just do that all the time.

I actually don't really disagree with you, Stahlseele, just putting this out there.

That is still slightly different, because it puts your name there.
People could go and ask you why you posted that. Information. Grounds for a discussion!
Usually with these kind of systems, there's just a button to be pressed and just a number changing.
That is my main complaint about this bullshit. If i get down/upvoted, i have no idea why whoever down/upvoted me thinks that i deserved that.

[Orca]

I like one thing about the Paizo forums - the ability to mark a post as a favorite. If you're late arriving to a thread reading the posts others have marked can help you skim it & it can be used as a simple voting system.

[Starmaker]

If i get down/upvoted, i have no idea why whoever down/upvoted me thinks that i deserved that.

That's because you're (probably) a decent person and the places you hang around are substantially decent. There are not-so-dark corners of the internets where each opinion is (kinda) welcome with all passive aggression it entails, and you seriously can't afford to waste time telling each up-and-coming "race realist" why exactly they're a twatshitter, but at the same time you can't say "suck a barrel of cocks" because baawww, don't swear you intolerant prick, can't you have a civil discussion, you should respect all opinions equally, and there are worse places which are super fucking toxic where saying you don't believe Europeans, Americans and Africans are subhuman in different, specific ways earns you a forum death. In those cases you might want to just give a thumbs down and hope someone else has the decency to do the same. Twatshitting relies on social consent. Even if you don't post a detailed rebuttal, a thumbs down still denies them your consent. That's useful.

[Stahlseele]

Yeah, the "worst" place i visit on a regular basis is the Gaming Den.
I may be slightly sheltered in that regard <.<

[PhoneLobster]

... but at the same time you can't say "suck a barrel of cocks" because baawww, don't swear you intolerant prick, can't you have a civil discussion, you should respect all opinions equally...

There are also a lot of places that will say the same thing, and possibly ban you, even if you don't swear because simply telling someone they are wrong is too insulting for them, especially if you provide a supporting argument or quotes etc...

The Gaming Den is the only forum I swear on, and it's all nice and liberating. But actually the main reason I post here is because it's one of the few RPG related forums on the internet where simply telling someone they are wrong is not a (potentially) bannable offense.

And yeah, those places where telling someone they are wrong is bannable are inconsistent and it totally matters what the local mods regard as unassailable truths that must never even dare be discussed or who their bestest buds who must not be nay sayed are. But its a minefield and it's a stupid offensive minefield.

[Essence]

$3,500 fine and a ding on their credit score for posting a bad review of a bad product online. What the actual fuck?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/02/tech/coup ... ?c=&page=1

[Stahlseele]

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/17/world ... discovery/
Gigantosaur bigger yet

[ishy]

The worst reputation system I've seen had people who wrote something like this in their forum signature:

Trying to get as much negative rep as possible, please downvote me if you found my post helpful.

and while they'd post helpful stuff; they got banned for abusing the reputation system.

[Josh_Kablack]

BMW = Balrog??

[Stahlseele]

The cars certainly are fugly enough for that in my eyes . .

[Occluded Sun]

I've been to sites where people were labelled 'trolls' merely because they would uphold positions that enough people considered unpopular, so (honestly or not) people would say that they MUST be trolls because no one could 'possibly' hold that sentiment. And the mods tended to make decisions by looking at what was easier for them - since it's easier to ban targets of many complaints rather than evaluate the complaints...

[violence in the media]

I've been to sites where people were labelled 'trolls' merely because they would uphold positions that enough people considered unpopular, so (honestly or not) people would say that they MUST be trolls because no one could 'possibly' hold that sentiment. And the mods tended to make decisions by looking at what was easier for them - since it's easier to ban targets of many complaints rather than evaluate the complaints...

Isn't that what trolling actually is? Whether or not someone believes in the thing they're arguing for is irrelevant and secondary to the action of staking out a contrarian position for the purposes of riling people up. Or is there a better definition of trolling that I'm missing?

[nockermensch]

I've been to sites where people were labelled 'trolls' merely because they would uphold positions that enough people considered unpopular, so (honestly or not) people would say that they MUST be trolls because no one could 'possibly' hold that sentiment. And the mods tended to make decisions by looking at what was easier for them - since it's easier to ban targets of many complaints rather than evaluate the complaints...

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread. ... sheye-hoax
1) Read that thread.
2) Does it make any difference for you if that OP sincerely believes his opinions?

[Occluded Sun]

Isn't that what trolling actually is? Whether or not someone believes in the thing they're arguing for is irrelevant and secondary to the action of staking out a contrarian position for the purposes of riling people up. Or is there a better definition of trolling that I'm missing?

For the purposes of riling people up. If people are doing it FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE, it's not trolling. If they're doing it FOR AN ADDITIONAL PURPOSE, it's not trolling.

Too many people choose to get riled up at any contradiction, then insist that their contradictors are trolls. But they're only trolls if they posted it for the sole purpose of annoying people.

[Occluded Sun]

2) Does it make any difference for you if that OP sincerely believes his opinions?

To the question of whether he's a troll: yes.

In the Internet sense, 'trolling' was derived from the method of fishing that involves dragging a net through water, especially across the bottom of the body of water, or dragging hooked lines through water to catch things.

It refers to people who are only trying to get a reaction (catch a fish, so to speak). If that poster was genuine, he's not a troll.

He's an ignorant moron. Just not a troll.

[tussock]

There are more things than archetypal "just there to get a rise out of you" trolls.

Concern trolls are a thing. Racist and bigoted trolls are a thing. Religious trolls are a thing. Anti-vax trolls are a thing. Silva is a thing. There are a bunch of people who believe what they're saying and also know that the only thing they're going to achieve is to piss people off by saying it. When that reaction amuses them, or arouses them, or makes them angry, or gets any sort of "rush" feedback, folk get hooked on it.

That's what makes them trolls. Silva loves when people tell him his pet game is shit, because of the blood pressure and pulse rate increase, and associated feeling of moral superiority. He's a troll. It's a thing. Even though he really does like the game.

[Occluded Sun]

Concern trolls are a thing. Racist and bigoted trolls are a thing. Religious trolls are a thing. Anti-vax trolls are a thing. Silva is a thing. There are a bunch of people who believe what they're saying and also know that the only thing they're going to achieve is to piss people off by saying it.

But they're not trolls. That's a misuse of the word.

And, of course, there are more important things in life than not pissing people off. If you disagree, feel free to stop talking in order not to piss us off. The rest of us will be trying to have intelligent (or at least witty) discussions.

[Ancient History]

Pot calling fucking kettle.

[Occluded Sun]

That would require an accusation, which no one's made.