Starred and Flagged - A skeptic Booster?

I have been studying this forum, and paying attention to the starred posts.

Why does it seem that it is mainly the skeptical / derrogatory / attacking posts that get starred like crazy?

I do realize that there are many informative ones that get a good amount of stars also. But, in any thread debating controversial topics like UFOs, ETs, Sasquatch etc etc, it seems that the skeptics band together and star a post just because they were contradictory to the OP.

I'm not saying that some of them shouldn't be starred. But, alot of worthless posts are starred just because of the viewpoint (however horribly it was presented).

Isn't this just promoting skepticism and negativism? Shouldn't we star when information has been debated intelligently, and not just attacking the person?

I know it would be impossible to change this, but has anyone else noticed the same?


Let me give an example.
Lets say two people are intelligently debating the subject of UFOs, and a third comes in and says "You guys are idiots, UFOs never exist blah blah blah". Well that post gets more stars than the guys who are actually debating the issue?

Why?

I have no clue, but I think its some sort of pride thing with people who like to cut others down.

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce

ILets say two people are intelligently debating the subject of UFOs, and a third comes in and says "You guys are idiots, UFOs never exist blah blah blah". Well that post gets more stars than the guys who are actually debating the issue?

Hey it happens both ways. You cant confine it to skeptics. I have seen some totally ridiculous threads (IMO) get starred and flagged, even if they dont have evidence to support them.

Sorry to say, but it sounds like you are having a go skeptics...oh and not all skeptics carry on like you posted above

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Hey it happens both ways. You cant confine it to skeptics. I have seen some totally ridiculous threads (IMO) get starred and flagged, even if they dont have evidence to support them.

Sorry to say, but it sounds like you are having a go skeptics...oh and not all skeptics carry on like you posted above

You are completely correct Oz. I am not a believer of all topics, so I join the skeptic ranks myself. I have noticed it more often when people propose vague unintelligent skeptic statements, but that is not always the case.

I also have seen some ridiculous posts get starred, and starred alot!

Sorry if it sounded as if I was taking a stab at anyone, that wasn't the point of this thread.

Haven't you ever noticed how minnows seem t always hang out together?

While the true sharks are always solo hunters.

The best way to control miscreants and neer do wells is to ignore them completely. IMHO

PS : I do not always follow my own advice. - The spleen is weak.

Alot of what you are talking about first happens when A skeptic asks the OP to back up their statement with evidence, unable to find the evidence about their own OP they drag in to their "debate" links to other topics similar to theirs but not closely related. The skeptic brings this up, the OP takes it as a personal attack, then the name calling starts and the way off topic discussions start, and you end up with a thread that normally would have been at most 5 pages long that is now 20 pages long. Other skeptics and believers of the posts mandering by seem to get dragged in as well which just seems to make things worse.

(and yes I know the OP is not always to blame, but in 9 out of 10 of the ones I have seen, he normally is.)

So how do you stop this, ask people to avoid basic human nature of being confrontational, and asking people to walk away from the argument once you know it has gotten out of hand, which is something no one seems able to do.(I have found myself in that position not just in here but in work many times as well, and I never seem to take my own advice.)

Nah, you have a point OP.

The Rebuttal In Defiance Of The GFL thread is your prima facia.

Starred and flagged is bandied about like it actually means something. (I have a picture of a bunch of guys sitting around in tweed suits, puffing on their cigars, raising their beers shouting Hear! Hear! ).

Precious little dialogue, precious little exchange, precious little thought.

These ratings schemes come and go...

There's basically no way that a rating scheme algorithm, no matter how adeptly executed, is going to replace what the participants in a thread need to bring...

It's unfortunate, it just winds up being the politics of ATS.

The result is nothing is ever really considered, everyone just stands on their soapbox, telling everybody else where they went wrong...

Kind of like I just did.



[edit on 7-8-2008 by golemina]

True.
OP you have a good point. It could be yet again another sad example of people who like to see controversy kind of like why people watch Jerry Springer or the people’s court name your favorite Trash TV show here.

I've noticed this to, When there is a spirited intelligent debate it does not take much notice but when there seems to be a skeptic in the crowd who is only trolling or just wants to cause controversy with no particular point, it seems to draw some people in just like the rubber necks on the highway or freeway who slow way down to see an accident hoping to see some gore even though they won’t admit it!

Originally posted by golemina

Starred and flagged is bandied about like it actually means something. (I have a picture of a bunch of guys sitting around in tweed suits, puffing on their cigars, raising their beers shouting Hear! Hear!

).

Thats pretty funny golemina. Oddly enough, its almost exactly what I picture happening!

Its as if people star to prove a point, and make their own argument seem more valid (because they have more stars). This is exactly the opposite of starring to recognize posts that contribute to intelligent discussion and debate.

Edit: Odd question, but are stars disabled for Board Answers and Question forum, or just for this post?

[edit on 8-8-2008 by ThreeDeuce]

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
Why does it seem that it is mainly the skeptical / derrogatory / attacking posts that get starred like crazy?

For the same reason that a post about "BigFoot seen eating cookies on main street USA", will get more views than a post about "Masonic/CIA complicity on 9/11".

Believers are in short supply.

The average American is dumb as a box of rocks and is easily entertained and distracted by things that they can easily understand like cookies and Bigfoot.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by In nothing we trust]

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
I also have seen some ridiculous posts get starred, and starred alot!

You mean like the fishman thread...lol

I thought that was entertaining

The average American is dumb as a box of rocks and is easily entertained and distracted by things that they can easily understand like cookies and Bigfoot.

Lol, thankyou for posting that....havent laughed that hard all week

Okay, so it turns out that Stars are disabled for the Board Buisness and Questions section.

I was thinking that maybe a Mod was playing a joke and disabled starring on the thread about starring...... But that would've been hilarious!