Fake News and the Ratings Feature

[Arkady]

Trump continues to label as "fake news" anything that he finds harmful to himself politically.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...sion-fake-news-hillary-clinton-htmlstory.html

The ultimate goal is nihilistic: to negate the meaning of journalism, since Trump knows real journalism harms him more often then it helps him. In a similar sense, you can see the way the weakest posters on this forum try to negate the meaning of the ratings function, by blindingly spamming it with negative ratings of posts they haven't actually read, since those posters know that honest ratings of posts will look bad for them more often than they'll look good.

As an example, between 11:05 AM and 11:22 AM today, *Edited* rated 45 of my posts "Disagree." That's in addition to rating four more of them that way between 10:44 and 10:46. At about 23 seconds per rating, clearly, this is not a matter of reading those posts to decide what reaction to have. Keep in mind, that included some entries of hundreds of words each -- one over a thousand words. At 23 seconds each, we're talking about blind rating based on the identity of the poster.

I suppose at some level I should be flattered that *Edited* would subject herself to twenty minutes of tedium clicking on my posts one at a time, merely to register a meaningless "disagree." But her obsession with me doesn't change the fact her abuse of the rating system hurts the usability of the forum. This is Trumpist nihilism on the small scale -- trying to destroy the very concept of meaning, since truth itself is viewed as a political enemy.

How's that for a Political News and Current Events hook?

 

[bdtex]

How's that for a Political News and Current Events hook?

Was it really necessary to post this twice? It wasn't deleted the first time. It was moved to an appropriate forum just like other posts get moved occasionally.

 

[Arkady]

Was it really necessary to post this twice? It wasn't deleted the first time. It was moved to an appropriate forum just like other posts get moved occasionally.

No, it definitely wasn't necessary. I was just having a bit of fun.

 

[Drumcollie]

Trump continues to label as "fake news" anything that he finds harmful to himself politically.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...sion-fake-news-hillary-clinton-htmlstory.html

The ultimate goal is nihilistic: to negate the meaning of journalism, since Trump knows real journalism harms him more often then it helps him. In a similar sense, you can see the way the weakest posters on this forum try to negate the meaning of the ratings function, by blindingly spamming it with negative ratings of posts they haven't actually read, since those posters know that honest ratings of posts will look bad for them more often than they'll look good.

As an example, between 11:05 AM and 11:22 AM today, *Edited* rated 45 of my posts "Disagree." That's in addition to rating four more of them that way between 10:44 and 10:46. At about 23 seconds per rating, clearly, this is not a matter of reading those posts to decide what reaction to have. Keep in mind, that included some entries of hundreds of words each -- one over a thousand words. At 23 seconds each, we're talking about blind rating based on the identity of the poster.

I suppose at some level I should be flattered that *Edited* would subject herself to twenty minutes of tedium clicking on my posts one at a time, merely to register a meaningless "disagree." But her obsession with me doesn't change the fact her abuse of the rating system hurts the usability of the forum. This is Trumpist nihilism on the small scale -- trying to destroy the very concept of meaning, since truth itself is viewed as a political enemy.

How's that for a Political News and Current Events hook?

How is that for lame. You got disagreed with...how expected. I guess your ego got bruised. Maybe it would not happen if you got something, anything right. But I expect much less from you.

 

[resident_evil]

Trump continues to label as "fake news" anything that he finds harmful to himself politically.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...sion-fake-news-hillary-clinton-htmlstory.html

The ultimate goal is nihilistic: to negate the meaning of journalism, since Trump knows real journalism harms him more often then it helps him. In a similar sense, you can see the way the weakest posters on this forum try to negate the meaning of the ratings function, by blindingly spamming it with negative ratings of posts they haven't actually read, since those posters know that honest ratings of posts will look bad for them more often than they'll look good.

As an example, between 11:05 AM and 11:22 AM today, *Edited* rated 45 of my posts "Disagree." That's in addition to rating four more of them that way between 10:44 and 10:46. At about 23 seconds per rating, clearly, this is not a matter of reading those posts to decide what reaction to have. Keep in mind, that included some entries of hundreds of words each -- one over a thousand words. At 23 seconds each, we're talking about blind rating based on the identity of the poster.

I suppose at some level I should be flattered that *Edited* would subject herself to twenty minutes of tedium clicking on my posts one at a time, merely to register a meaningless "disagree." But her obsession with me doesn't change the fact her abuse of the rating system hurts the usability of the forum. This is Trumpist nihilism on the small scale -- trying to destroy the very concept of meaning, since truth itself is viewed as a political enemy.

How's that for a Political News and Current Events hook?

@bdtex

Does disagreeing hurt your ratings or is it disliking? What's the difference? I'm starting to use the read rating to mean I read your post as a form of feedback.

 

[resident_evil]

How is that for lame. You got disagreed with...how expected. I guess your ego got bruised. Maybe it would not happen if you got something, anything right. But I expect much less from you.

I think he just wants consideration. @Arkady puts time an effort in to his posts. I disagree all the time with him but only after I've read his posts and even then I don't always rate him I don't think.

 

[marvin martian]

Trump continues to label as "fake news" anything that he finds harmful to himself politically.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...sion-fake-news-hillary-clinton-htmlstory.html

The ultimate goal is nihilistic: to negate the meaning of journalism, since Trump knows real journalism harms him more often then it helps him. In a similar sense, you can see the way the weakest posters on this forum try to negate the meaning of the ratings function, by blindingly spamming it with negative ratings of posts they haven't actually read, since those posters know that honest ratings of posts will look bad for them more often than they'll look good.

As an example, between 11:05 AM and 11:22 AM today, *Edited* rated 45 of my posts "Disagree." That's in addition to rating four more of them that way between 10:44 and 10:46. At about 23 seconds per rating, clearly, this is not a matter of reading those posts to decide what reaction to have. Keep in mind, that included some entries of hundreds of words each -- one over a thousand words. At 23 seconds each, we're talking about blind rating based on the identity of the poster.

I suppose at some level I should be flattered that *Edited* would subject herself to twenty minutes of tedium clicking on my posts one at a time, merely to register a meaningless "disagree." But her obsession with me doesn't change the fact her abuse of the rating system hurts the usability of the forum. This is Trumpist nihilism on the small scale -- trying to destroy the very concept of meaning, since truth itself is viewed as a political enemy.

How's that for a Political News and Current Events hook?

Would you like a trigger warning next time someone plans to disagree with your DNC-funded bullshit?

 

[Arkady]

How is that for lame. You got disagreed with...how expected. I guess your ego got bruised. Maybe it would not happen if you got something, anything right. But I expect much less from you.

No. As you you know better than anyone, this wasn't about disagreeing with anything I posted. It was about cycling through my posts hitting "disagree" without even reading them. Your latest such "contribution" to the forum started at 3:28 and ended at 3:38 and included 52 "disagrees". Obviously, you didn't read what you were disagreeing with, since that would have given you 12 seconds per post to load it, read it, and rate it.

But here's the really funny thing. You're so easy to bait that you can be convinced to blow half an hour of your day (just so far today) on the tedious process of manually rating a bunch of stuff you didn't read. I guess that when a life is as empty as yours, any stimulus, even something that would bore the rest of us silly, is a relief.

 

[Arkady]

I think he just wants consideration. @Arkady puts time an effort in to his posts. I disagree all the time with him but only after I've read his posts and even then I don't always rate him I don't think.

I don't generally use negative ratings of any kind, but when I give a rating, either positive or negative, I've definitely read and thought about the material.

 

[Arkady]

Would you like a trigger warning next time someone plans to disagree with your DNC-funded bullshit?

I don't mind negative ratings for something someone genuinely disagrees with. If you took the time to read and think about what I wrote, and concluded it was crap, by all means feel free to disagree. By putting in the time, you've earned the right to register your dislike. It's dishonest, though, to say you disagree with something you can't actually disagree with, since you don't even know what it says.

 

[marvin martian]

I don't mind negative ratings for something someone genuinely disagrees with. If you took the time to read and think about what I wrote, and concluded it was crap, by all means feel free to disagree. By putting in the time, you've earned the right to register your dislike. It's dishonest, though, to say you disagree with something you can't actually disagree with, since you don't even know what it says.

I wouldn't say it's dishonest, though it may be lazy. For example, I know before I read your posts they will be 100% in agreement with the DNC party line, whatever it may be. If that's to be the basis of my criticism, I know even without reading your post that I have a valid critique of it.

Another example; your smart friend @Saladin2 is a violent, semi-literate racist, and it shows in virtually all of his posts. For that reason, I know before I read it, it will be racist, anti-Semitic, violent, and/or misogynistic, and I can react as any decent human being would, with disgust.

So again, it may be lazy, but there's an effective shorthand for quickly assessing the material offered by the various hacks, propagandists, and unrepentant bigots we have on this board.

 

[Dawg]

No, it definitely wasn't necessary. I was just having a bit of fun.

a Reach Around violation this time................geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus

"The Administrator/Owner of PJ posted a new rules announcement here:

https://www.politicaljack.com/thread...-personal-information-or-reach-arounds.87990/

I will pin this post for a coupla weeks so that posters who do not regularly visit the Announcements & Feedback forum will have notice of the rules.



bdtex, Dec 29, 2015 Report"

 

[Dawg]

Was it really necessary to post this twice? It wasn't deleted the first time. It was moved to an appropriate forum just like other posts get moved occasionally.

Evidently, arkady doesn't read or give a damn about Rules?

"The Administrator/Owner of PJ posted a new rules announcement here:

https://www.politicaljack.com/thread...-personal-information-or-reach-arounds.87990/

I will pin this post for a coupla weeks so that posters who do not regularly visit the Announcements & Feedback forum will have notice of the rules.



bdtex, Dec 29, 2015 Report"

 

[Dawg]

No. As you you know better than anyone, this wasn't about disagreeing with anything I posted. It was about cycling through my posts hitting "disagree" without even reading them. Your latest such "contribution" to the forum started at 3:28 and ended at 3:38 and included 52 "disagrees". Obviously, you didn't read what you were disagreeing with, since that would have given you 12 seconds per post to load it, read it, and rate it.

But here's the really funny thing. You're so easy to bait that you can be convinced to blow half an hour of your day (just so far today) on the tedious process of manually rating a bunch of stuff you didn't read. I guess that when a life is as empty as yours, any stimulus, even something that would bore the rest of us silly, is a relief.

First one was a Top Post Call Out and this one is a Reach Around Rule Violation.............evidently, you think you're special and Rules don't apply to YOU!

 

[Dawg]

I think he just wants consideration. @Arkady puts time an effort in to his posts. I disagree all the time with him but only after I've read his posts and even then I don't always rate him I don't think.

more like a spoiled child needing attention and proves lib kids are never told NO..........

 

[resident_evil]

more like a spoiled child needing attention and proves lib kids are never told NO..........

Didn't your momma tell you to treat the "special children" special out on the playground? :0)

 

[Dawg]

Didn't your momma tell you to treat the "special children" special out on the playground? :0)

arkady isn't "special children".......appears he's getting away with 2 rule violation in one top post............maybe he is Special?

 

[Arkady]

I wouldn't say it's dishonest, though it may be lazy. For example, I know before I read your posts they will be 100% in agreement with the DNC party line, whatever it may be

Even if that were true (which, as you know perfectly well, it isn't), you wouldn't know you disagree with it unless you also know that you're 100% in disagreement with whatever the DNC party line happens to be. I guess that's at least conceivable. If you have no capacity for independent thought, it's quite possible that you simply assume that whatever the DNC says must be wrong, and take your position based on that. But if you think about issues at all before deciding what position to take, then you must have at least a few issues on which you agree with the DNC, just as, over the years, there have been a few where I agree with the RNC.

Regardless, I've seen no sign that you blind-rate posts. And that's all I'm taking issue with here.

 

[Arkady]

a Reach Around violation this time................geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezus

"The Administrator/Owner of PJ posted a new rules announcement here:

https://www.politicaljack.com/thread...-personal-information-or-reach-arounds.87990/

I will pin this post for a coupla weeks so that posters who do not regularly visit the Announcements & Feedback forum will have notice of the rules.



bdtex, Dec 29, 2015 Report"

I'll have to defer to your expertise on the subject of reach-arounds.

 

[Barbella]

Trump continues to label as "fake news" anything that he finds harmful to himself politically.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...sion-fake-news-hillary-clinton-htmlstory.html

The ultimate goal is nihilistic: to negate the meaning of journalism, since Trump knows real journalism harms him more often then it helps him. In a similar sense, you can see the way the weakest posters on this forum try to negate the meaning of the ratings function, by blindingly spamming it with negative ratings of posts they haven't actually read, since those posters know that honest ratings of posts will look bad for them more often than they'll look good.

As an example, between 11:05 AM and 11:22 AM today, *Edited* rated 45 of my posts "Disagree." That's in addition to rating four more of them that way between 10:44 and 10:46. At about 23 seconds per rating, clearly, this is not a matter of reading those posts to decide what reaction to have. Keep in mind, that included some entries of hundreds of words each -- one over a thousand words. At 23 seconds each, we're talking about blind rating based on the identity of the poster.

I suppose at some level I should be flattered that *Edited* would subject herself to twenty minutes of tedium clicking on my posts one at a time, merely to register a meaningless "disagree." But her obsession with me doesn't change the fact her abuse of the rating system hurts the usability of the forum. This is Trumpist nihilism on the small scale -- trying to destroy the very concept of meaning, since truth itself is viewed as a political enemy.

How's that for a Political News and Current Events hook?

Why do you even NOTICE who dislikes your posts, and why do you bother to write, at length I may add, about it? WHO, really, cares?