3 ms·

Not everyone has to give a signal on why they disagreed with you as much as people don't have to give you a signal on why they agree with you. I don't get this

Not everyone has to give a signal on why they disagreed with you as much as people don't have to give you a signal on why they agree with you. I don't get this argument. People may agree with 2 out of 5 things in a list and vote +1 because they don't care about the 3 other things. You still don't get that feedback from a +1, just like you won't get from a -1. There shouldn't be higher standards for disagreement based on reasons because the same doesn't exist for agreement.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
joepie91_ 11y ago
> Not everyone has to give a signal on why they disagreed with you On GitHub? They absolutely do. It's a platform for collaboration, not idle chatter. If you do not wish to support your disagreement, you probably shouldn't be posting anything there to begin with. EDIT: I've also already explained to you why 'agreement' and 'disagreement' are held to different standards. I'm not sure why you keep repeating this point.
- moe 11y ago
  > I'm not sure why you keep repeating this point. Because your distinction is wrong. A drive-by -1 is in no way different from a drive-by +1. Both are equally useful. Both indicate how many people agree or disagree. Neither explains why someone agrees or disagrees.
  - esailija 11y ago
    They are very different. The explanation for +1 is in the post you are upvoting. Thats why nobody ever has to ask "why the upvotes?'.
    - moe 11y ago
      Sorry but you make no sense. If the explanation for +1 is in the post you are upvoting, then the explanation for -1 is just as well in the post you are downvoting.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  moe is right. And what is strange is that you keep repeating yourself. They absolutely do. No, they absolutely don't--GitHub says so. You think they absolutely should have to, but they do not. Here's an example: Alice posts a feature request on the issue tracker for Project Awesome saying that the project's mascot should be changed to a unicorn. Bob downvotes it. Neither person has provided an argument for their position. According to you, Bob is required to explain why he doesn't want a unicorn mascot, but Alice doesn't have to explain why she wants one. You are assuming that a positive argument will always be made in support of an assertion, and that therefore a negative argument must be made against it rather than merely a contrary assertion. But it often happens that the pro side of an issue makes unsupported assertions and unreasonable claims, then the con side makes reasoned arguments, and the pro side proceeds to ignore the points raised by their opponents. The real problem is anonymous voting. Anonymous votes are not very useful, because for all you know, the person voting doesn't even use the software in question. Voting within a team of collaborators could certainly be useful, even without substantiation, but "drive-by" votes by random Internet people are the problem. EDIT: Ironically, this downvoting of moe's and my comments proves our points and demonstrates why anonymous downvoting is a problem. "We should only have reasoned arguments!" they say. But when reasoned arguments are presented in opposition to their claims, they merely downvote rather than making a reasoned counterargument. They do not do as they say. And since the cost (in time and effort) of their anonymous downvote is far less than the cost of writing a rational counterargument, the level of discourse is driven further and further down as those who are willing and able to argue their positions rationally are discouraged from doing so. Why waste your time arguing with people who do so in bad faith?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

joepie91_ 11y ago

> Not everyone has to give a signal on why they disagreed with you On GitHub? They absolutely do. It's a platform for collaboration, not idle chatter. If you do not wish to support your disagreement, you probably shouldn't be posting anything there to begin with. EDIT: I've also already explained to you why 'agreement' and 'disagreement' are held to different standards. I'm not sure why you keep repeating this point.

moe 11y ago
> I'm not sure why you keep repeating this point. Because your distinction is wrong. A drive-by -1 is in no way different from a drive-by +1. Both are equally useful. Both indicate how many people agree or disagree. Neither explains why someone agrees or disagrees.
- esailija 11y ago
  They are very different. The explanation for +1 is in the post you are upvoting. Thats why nobody ever has to ask "why the upvotes?'.
  - moe 11y ago
    Sorry but you make no sense. If the explanation for +1 is in the post you are upvoting, then the explanation for -1 is just as well in the post you are downvoting.
alphapapa 11y ago
moe is right. And what is strange is that you keep repeating yourself. They absolutely do. No, they absolutely don't--GitHub says so. You think they absolutely should have to, but they do not. Here's an example: Alice posts a feature request on the issue tracker for Project Awesome saying that the project's mascot should be changed to a unicorn. Bob downvotes it. Neither person has provided an argument for their position. According to you, Bob is required to explain why he doesn't want a unicorn mascot, but Alice doesn't have to explain why she wants one. You are assuming that a positive argument will always be made in support of an assertion, and that therefore a negative argument must be made against it rather than merely a contrary assertion. But it often happens that the pro side of an issue makes unsupported assertions and unreasonable claims, then the con side makes reasoned arguments, and the pro side proceeds to ignore the points raised by their opponents. The real problem is anonymous voting. Anonymous votes are not very useful, because for all you know, the person voting doesn't even use the software in question. Voting within a team of collaborators could certainly be useful, even without substantiation, but "drive-by" votes by random Internet people are the problem. EDIT: Ironically, this downvoting of moe's and my comments proves our points and demonstrates why anonymous downvoting is a problem. "We should only have reasoned arguments!" they say. But when reasoned arguments are presented in opposition to their claims, they merely downvote rather than making a reasoned counterargument. They do not do as they say. And since the cost (in time and effort) of their anonymous downvote is far less than the cost of writing a rational counterargument, the level of discourse is driven further and further down as those who are willing and able to argue their positions rationally are discouraged from doing so. Why waste your time arguing with people who do so in bad faith?