none
Votes Should Be + or -

All replies

  • I see a -1 votes on the referenced link.  There is no option for it though. Probably a bug.

    Kalman Toth Database & OLAP Architect IPAD SELECT Query Video Tutorial 3.5 Hours
    New Book / Kindle: Exam 70-461 Bootcamp: Querying Microsoft SQL Server 2012


    Friday, November 22, 2013 11:33 AM
  • I see a -1 votes on the referenced link.  There is no option for it though. Probably a bug.

    Kalman Toth Database & OLAP Architect IPAD SELECT Query Video Tutorial 3.5 Hours
    New Book / Kindle: Exam 70-461 Bootcamp: Querying Microsoft SQL Server 2012


    Interesting. Your post is currently showing up as a -1.


    Don't retire TechNet! - (Maybe there's still a chance for hope, over 12,420+ strong and growing)

    Friday, November 22, 2013 7:14 PM
  • So what is the trick? Can you make it -2?

    Kalman Toth Database & OLAP Architect IPAD SELECT Query Video Tutorial 3.5 Hours
    New Book / Kindle: Exam 70-461 Bootcamp: Querying Microsoft SQL Server 2012


    Friday, November 22, 2013 7:44 PM
  • Nope, I have no idea how it got to be negative in the first place.

    Don't retire TechNet! - (Maybe there's still a chance for hope, over 12,420+ strong and growing)

    Friday, November 22, 2013 7:59 PM
  • I've never seen that before.


    Richard Mueller - MVP Directory Services

    Friday, November 22, 2013 8:05 PM
  • Yea maybe first try it out with the voting for president of the USA. 

    But in my idea will this be misused, the same as in the forums. 

    Be aware this minus voting is often done because of things like jealousy and not about quality and should therefore not be anonymous.


    Success
    Cor

    Sunday, December 1, 2013 5:06 PM
  • >Be aware this minus voting is often done because of things like jealousy

    I doubt that Cor.


    Kalman Toth Database & OLAP Architect IPAD SELECT Query Video Tutorial 3.5 Hours
    New Book / Kindle: Exam 70-461 Bootcamp: Querying Microsoft SQL Server 2012


    Sunday, December 1, 2013 6:20 PM
  • "Be aware this minus voting is often done because of things like jealousy and not about quality and should therefore not be anonymous."


    Be aware that positive voting is often done because of things like bloating metrics and not about quality and should therefore not be anonymous.

    I happen to agree with both of these statements.

    In fact, I propose that we get rid of points entirely. No more point grubbers and no need for some people to create secondary (or tertiary in some cases...) accounts simply to bump their count.


    Don't retire TechNet! - (Maybe there's still a chance for hope, over 12,420+ strong and growing)

    Sunday, December 1, 2013 7:48 PM
  • Or maybe just the anonymity.

    That would certainly be a step in the right direction.

    Don't retire TechNet! - (Maybe there's still a chance for hope, over 12,420+ strong and growing)

    Monday, December 2, 2013 3:06 PM
  • Or maybe just the anonymity.

    That would certainly be a step in the right direction.

    Don't retire TechNet! - (Maybe there's still a chance for hope, over 12,420+ strong and growing)


    I agree. Then when we see negative votes from people such as Sigmund Freud or thankfulheart we will know the exact identity of the person responsible for the vote!

    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Monday, December 2, 2013 4:35 PM
  • Or maybe just the anonymity.

    That would certainly be a step in the right direction.


    I agree. Then when we see negative votes from people such as Sigmund Freud or thankfulheart we will know the exact identity of the person responsible for the vote!


    This would lead to nothing but arguing and flame wars over who downvoted a post and why.  I've seen it before in other forums.  IMO downvotes and lack of anonymity would be mistakes.

    Please do not read this sentence. Please ignore the previous sentence.

    Monday, December 2, 2013 5:01 PM
  • I agree with Cor. We should not allow - votes. (Only may be by the person who gave the vote to take it back in case of error).



    For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Becker's Law


    My blog


    My TechNet articles

    Tuesday, December 3, 2013 5:19 PM
    Moderator
  • Or maybe just the anonymity.

    That would certainly be a step in the right direction.


    I agree. Then when we see negative votes from people such as Sigmund Freud or thankfulheart we will know the exact identity of the person responsible for the vote!


    This would lead to nothing but arguing and flame wars over who downvoted a post and why.  I've seen it before in other forums.  IMO downvotes and lack of anonymity would be mistakes.

    Please do not read this sentence. Please ignore the previous sentence.

    I agree with you completely on this. If someone feels a post has been less than helpful, it would be better for that person to provide a better answer than to dismissively give a negative mark.

    The main point behind my less obviously ironic than I wanted post was with the concept of anonymity itself, and how that concept operates in the social media environment where people post under names obviously not their own, like Jean Luc Picard, Sigmund Freud, or ThankfulHeart. I have no problem with that type of anonymity here, at least in cases where the "perpetrators" behave responsibly and consistently.


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Tuesday, December 3, 2013 9:18 PM
  • Or maybe just the anonymity. 

    This would lead to nothing but arguing and flame wars over who downvoted a post and why.  I've seen it before in other forums.  IMO downvotes and lack of anonymity would be mistakes.


    It's a good thing those two persons who bumped your reputation by 10 points were cloaked in anonymity. 

    What's your point?  I couldn't care less about my Reputation Number.  That is not why I come to these forums or answer questions in them.  Some people do pay close attention to their points.  Great for them.  And great if the system can show by Reputation someone who might be a better source of info than a random new user.  Sure there are a lot of weaknesses in the system, but overall it works.  Removing anonymity and allowing downvotes would create many more problems than it would solve.


    Please do not read this sentence. Please ignore the previous sentence.

    Tuesday, December 3, 2013 9:57 PM
  • Yes, it would cause problems.  People get worked up over the most minor of things and make mountains out of molehills.  That has been my experience on other forums and I feel it would be detrimental to the purpose of these forums.  They are supposed to be for technical support, technical discussions and technical problem solving.  Who voted for whom or why she has more points than I do or anything like that only detracts from the above.  I graduated High School a long time ago, I'd like to leave the associated behaviors behind and get on with life.  I have a huge plateful of things way more important than how many points I have in the forums.

    That is my opinion and I think I have made it plain and easy to understand.  So, snarky comments or not, I'm stepping out of further discussion on the topic.


    Please do not read this sentence. Please ignore the previous sentence.


    Wednesday, December 4, 2013 3:56 PM

  • So, snarky comments or not, I'm stepping out of further discussion on the topic.


    Please do not read this sentence. Please ignore the previous sentence.



    Do you see a pattern in this conversation?

    The defensive repliers are calling the others "perpetrators" and "snarky".

    Those same defensive ones oppose negative votes and accountability (non-anonymity).


    Have a look at these two related Stack Overflow threads.

    This one has a great example that attracted 360 votes.

    This one attracted a latecomer whose addition contradicted the established answers with a totally incorrect reply, complete with "I haven't tested it though".  It earned -1.



    Look at the ratio of plus:minus in these SO examples.  Say 500:1.   Often?  Flame wars?

    Now look at the ratio of votes in this present thread.

    And the kind of votes they are.

    I seem to be the only person here to have used the term "perpetrators". Perhaps a smiley would have been in order, sorry for the omission. I was just attempting to gently point out the irony of a discussion about anonymity ostensibly between a neurologist who died in 1939 and the main character in a dream dreamt by a character in a TV program.

    If that doesn't clear up my intent in using the word I'll state that I do not consider anyone here a "perpetrator" in the normally negative sense of that word.

    As to the various views noted here on the issue of downvoting, I see no reason at all to assume that those on one side or the other hold that position for any deeply self-serving reason. There will always be disagreement on forums, but there should always be respect as well.

    Note: I was not aiming that last sentence at anyone in particular.


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Thursday, December 5, 2013 8:51 PM
  • Well, Al.


    You came into this thread to nix Kalman's suggestion about vote-downs.  Your reasons were that it would cause arguments and flame-wars.  You state you've seen it happen in some unnamed forums which you declined to identify.  You then continued in your next two posts to slur me by name and make references to "perpetrators".  Now in this final post directly above, you included a quote about a certain behavior pattern that you are demonstrating here.  The quote also includes links to Stack Overflow, a renowned technical forum which does provide vote-downs, where that facility is used maturely and responsibly.  You quoted those things, but then evaded discussing them.


    Don't you think you've earned a vote-down?





    Edit:  My apologies.  You didn't originate the comment about seeing vote-downs cause problems in other forums. Those were Mr Ressik's words.  You only quoted them and affirmed "I agree with you completely on this".  That's different.  But not by much.

    And to answer you directly, Al.  There is obviously a "self-serving reason" why some people don't want vote-downs in this forum.  They don't want to get voted down.

    I appreciate the clarifying edit, thanks.

    While I agree that one of the reasons for being against vote-downs could indeed be the self-serving one of not wanting to be voted down, it is not necessarily the only reason. And, by extension, it is eminently possible that none of those on the against side have that as one of their reasons.

    My preference would be to not add vote-downs, and my reason is that I do not feel that this would "increase the value of votes or improve the quality of the forums", which is the reason Kalman gave when he started this thread.

    I'm not sure if Cor had it right when he suggested that jealousy would be a major cause of down voting, but I do suspect that perhaps other reasons of a personal nature might be responsible for as many down votes as people just wanting to react against in inaccurate positive vote.


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Friday, December 6, 2013 7:36 PM
  • Well, Al.

    <snip>

    ... You then continued in your next two posts to slur me by name and make references to "perpetrators".  Now in this final post directly above, you included a quote about a certain behavior pattern that you are demonstrating here.  The quote also includes links to Stack Overflow, a renowned technical forum which does provide vote-downs, where that facility is used maturely and responsibly.  You quoted those things, but then evaded discussing them.


    Don't you think you've earned a vote-down?

    No, but if you want to give me one that is your prerogative, and I don't mind.

    I did not slur you by name, unless Sigmund Freud is your actual name, in which case I apologize.

    If that is just the handle you use here for some humourous purpose, please note that I have not slurred whoever you may be by commenting on the common practice some follow of using names obviously not their own. At one point I wrote that "I have no problem with that type of anonymity here, at least in cases where the "perpetrators" behave responsibly and consistently". The quotes around the word were intended to imply an intent far less severe than you understood me to mean. For that I apologize.

    Freedictionary.com defines "perpetrate" as "to be responsible for or commit ... a crime or a practical joke".


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Friday, December 6, 2013 7:59 PM
  • Here is another opportunity to comment on these two related Stack Overflow threads.

    This one has a great example that attracted 360 votes.

    This one attracted a latecomer whose addition contradicted the established answers with a totally incorrect reply, complete with "I haven't tested it though".  It earned -1.

    Look at the ratio of plus:minus in these SO examples.  Say 500:1.   Often?  Flame wars?


    Your observations about these -3 votes cast in this forum would be a fine supplement.  Do you see anything about that disgraced post which might warrant those votes?

    thanks for the opportunity, and apologies for my sloppy quoting.

    On the two stack overflow examples, you make a good point. But there are other differences between there and here, as they also have an "improve this answer" capability. my comments on down-voting are with respect to making that change, and that change alone, to the current functionality of the technet forums. The fact that down-voting seems to work in other environments does not mean my concerns about it here are unfounded.

    As for the msdn example, since it is not clear how negative votes were achieved, it is difficult to discern the intention behind it.

    And, to put my comments here in perspective, well, they are just my comments, and I stated them, albeit along with a poor attempt at levity. At the end of the day there will either be negative voting or their won't. It is not something I feel strongly enough to go farther out of my way than just posting a comment or two.


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Friday, December 6, 2013 8:24 PM
  • With respect, I think the question of whether or not I have "completely disrupted this thread" or shown a lack of respect to the original poster is a question best left to Kalman Toth. I hope he will comment here.

    I was not aware that the only views acceptable for airing here or capable of showing an interest are the ones representing strongly held feelings.

    As to your comments on the negative-vote example, I guess I just do not find it as important as you to complain widely on what others have written that I might take exception to.

    I have tried to remain respectful of all here, and hope most agree I have generally succeeded.


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Friday, December 6, 2013 9:49 PM

  • The point about anonymity is that positive votes are misused disingenuously, in a disproportionate way, Al.  Aided by the ability to cast them anonymously.  A fine example exists right here in this present thread.  Mr Ressik's 3+ post.  You cast one of them.



    I also cast the only upvote on Kalman's original post.

    The only thing I read from votes is that someone agreed or thought the post worthy of note for some reason. I marvel at your ability to intuit the disingenuousness of intent from the number.


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Friday, December 6, 2013 10:16 PM

  • Please tell us you voted that post up just for the purpose of testing.


    That was precisely why I did so. Unfortunately, there seemed no way to take it back... ;-)

    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Monday, December 9, 2013 4:53 PM

  • Does anyone here agree that votes which are cast with bad-will or out of petty spite, or likewise, Propose Answer is misused for this same reason as in this example, it degrades this forum?


    And isn't it trolling?

    I'll agree that any actual instance of bad will or spite (petty or otherwise) is not good for the forum, in approximate proportion to how much time it wastes, how it makes participants feel, and how many posts it takes to put things right. But perhaps more importantly, it reflects poorly on the person exhibiting those attributes.

    But the intent behind what a person clicks on is even harder to determine than the intent behind what they write. And I have seen many cases where intent has been misinterpreted as something much more unpleasant than it turns out to be. For this reason, I tend to assume the best of others and forego taking offense.

    But do these attributes amount to trolling? One definition I found for trolling is: "

    submitting a deliberately provocative posting to an online message board with the aim of inciting an angry response
    ". So I'd guess that if someone voted or proposed an answer with the intent of inciting an angry response, then perhaps that would be trolling. But it would be pretty ineffective trolling, as few people other than yourself respond with anger to votes and answer proposals they feel are misdirected.

    So that is how I see it, but I wonder what your point is in asking those two questions. Do you have changes to propose that would automatically police the forums to identify inappropriate intent behind what people write or click?


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Friday, December 27, 2013 12:28 AM
  • <snip>

    Do you have changes to propose that would automatically police the forums to identify inappropriate intent behind what people write or click?


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.


    Yes.   It's the same suggestion Kalman voiced in the subject title and OP of this thread.




    To which I'll add Cor's.  Votes should be made un anonymous, to promote maturity, integrity, accountability, and pride.


    I understood Kalman's point, however, I do not see how adding negative voting could possibly counteract any bad will or spite that might have been behind any positive votes. Further, I think a reasonably written response explaining why someone feels that a helpful vote was misplaced would be more constructive than just being able to reduce the vote count by one.

    Further, if negative voting is allowed, what would be the point of a reply being given a negative only vote? I mean, if someone has posted something that is not useful or incorrect, a negative vote would not explain what is wrong about it. That would be better done by a followup reply.

    And regardless of my negative perception of instances of ill will and spite, I remain unconvinced that removing anonymity would have a significant impact. I never vote in a way that I would vote differently if the vote was not anonymous. But even if votes were non-anonymous, it would still be up to each individual person to recognize that the vote was somehow wrongly made. Personally, I suspect that a lot of the votes that might be wrong were not made maliciously, but out of a lack of understanding by the voter. There can also be differences of opinion involved, and sometimes these represent valid views that happen to differ.

    Unless non-anonymity prevented all votes that you would determine as being made out of ill-will or spite, I think that knowing who voted how could easily accelerate the discussion in a personal direction, rather than an objective one.


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Thursday, January 2, 2014 1:21 AM
  • > Do you have changes to propose that would automatically police the forums to identify inappropriate intent behind what people write or click?

    Yes.  But let's not change the subject to something else about "identifying inappropriate intent".  Negative votes would dissuade those who post crap from posting it.  Negative votes would motivate some people to try a little harder to post good content instead.  Would you post crap if you knew it would receive a disapproving vote?  You asked how that would police the forums.  There is your answer.

    <snip>


    Sorry, but you were the one that first listed a couple of types of "inappropriate intent". And if, indeed, such instances actually "degraded this forum", that could only be because the inappropriateness of the intent was evident.

    You theorize that the possibility of negative votes would dissuade people from crap votes. That is certainly a reasonable theory, but I do not see the evidence showing that would be the result.

    I never post what I consider to be crap, so the possibility of negative votes would not affect what I post. Those that post crap might be dissuaded if they realized it was crap, but they should already be dissuaded by knowing the crap they post will be up there for all to see. I suspect that some people posting what you consider to be crap do so because they think they are making sense. Those who post simply to interfere will probably do so even with the possibility of getting negative votes (that they can re-positivize by creating bogus profiles...

    At least, that is my theory. Like yours, of course, mine is based only on my opinions and understanding of human nature, not actual evidence that would be difficult to collect.


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:19 PM
  • Now it's my turn to ask you a question.  Regarding my statement reposted below, which of the bulleted points do you disagree with?

    Votes should be made un anonymous, to promote

    • maturity,
    • integrity,
    • accountability, and
    • pride.

    To which I'll add this question.  Why do you think I had emphasized pride?


    I have nothing against any of the four personal attributes you listed, however, the only one that, in my opinion, comes anything close to being "promoted" by non-anonymity of votes is "accountability".

    I consider myself to have a reasonable amount of maturity and integrity, and do not feel these attributes of mine would be better promoted if votes were not anonymous. I vote and post as I feel makes sense, and have never do so out of a feeling of pride - and will not start doing that if anonymity is removed.

    Why you emphasized "pride" I can only conjecture about, as, unlike you, I do not think I am particularly good at deducing the intent behind what people say. I'd guess that pride is something that you feel is important. To me, it is best left as an internal attribute, as I find public expressions of pride indistinguishable from public expressions of ego.


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:32 PM
  • <snip>

    To which I'll add this question.  Why do you think I had emphasized pride?

    When you can answer that, you will understand Kalman's reason for this thread.

    You have on a number of occasions implied that you somehow speak for Kalman on these issues, or understand his reasoning and the intent behind what he has posted. The only intent I have deduced from his OP and comments in this discussion is that he feels that negative votes would "improve the quality of the forums", as he explicitly stated.

    I'm calling you on this one. Before conceding that you have any deeper knowledge about Kalman's reason for posting here, I'm going to need to see a post from him to the effect that there is a connection between his reason for the thread and your having highlighted (or even mentioned) pride, and that the two of you both understand it in the same way.

    And while he is at it, perhaps he will comment on whether or not he felt disrespected by anything I have written here or by the fact that I posted without having strong views on the subject, as you previously suggested to be the case.

    My own guess from his absence from this thread (last post December 1) is that he made a suggestion and has moved on to other things. If he doesn't post in response to this, there is no way that we will know what that means, so I would suggest that any unstated purpose and intent of his post will therefore remain indeterminate.


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Thursday, January 2, 2014 5:50 PM
  • > You theorize that the possibility of negative votes would dissuade people from crap votes. That is certainly a reasonable theory, but I do not see the evidence showing that would be the result.


    I did not theorize it.  I cited a fact.  An exemplary renowned example.  Stack Overflow.

    Which you quoted but evaded comment.



    > Sorry, but you were the one that first listed a couple of types of "inappropriate intent".


    Yes I did cite a disgraceful example which attained minus-3 votes.  Which you then voted up at first opportunity.

    Which I then likened to trolling.  And explained that was a canonical example why un-anonymity is needed here.





    Al, you again evaded the direct questions in the post you just responded to.  The question was about taking pride in the effect of your participation here.  Others want to take pride in theirs, but it is diminished for the reasons discussed here, and which you are providing a practical demonstration of.


    1. (to your charge of "evading comment" it should be pointed out that I actually did eventually comment on the stack overflow examples you provided) I dispute your claim that those examples demonstrate that negative voting dissuades people from crap posts (or, in the words of stack overflow "this answer is not useful"), as we do not know how many individuals refrained for that specific reason. We also do not know which other posts might have been similarly non-useful but escaped the awarding of negative votes. And we have no idea how many posts in this forum would be deserving of a negative vote, and how many of these might have been prevented by the possibility of negative votes.

    2. to your charge of "voted up at the first opportunity" - as discussed elsewhere, you acknowledged that my reason for doing that was experimental. But I did not upvote "at the first opportunity", but when it finally occurred to me to try that experiment.

    3. re your charge that I "evaded the direct questions in the post I just replied to", the question was "would you post crap if you knew it would receive a disapproving vote" to which I answered "I never post what I consider to be crap, so the possibility of negative votes would not affect what I post". I could not give a direct "yes" as an answer, and had I given a direct "no", the implication would be that I was agreeing that negative votes tend to prevent crap posts. The question is is poorly worded as the famous "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question.

    If you were referring to the question about the word pride, I answered that in a separate reply post.

    Finally I will ask if you realize that they way you write can be construed as impugning the motives of the person you are addressing? I take no issue with people wanting to take pride in their participation here. But surely we can respect the differences of opinion that arise and not write them off as indicative of ill will as you seem prone to do.


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Thursday, January 2, 2014 7:14 PM
  • > You theorize that the possibility of negative votes would dissuade people from crap votes. That is certainly a reasonable theory, but I do not see the evidence showing that would be the result.


    No.  Negative votes will not dissuade crap votes.  I did not say that.  I said it would dissuade crap posts.  And I cited a fact.  An exemplary renowned example.  Stack Overflow.



    My bad, sorry. I meant to type "... from crap posts".

    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Thursday, January 2, 2014 9:59 PM
  • I have rarely seen anything in these forums which matches that low integrity.


    Except for the voteups you just received.  They are right in that same league.  I am certain they would not have been cast if that anonymous person's name was attached to them.

    I said before I was out on this conversation, but feel I need to jump in one last time.

     

    Sigmund, you are 100% incorrect about your assumption on the anonymity.  If the votes were public, I would have made them just the same.  The reason I made them was simple: I agreed with what Al said and felt it was useful content.  Plain and simple, nothing more.  Please do not try to create a nefarious agenda where there is none.  
     
    This whole back and forth is exactly what I was talking about when I said that people can get antsy about what votes were made and why and how votes should remain as they are.  And with that, I am out for good on this discussion.


    Please do not read this sentence. Please ignore the previous sentence.

    Thursday, January 2, 2014 10:06 PM
  • Al, you distort and make up things every step of the way.  The screenshot of your disgusting voteup shows you cast that within the hour it was linked here.  When I eventually called it your "test" vote, that was a euphemism for what you had just done, which really stunk.  I have rarely seen anything in these forums which matches that low integrity.


    Except for the voteups you just received.  They are right in that same league.  I am certain they would not have been cast if that anonymous person's name was attached to them.

    Have I insulted you? You have certainly been insulting me by suggesting that I tell untruths, that some of my activities in this forum are disgusting, and that I exhibit low integrity. "Report as abuse" is another anonymous control, so I will save you the task of examining my profile to see if I was the one that tagged your above post.

    Whether or not your charges have any merit I will leave to others to decide for themselves. But that is somewhat beside the point when it comes to the code of conduct that lists "... insult ... anyone ... for any reason ..." under the "Please  don't" section.


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Thursday, January 2, 2014 11:19 PM
  • In practically every single one of your previous posts, you have put your words into my mouth and/or conducted a strawman argument.  Review every one of your previous posts.

    In most of your posts, you have made unfounded or untrue statements, then evaded replies that challenged them.  Your pattern has been to change the subject, and post a wall of text, making a personal discussion about yourself.

    You have indeed distorted truth, to the point of lying, a number of times here.

    Your misused voteup of this disgraced post was indeed disgusting in its intent.

    Your and Ressik's cross voting each other is especially unethical considering this thread's concern. 

    Your very first post in this thread was an off-topic assault directed at me personally.

    Now you are going to feign you've been abused?

    Son, you're sick.  I say this not as an insult, but as a clinical evaluation.


    when you realize that you are the only person on this thread holding these very negative personal opinions of me and of Ressik, then perhaps you will realize that it might be you that is in the wrong here. Or, more likely, you will not realize this.

    I find it odd that someone who speaks against anonymity posts under a name obviously not his own. But I don't find it surprizing that you have at least two profiles under that name: this one and this other one, or that you have had at least one profile banned (banneduser) which you point out here. I suspect that Max Shillby may be another of your profiles given because that user wrote:

    And perhaps you didn't notice that my 
    original posts here were deleted, and 
    I restored them under the user name Sigmund Freud.
    

    in this thread. The writing style is similar too, with Mr Shillby blaming an MVP for what he calls "the complete opposite of integrity".

    One theme that seems common to your posts is your penchant for accusing others of various misdemeanors as in this post in which you wrote:

    Bobby, you anonymously voted up a post that began with  How the
    hell...  and ended with  And I did not dodge a damn thing!!
     
    Then you dodged the very same question about the Title.
    

    In that same thread you seem to have been more successful at goading the OP into responding to your attacks emotionally than you have been here in goading me.

    But you seem to do as much of what you charge others with doing, like misrepresenting facts, "dodging" issues, like my suggestion that the language in your previous post was insulting in nature, contrary to the code of conduct. In addition you repeat charges such as the one where you claimed I directed an off-topic assault at you personally, while conveniently leaving out the fact, plain for all to see, that I apologized for the unintended slight.


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Friday, January 3, 2014 4:31 PM

  • The locked thread you just cited is among the most sadly profoundly pathologically afflicted exhibits that can be found in these forums, Al.  If you are comfortable relating yourself to that, I am too.


    <snip>



    I related that to you, not to me, as you were a participant.

    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Friday, January 3, 2014 9:38 PM
  • <snip>

    Back on topic.  Al Dunbar has this to say about the Stack Overflow example reposted below.

    "On the two stack overflow examples, you make a good point."

    <snip>

    There you go again with misrepresenting facts, this time by cherry-picking from what I actually wrote (in a sense, not putting words in my mouth, but rather taking them out). Here is the full quote:

    On the two stack overflow examples, you make a good 
    point. But there are other differences between there
    and here, as they also have an "improve this answer"
    capability. my comments on down-voting are with 
    respect to making that change, and that change 
    alone, to the current functionality of the technet 
    forums. The fact that down-voting seems to work in 
    other environments does not mean my concerns about
    it here are unfounded.
    

    The gist of the full quote is quite different from what you would have others believe is my opinion.

    Forget for a moment all that you have said about me, and answer this one question:

    Is it possible for a person to express views on negative voting that are different from yours and not be seen by you as dishonourable simply for having that contrary opinion?


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Friday, January 3, 2014 9:59 PM

  • But you haven't given any reason why you oppose negative votes, Al.

    Except to deny that you have a self-serving reason to not want any cast against you.





    Al Dunbar also said he endorses Kalman's suggestion for negative votes:

    "I also cast the only upvote on Kalman's original post."





    you must have missed these comments of mine, then:

    My preference would be to not add vote-downs, and my reason is that I do 
    not feel that this would "increase the value of votes or improve the quality 
    of the forums", which is the reason Kalman gave when he started this thread.
    
    I'm not sure if Cor had it right when he suggested that jealousy would be a 
    major cause of down voting, but I do suspect that perhaps other reasons of 
    a personal nature might be responsible for as many down votes as people 
    just wanting to react against in inaccurate positive vote
    
    On the two stack overflow examples, you make a good point. But there are 
    other differences between there and here, as they also have an "improve 
    this answer" capability. my comments on down-voting are with respect to 
    making that change, and that change alone, to the current functionality 
    of the technet forums. The fact that down-voting seems to work in other 
    environments does not mean my concerns about it here are unfounded.
    
    I understood Kalman's point, however, I do not see how adding negative 
    voting could possibly counteract any bad will or spite that might have 
    been behind any positive votes. Further, I think a reasonably written 
    response explaining why someone feels that a helpful vote was misplaced
    would be more constructive than just being able to reduce the vote count
    by one.
    
    Further, if negative voting is allowed, what would be the point of a 
    reply being given a negative only vote? I mean, if someone has posted
    something that is not useful or incorrect, a negative vote would not 
    explain what is wrong about it. That would be better done by a 
    followup reply.
    
    You theorize that the possibility of negative votes would dissuade 
    people from crap votes (here I meant to say posts).
    That is certainly a reasonable theory, but I do 
    not see the evidence showing that would be the result.
    
    I never post what I consider to be crap, so the possibility of negative 
    votes would not affect what I post. Those that post crap might be 
    dissuaded if they realized it was crap, but they should already be 
    dissuaded by knowing the crap they post will be up there for all to 
    see. I suspect that some people posting what you consider to be crap
    do so because they think they are making sense. Those who post simply
    to interfere will probably do so even with the possibility of getting
    negative votes (that they can re-positivize by creating bogus profiles...
    
    1. (to your charge of "evading comment" it should be pointed out that 
    I actually did eventually comment on the stack overflow examples you 
    provided) I dispute your claim that those examples demonstrate that 
    negative voting dissuades people from crap posts (or, in the words 
    of stack overflow "this answer is not useful"), as we do not know 
    how many individuals refrained for that specific reason. We also 
    do not know which other posts might have been similarly non-useful 
    but escaped the awarding of negative votes. And we have no idea how
    many posts in this forum would be deserving of a negative vote, and 
    how many of these might have been prevented by the possibility of 
    negative votes.
    
    I agree with you completely on this. If someone feels a post has been 
    less than helpful, it would be better for that person to provide a 
    better answer than to dismissively give a negative mark.
    


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Saturday, January 4, 2014 4:55 AM



  • Al Dunbar said this about negative voting.

    "It is not something I feel strongly enough ... than just posting a comment or two."




    Al Dunbar said this about Stack Overflow negative voting.

    "On the two stack overflow examples, you make a good point."




    Al Dunbar went on to say he endorses Kalman's suggestion for negative voting:

    "I also cast the only upvote on Kalman's original post."




    Minus any downside to it, and he mentioned none, I am convinced he is right.

    I have added a vote to your excellent suggestion, Kalman.

    +1

    yes, I certainly wrote all those sentences. But taking them out of context as you have done repeatedly changes the meaning significantly, as anyone reading this thread can plainly see.

    It should also be plain for all to see that you are not interested in rational discussion. I have suspected that from the beginning and foolishly thought I could goad you into some useful and respectful discourse. I guess I have always tended to be a sucker for trolls. And I had a new year's resolution about that, too...

    Oh, and just to let you know, the anonymity of the abuse reportage does not change my opinion even though some unknown person or persons have flagged all of my replies here as abusive including the ones with apologies.

    In closing, I think you are the one that has shown the least respect to Kalman by your behaviour in his thread by moving the discussion away from objectivity and making it personal.


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Sunday, January 5, 2014 2:01 AM

  • It should also be plain for all to see that you are not interested in rational discussion. I have suspected that from the beginning and foolishly thought I could goad you into some useful and respectful discourse. I guess I have always tended to be a sucker for trolls.


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.



    You voted up Kalman's suggestion for negative votes, Al.

    Then posted 1000 lines protesting negative votes.

    Your posts deserve negative votes, Al.





    goading?  as in troll?


    It's nice to see someone new taking an interest in this thread. But, in case you had not noticed, the subject here is whether or not it should be possible to give negative votes. Pointing out the apparent foibles of one of the participants (me), while seemingly a fun sport, seems somewhat off topic.

    At least Sigmund Freud has generally restricted his comments to what I have said in this thread, which could be considered at least marginally on topic. referring to what was said in an unrelated two-year old thread seems a bit more of a stretch.

    I'd suggest we revert to discussing the merits of negative voting. If, as seems to me, anything more that could be said about it on either side would be repetitious, then perhaps it is time to move on.


    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Monday, January 6, 2014 3:27 PM
  • Here is an example of a troll (aeneas dardanus) who just voted-up two posts that were actually anti-votes against me.

    Here's the thread.  Which by the way, features a sanctioned MVP troll, who like usual is trying to pass off lip-service as support.  That is his hobby here.

    You can review my recent profile activities (and his) to see he is just trolling here, and resented my posting good material which made his look like (expletive) what it was.  (the kind of junk which degrades these forums).  In fact, review his profile and see he trolled several other threads in just these past few days, with unprovoked out-of-the-blue off-topic rudeness.


    Yes.  I definitely think negative votes are needed in this forum.  Thanks for posting this subject, Kalman.



    there seem to be many situations where you feel people are voting inappropriately. I can understand why you would like to be able to negate those votes, but I do not see how negative voting would reduce the instances of people voting inappropriately. In fact there would now be two ways one could vote inappropriately: upvote a bad post and downvote a good one.

    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Saturday, January 18, 2014 6:26 AM
  • You are blurring two separate concepts together, Al.  It is a well known sleazy debate technique called fallacy.  It is also a favorite strategy of trolls, as you have already admitted in your goading comment above.



    • The one concept is negative voting crap posts.  I would vote-down many of yours here, Al.
    • The other concept is revealing troll votes.  Like several of yours here, Al.


    That footer on your posts, pandering votes.  It comes with the territory too.

    If you think I am a troll, why do you continue to feed the troll? Of course, the same charge could be levied against me...

    I have attempted to try to bring our discussion back to the merits of the original question, but you seem intent on keeping it at a personal level. Please be sure to let us know if you ever have anything new to say on the topic that supports your view. I am sure you will be able to dredge up other examples where you claim others have voted in bad faith - but your unproven contention (i.e. you are the only one expressing this opinion) that certain votes deserve negative votes says nothing about what effect negative votes will have.

    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Sunday, January 19, 2014 12:30 PM

  • Does anyone here agree that votes which are cast with bad-will or out of petty spite, or likewise, Propose Answer is misused for this same reason as in this example, it degrades this forum?


    And isn't it trolling?



    Here's a fresh example of this type of malicious forum-reputation-system abuse.


    If the "perpetrator" wasn't a sanctioned MVP troll here, it would be a bannable offense.

    "Everybody is held to the same standards, which are enforced equally".

    Huh.

    No, I will tell you what happens here.  You have a set of privileged trolls, who sponsor and promote more trolls.  That is your point and reputation system here.



    This thread that started out as a discussion about adding the capability of negative votes, yet you continue to use it as an excuse to point out where others have offended your own sensitivities. If, as you seem to suggest above, there is a separate standard for MVPs who are allowed to break the rules, your complaining about it here seems highly unlikely to change things.

    Al Dunbar -- remember to 'mark or propose as answer' or 'vote as helpful' as appropriate.

    Monday, February 3, 2014 3:28 PM