Eh; You are entitled to your opinion, but I have never felt that way.
I am following the golden rule; I think that we should moderate each other's counter args. Here's a general scale I use, when modding others' counter args:
0. Intentionally cruel, full of deceit. Hideous.
1. Grossly unfair, absurd, silly. I don't know, the K5 equivelent of a "I'm rubber your glue everything you say bounces off me and sticks on you". (I don't know if that's just a US kids saying, or not.
2. Strongly disagree, very poorly reasoned.
3. Disagree, or strongly disagree, but a reasonable point made, that might use some discussion.
4. Disagree, or strongly disagree, but a number of good points are made, and they are understandable and could use some further discussion.
5. Disagree, might strongly disagree, but very well argued, excellent points are made, indicitave of a deep understanding (even though rivaling understanding), could certainly use some further discussion. Most likely, we will both discover something in the argument, or come to a common understanding.
Funny posts, of course, can add a point.
So in short, I disagree with your ethic.
I would hope that you would give me a 2-4, based on my own rating scale (I can't ask anything else; Matthew 7:1-2 and all); You are moderating me 0 to punish me. We are having a disagreement.
Perhaps this is something we should talk about, and it may even make an interesting story.
I think people mod too infrequently; I wish people mod'ed more. I think people arguing should mod. Yes, I have given a 5 to people I disagree with before, though it is not common. More common is the 2-4 range. I hate giving 0-1's, but then again, I usually hate their posts, and imagine you (in the generic) would as well.
Fair? I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but I do mod as I would be modded.
Map Your Thoughts
[ Parent ]