posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:08 PM
i know it's not exactly what you're describing (and i don't mean to patronize you because you are obviously familiar with ats), but i find it's
pretty clear, generally, when you enter a new thread that's even a little bit established, what the two (or more) sides are.
typically, and especially on political or issue-oriented threads, there will be the original post and its associated stars, then within the first few
posts, often the dissenting view and its associated stars. or you could say, first, there is the claim thrown out there ... then the skeptics start
sometimes the allies of the op barrage the thread with flags and stars. sometimes, the opposing view dominates and those posts will accrue the stars
(and i assume the thread suffers from acquiring flags).
in some ways, i imagine if there was a "vote down" star system, ats, as a whole, would become more homogenized (at least in terms of stars/flags and
therefore "featurability") because whatever is the predominate persuasion of the membership, it seems, would take over.
for example, if ats membership, generally, has more conservative views and people have the option of voting positively or negatively, i would imagine
most liberally-minded threads would suffer. and conservatively-minded threads would regularly get more "yes" stars (and flags) than "no" stars
... and be more successful.
or, wild claims of conspiracy or paranormality would, knowing ats members, reap stars and flags like there's no tomorrow. skeptical posts, whether
reasoned or not, would be emasculated to lilliputian dimensions.
as such, it seems the majority would dominate in a way which, i think fortunately, somewhat eludes us now.
on the other hand, people who happen to share the majority opinion would have their ego boosted. but i think a lot of people want the availability of
a wide range of opinion even if it sometimes drives us nuts when more people than not share a position contrary to our own.
it seems to me that what supporters of the "vote down" system want is actually what we already have. if you like something, you flag/star it ... if
you don't, you don't flag/star. but rather than just being ok with not sharing an opinion, but letting other people have it, some actually want
those opinions to be subject to ... whatever (removal?, movement to the island of bad opinions?). not having stars/flags is, in some ways, the same
as having been voted down.
of course, i thoroughly understand some want this to thwart stupid and ignorant posts that are often devoid of opinion or position. maybe that's a