- dibbs089
- |
- Elder Mythic Member
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
Posted by: dibbs089
Regardless, by no means is it mandatory.It doesn't matter if it's mandatory. It matters if the community as a whole wants it to be like that. It's not mandatory for ranking systems to be associate with any sort of color coordination, and yet they have them.A few problems...
The "community as a whole" is an idealistic concept which requires uniformity. That will never happen here; there are as many different opinions as there are users. Secondly, operating under the assumption that the "community as a whole" (which I imagine you mean the majority of the community which would be just as hard to assess) wanted something; when has what the community wanted ever been taken into account when implementing features? It has always been the webteam weighing the options and deciding what is best.
My comment regarding whether it was mandatory or not was to show that the notion of anonymity and the notion of voting are synonymous - a concept that is quite frequent in a majority of discourses having to do with political systems and political philosophy, but not so much on these forums.
Posted by: reptile1892
Posted by: dibbs089
I don't see how responding to the topic justifies my position. That part's up to you, with you words and your keyboard and your fingers.The topic dealt which whether or not implementation was a good idea. I was addressing the fallacious idea that voting and anonymity were synonymous. Addressing the topic in the OP would not help to justify my position since my position had nothing to do with answering the OP.
Posted by: reptile1892
Posted by: dibbs089
Attacking one another and asking for someone to clarify their position (most often through strengthening their reasons for supporting / opposing it) are two entirely different things. I can see how the nuance would be confused by some on this website though.It's one thing to ask someone who responded with "I'm against that sort of thing" for a point of clarification, but it's another to look at a group of people and ask one to do the same; then it just becomes calling someone out.You're using a lot of different descriptions that aren't necessarily the same "attacking other users", "calling someone out", "going after one another", and "clarifying a position" are all different things and we are likely to have different definitions of them. To clarify, what we are doing is what I imagine would happen with a non-anonymous poll. You selected what I wrote (out of all of the other posts here) and decided to respond to it and have me clarify. I don't think that was "attacking me" or "calling me out". That was me putting my opinion out there and you asking for more information. The same scenario should be put to people who vote. Opinions should not just be accepted because they are yours; you should at least be able to explain why you hold them. Presumably people wouldn't be targeted at random, but for a reason. Even if that targeting is malicious in intent, no one is forcing you to respond to people on an internet forum.