Tracy joins the party

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:42 pm

Negative votes cast for me have gone from 44 to 54 lol!

Tracy had cast either 0 or 1 vote this morning ( i had checked this) and now i see she has cast 11 votes. Welcome to the party, Tracy.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:47 pm

https://such.forumotion.com/u6stats

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:49 pm

sure. I had overlooked this feature till now. But now that it was brought to the limelight, am gonna use it.

Did you count my positive votes?

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:55 pm

Tracy Whitney wrote:sure. I had overlooked this feature till now. But now that it was brought to the limelight, am gonna use it.

Did you count my positive votes?

Some people focus on the negative a lot more than on the positive.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:58 pm

charvaka wrote:
Tracy Whitney wrote:sure. I had overlooked this feature till now. But now that it was brought to the limelight, am gonna use it.

Did you count my positive votes?
Some people focus on the negative a lot more than on the positive.

--> yup. A poster giving 10 negative votes to a specific poster within a matter of a few minutes means nothing to Admin Charvaka--the one who has the highest number of negative votes to his credit thus far (28 in his Charvaka handle, 2 in his Admin handle).

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:02 pm

i gave the same 10 positive votes in the matter of same few minutes... to all different posters.

I gave all the negative votes to you. Why? Coz I found those posts worth give negative votes to, just like I found the positive ones worth it. I knew you would whine, and that made it pleasurable. Childish, but fun.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:03 pm

Tracy Whitney wrote:i gave the same 10 positive votes in the matter of same few minutes... to all different posters.

I gave all the negative votes to you. Why? Coz I found those posts worth give negative votes to, just like I found the positive ones worth it. I knew you would whine, and that made it pleasurable. Childish, but fun.

--> no problem at all. i always knew you were a bit of a nut after you registered the QueenBee handle on this forum in a bid to discourage your one time buddy from posting on this forum.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:11 pm

fact - i registered as qb.

the rest - rashmun bs...

special haha @ 'discourage your one time buddy from posting on this forum.' Trust rashmun to dramatize.

by Another Brick Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:35 am

Rashmun wrote:Negative votes cast for me have gone from 44 to 54

Tracy had cast either 0 or 1 vote this morning ( i had checked this) and now i see she has cast 11 votes. Welcome to the party, Tracy.

regional or national?

by charvaka Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:03 am

Another Brick wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Negative votes cast for me have gone from 44 to 54

Tracy had cast either 0 or 1 vote this morning ( i had checked this) and now i see she has cast 11 votes. Welcome to the party, Tracy.

regional or national?

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:05 am

Another Brick wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Negative votes cast for me have gone from 44 to 54

Tracy had cast either 0 or 1 vote this morning ( i had checked this) and now i see she has cast 11 votes. Welcome to the party, Tracy.

regional or national?

--> i wonder if Charvaka's uncle would have something to say on this. Tracy joins the party 3077217049

by Silhouette Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:57 am

this entire voting system is crap. i thought people were voting on the content of a post (irrespective of the poster) but apparently the votes seem to reflect on the poster's reputation - whatever the heck that means!

it's so easy to rig this system. it permits one poster alone to cast multiple negative votes on every post made by his/her opponent thus making it seem as if the opponent is universally disliked. it makes zero sense.

by charvaka Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:00 am

Silhouette wrote:it permits one poster alone to cast multiple negative votes on every post made by his/her opponent thus making it seem as if the opponent is universally disliked.

It is possible, but each user is restricted to 20 votes per day.

by artood2 Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:04 am

The positive and negative votes are more of a fun feature and I hope it does not disbar a poster from posting. A user can down vote an opponent but he can down vote a post only once. You will be happy that someone actually pretended to read the post. It is better than seeing all those "views" statistics against your thread where no one even bothers to open it Very Happy

by charvaka Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:05 am

Silhouette wrote:i thought people were voting on the content of a post (irrespective of the poster)

That is exactly what I was doing, and I assumed that's how it would be interpreted by others as well; I see it as very similar to the "like" button on Facebook as I said elsewhere.

by Silhouette Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:06 am

charvaka wrote:
Silhouette wrote:it permits one poster alone to cast multiple negative votes on every post made by his/her opponent thus making it seem as if the opponent is universally disliked.
It is possible, but each user is restricted to 20 votes per day.

that doesn't alter my larger point. in fact, an average poster probably doesn't make 20 posts per day.

by charvaka Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:07 am

artood2 wrote:The positive and negative votes are more of a fun feature and I hope it does not disbar a poster from posting.

It does not.

artood2 wrote:A user can down vote an opponent but he can down vote a post only once.

Correct.

by Silhouette Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:08 am

charvaka wrote:
Silhouette wrote:i thought people were voting on the content of a post (irrespective of the poster)
That is exactly what I was doing, and I assumed that's how it would be interpreted by others as well; I see it as very similar to the "like" button on Facebook as I said elsewhere.

so what's reputation and what's that got to do with liking a particular post?

by charvaka Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:14 am

Silhouette wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Silhouette wrote:i thought people were voting on the content of a post (irrespective of the poster)
That is exactly what I was doing, and I assumed that's how it would be interpreted by others as well; I see it as very similar to the "like" button on Facebook as I said elsewhere.

so what's reputation and what's that got to do with liking a particular post?

The reputation thing means nothing. I wanted a way to hide it, but didn't find one yet.

by Silhouette Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:15 am

artood2 wrote:A user can down vote an opponent but he can down vote a post only once.

however, he can vote negative on every single post made by his opponent. after one month of that it would appear as if the supposed opponent is some kind of a bad person. a third party would have no clue that all the negative posts came from just one person. and i think that's what rashmun just highlighted.

by Silhouette Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:17 am

charvaka wrote:
Silhouette wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Silhouette wrote:i thought people were voting on the content of a post (irrespective of the poster)
That is exactly what I was doing, and I assumed that's how it would be interpreted by others as well; I see it as very similar to the "like" button on Facebook as I said elsewhere.

so what's reputation and what's that got to do with liking a particular post?
The reputation thing means nothing. I wanted a way to hide it, but didn't find one yet.

perhaps you intended for it to mean nothing but it's taken on a meaning now.

by artood2 Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:19 am

Silhouette wrote:
artood2 wrote:A user can down vote an opponent but he can down vote a post only once.

however, he can vote negative on every single post made by his opponent. after one month of that it would appear as if the supposed opponent is some kind of a bad person. a third party would have no clue that all the negative posts came from just one person. and i think that's what rashmun just highlighted.

God gave you a brain, read it and judge the post on its merit irrespective of the color there and if you do not like the color vote yourself to tilt it the other way. In some forums, the reputation appears as a series of red or green dots to signify if the forumers find him reliable or not. Since this is not the case here, you just need to judge the post itself and not the person.

by charvaka Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:24 am

Silhouette wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Silhouette wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Silhouette wrote:i thought people were voting on the content of a post (irrespective of the poster)
That is exactly what I was doing, and I assumed that's how it would be interpreted by others as well; I see it as very similar to the "like" button on Facebook as I said elsewhere.

so what's reputation and what's that got to do with liking a particular post?
The reputation thing means nothing. I wanted a way to hide it, but didn't find one yet.

perhaps you intended for it to mean nothing but it's taken on a meaning now.

Next time I login as admin, I'll see if I can find a way to disable it.

by Silhouette Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:27 am

artood2 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:
artood2 wrote:A user can down vote an opponent but he can down vote a post only once.

however, he can vote negative on every single post made by his opponent. after one month of that it would appear as if the supposed opponent is some kind of a bad person. a third party would have no clue that all the negative posts came from just one person. and i think that's what rashmun just highlighted.

God gave you a brain, read it and judge the post on its merit irrespective of the color there and if you do not like the color vote yourself to tilt it the other way. In some forums, the reputation appears as a series of red or green dots to signify if the forumers find him reliable or not. Since this is not the case here, you just need to judge the post itself and not the person.

And also, analyze the lack of utility of a feature. Doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

by artood2 Mon Aug 01, 2011 3:30 am

Silhouette wrote:
artood2 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:
artood2 wrote:A user can down vote an opponent but he can down vote a post only once.

however, he can vote negative on every single post made by his opponent. after one month of that it would appear as if the supposed opponent is some kind of a bad person. a third party would have no clue that all the negative posts came from just one person. and i think that's what rashmun just highlighted.

God gave you a brain, read it and judge the post on its merit irrespective of the color there and if you do not like the color vote yourself to tilt it the other way. In some forums, the reputation appears as a series of red or green dots to signify if the forumers find him reliable or not. Since this is not the case here, you just need to judge the post itself and not the person.

And also, analyze the lack of utility of a feature. Doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

It is such a fun utility. Makes adults sound like kids just because someone down voted them. I would so love to twist a few folks if they show inclination to react that way.

OTH, I would also like to use it to encourage 7, HK, AB and anybody with good jokes to keep the jokes coming.

by Another Brick Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:52 am

just for the record - i voted two/three of rashmun's Diggy Raja posts down in the last week just to see how it works. then i got bored of that feature and have not used it since.

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:49 am

Silhouette wrote:
artood2 wrote:A user can down vote an opponent but he can down vote a post only once.

however, he can vote negative on every single post made by his opponent. after one month of that it would appear as if the supposed opponent is some kind of a bad person. a third party would have no clue that all the negative posts came from just one person. and i think that's what rashmun just highlighted.

--> Exactly my point. The fact that a vindictive person can give 20 negative votes every day to a specific poster one dislikes makes the whole point of negative votes a joke. Tracy, for instance, gave 10 negative votes to me within a few minutes. An argumentative person having a difference of opinion with a few vindictive people will easily end up with hundreds of negative votes very quickly. Notice that in FB it is not possible to give negative votes.

--> Admin Charvaka sees things differently. He has himself ridiculed me on multiple occasions by pointing out the large number of negative votes i have received and has in fact confessed that he has given me multiple negative votes. The credibility of a person on this forum should be judged at least partly according to the number of negative votes the poster has received according to Admin Charvaka.

--> But i am cool. And i think so is Admin Charvaka now that he knows what i know about his uncle.

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:40 am

Rashmun wrote:Negative votes cast for me have gone from 44 to 54

Tracy had cast either 0 or 1 vote this morning ( i had checked this) and now i see she has cast 11 votes. Welcome to the party, Tracy.

How can you tell who voted, how many times and where does it show?

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:41 am

Priya wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Negative votes cast for me have gone from 44 to 54

Tracy had cast either 0 or 1 vote this morning ( i had checked this) and now i see she has cast 11 votes. Welcome to the party, Tracy.

How can you tell who voted, how many times and where does it show?

click on the user id of a poster and then click on statistics.

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:45 am

The statistics shows how the person voted? Not the votes received?

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:48 am

On the profile statistics page you can see number of + and - votes you got and gave. Now, rashmun is keeping this scorecard in which he keeps a record of these stats. Whenever he receives a negative vote he goes around the list of the usual suspects and counts. If their count has also increased, he adds the two together and then whine endlessly.

He needs to get a life. I knew he had done that all day yesterday. To check if he was indeed counting and to rile him up, I voted 10+ and 10- votes yesterday myself. Yep, I need to get a life too.

by Impedimenta Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:50 am

WOW, you guys have way too much time and/or inclination to be doing all of this...

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:54 am

Priya wrote:The statistics shows how the person voted? Not the votes received?

Next to each post you will see '+' and '-' icons. The '+' is for giving a positive vote and '-' for giving a negative vote.

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:59 am

Thanks Rash, I see them now. I'd prefer giving *s from 1* to 5***** rather than + or - votes.

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:00 am

Tracy Whitney wrote:On the profile statistics page you can see number of + and - votes you got and gave. Now, rashmun is keeping this scorecard in which he keeps a record of these stats. Whenever he receives a negative vote he goes around the list of the usual suspects and counts. If their count has also increased, he adds the two together and then whine endlessly.

He needs to get a life. I knew he had done that all day yesterday. To check if he was indeed counting and to rile him up, I voted 10+ and 10- votes yesterday myself. Yep, I need to get a life too.

--> the usual suspects are Charvaka, Hellsangel, you, and Uppili. Gang of Four. As mentioned ,the presence of Seva, Sandilya, LukeWarmus, and QueenBee is felt on this forum. QueenBee was of course discouraged from posting on this site after a certified nutcase--who would constantly fight with QB after being good buddies with her for more than 6 months (to the extent of phone conversations and yahoo chats) -- registered her handle here first.

--> And from what i can tell, Tracy had no clue i would check up on her. After she got caught with her pants down, she is now saying that she knew i would check on her profile. lol!

by Hellsangel Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:06 am

Gang of Four?
Idee Fixe, persecution complex, is there also a Napoleon complex in there?

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:07 am

Hellsangel wrote:Gang of Four?
Idee Fixe, persecution complex, is there also a Napoleon complex in there?

-->

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:44 am

Phone conversation?! Who told you that? Are you nuts?

And also lol at 'caught with pants down'. When you spend an entire Sunday counting votes even a fifth grader would know how to rile you up.

You are truly delusional rashmun. I don't know exactly what triggered you to be this way and I'm not sure if this is the first episode of this kind for you but scaring me now rashmun. For your own sake take a step back from ch. Atleast on my part, I'm done riling you for fun.

by .|Sublime|. Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:46 am

Rashmun wrote:QueenBee was of course discouraged from posting on this site after a certified nutcase--who would constantly fight with QB after being good buddies with her for more than 6 months (to the extent of phone conversations and yahoo chats) -- registered her handle here first.

is that really what discouraged her from joining? if she really wanted to join, there are 10 million more names she could have chosen from.

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:49 am

Tracy Whitney wrote:Phone conversation?! Who told you that? Are you nuts?

And also lol at 'caught with pants down'. When you spend an entire Sunday counting votes even a fifth grader would know how to rile you up.

You are truly delusional rashmun. I don't know exactly what triggered you to be this way and I'm not sure if this is the first episode of this kind for you but scaring me now rashmun. For your own sake take a step back from ch. Atleast on my part, I'm done riling you for fun.

--> Go ahead and call me names. After giving me 10 negative votes in a matter of minutes, and showing to everyone that you are a bit of a lunatic, that's all you can do now.

--> What i have never done and i will never do is to stoop to the level of registering for myself the long time user ID of long time Sulekha poster. Like when you registered the QueenBee handle on this forum for yourself. Again, the signs of lunacy in you are very evident.

--> I would suggest you visit a shrink at the earliest.

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:52 am

.|Sublime|. wrote:
Rashmun wrote:QueenBee was of course discouraged from posting on this site after a certified nutcase--who would constantly fight with QB after being good buddies with her for more than 6 months (to the extent of phone conversations and yahoo chats) -- registered her handle here first.

is that really what discouraged her from joining? if she really wanted to join, there are 10 million more names she could have chosen from.

--> i would not have posted on this forum if the Rashmun handle had been taken up by someone else. I know many people, over the years, through this handle and there is no reason why i should start anew.

--> In fact i would have asked Admin Charvaka to have deleted the handle so that i could register it for myself. Of course i would not do such a thing now since we are no longer on good terms. QB did not get along with TW, and she did not get along with Charvaka. So she did not ask him to delete the user ID Tracy had registered for herself.

--> Btw, Tracy realizes her mistake now--after i pointed out her idiocy to her. Only recently she was asking Admin Charvaka to delete her other ID.

by Rekz Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:54 am

Tracy- What made register QB id in the first place? *disappointed*

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:00 am

Rashmun wrote:Of course i would not do such a thing now since we [you and charvaka] are no longer on good terms.

you may not be on good terms with him but he is certainly on good terms with you. he is equidistant from all posters as an admin or at least strives to be that way. even in his non admin capacity, i would suspect, he is on good terms with you (going by the impression i have of him).

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:03 am

Registering as qb was my own sweet little revenge for all of my posts that she kept deleting in sulekha at that time. We were mostly testing this site then. Who knew then that this site would last this long.

No I have no regrets at all. Nor do I think that I stooped low. I never logged with that id until recently to see if I could delete it. Now if I could I would delete that id as the time has passed. But I'm sure someone else would pick that up and begin posting with it. Hmm. Maybe I SHOULD keep that I'd to prevent that.

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:11 am

Tracy Whitney wrote: But I'm sure someone else would pick that up and begin posting with it. Hmm. Maybe I SHOULD keep that I'd to prevent that.

absolutely correct.

by charvaka Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:32 am

Rashmun wrote:And i think so is Admin Charvaka now that he knows what i know about his uncle.

If you think I am not going to point it out when you use the Rashmun Method to defend your heroes Diggy and the Empress, just because you will go batshit crazy talking about my uncle, you are wrong.

by charvaka Mon Aug 01, 2011 9:37 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Of course i would not do such a thing now since we [you and charvaka] are no longer on good terms.

you may not be on good terms with him but he is certainly on good terms with you. he is equidistant from all posters as an admin or at least strives to be that way. even in his non admin capacity, i would suspect, he is on good terms with you (going by the impression i have of him).

I approve this message (and I voted it up.)

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:20 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:And i think so is Admin Charvaka now that he knows what i know about his uncle.
If you think I am not going to point it out when you use the Rashmun Method to defend your heroes Diggy and the Empress, just because you will go batshit crazy talking about my uncle, you are wrong.

--> Go ahead and talk of the Rashmun Method. I shall counter by using the 'Charvaka Uncle' Method. I shall also use the very effective Seva Method on you.

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:25 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Of course i would not do such a thing now since we [you and charvaka] are no longer on good terms.

you may not be on good terms with him but he is certainly on good terms with you. he is equidistant from all posters as an admin or at least strives to be that way. even in his non admin capacity, i would suspect, he is on good terms with you (going by the impression i have of him).

--> Sirjee, it is common etiquette that you don't fight beyond a level with someone from who you have actually learnt from. For years Charvaka was bothering me for clarifications on Indian philosophy--Charvaka school, Nyaya-Vaisesika school, svabhava vada, views of Adi Sankara, etc. And now because we have a disagreement about regionalism and our opinion of Digvijay Singh, he promptly coins the phrase 'Rashmun Method' to attack me and my posts, and goes around using words like 'shameless liar'.

--> if he would have been really neutral, he would not have repeatedly ridiculed me by pointing out that the negative votes against me should be considered an indicator of my credibility on this forum. tracy gave me 10 negative votes in a matter of minutes. both charvaka and uppili admit to giving me negative votes. so how can negative votes against a poster be considered an indicator of credibility.

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:43 am

Rashmun wrote:--> ~~Sirjee~~, it is common etiquette that you don't fight beyond a level with someone from who you have actually learnt from. For years Charvaka was bothering me for clarifications on Indian philosophy--Charvaka school, Nyaya-Vaisesika school, svabhava vada, views of Adi Sankara, etc. And now because we have a disagreement about regionalism and our opinion of Digvijay Singh, he promptly coins the phrase 'Rashmun Method' to attack me and my posts, and goes around using words like 'shameless liar'.

--> if he would have been really neutral, he would not have repeatedly ridiculed me by pointing out that the negative votes against me should be considered an indicator of my credibility on this forum. tracy gave me 10 negative votes in a matter of minutes. both charvaka and uppili admit to giving me negative votes. so how can negative votes against a poster be considered an indicator of credibility.

yes, your points are well taken. also you said charvaka cast 30 minus votes against you. he actually cast 6. still that raises eyebrows. numbers are not important -- be they 6 or 30. but casting negative votes as an admin is rather shameful. and tracy and uppilli doing the same is more shameful (verging on vindictive). it alters my own perception about them. i think this voting feature should be removed.

considering that charvaka learnt much from you about indian philosophy (which he self-avowedly has not much knowledge of), he should have exercised some restraint before going ballistic on you. i suppose we can only hope that people will learn. i have faith in charvaka (as in any other poster -- i am an optimist).

by the way, you don't have to call me sir. Smile

by Sponsored content