Before trotting out the tired old accusation of hypocrisy, please review my argument. The reputation of an individual node is almost completely meaningless.
Now, I did stop short of calling you a hypocrite. I know I did because I deleted that sentence. :-)
So, if node rep falls short of being "completely meaningless", then you agree that it has some meaning. It is somewhat informative and not pure noise. So, how is it again that providing this information to people is a bad idea?
I'd much rather say "We have a working system that gives you a very rough guide that may be useful. Take it as a suggestion, but continue to use your brain."
You seem to be under the impression that providing an abstain option of some sort would change the message that the system provides only a rough guide and that it would prevent or discourage people from using their brain in assessing content.
Is that it? Because if it is, I think that A) people should be given more credit than that, and B) if an individual doesn't deserve more credit than that, he isn't using his brain anyway. You are misguided if you believe that the system, as is, makes people think more than they would if the proposed change were made. The functionality you provide will neither make people think nor prevent them from it; that's a function of the individual.
-sauoq "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
In reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A case for neutral votes
by sauoq
in thread A case for neutral votes
by dws
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |