in the words of a certain actor, dew it. if your the head you make the rules for the most part right? play domain parker and see where it goes heck you could turn it into anything...
I feel like a ton of the popular ones will just be squatted on anyway. I've thought about creating something, but I have no interest in participating really, so it would be just that--to sit on the name.
The problem isn't that they are here, or on reddit, but moderation that supports a bias against reality.
If you could go into c/averageredditor, make a good rational point, and have it be seen, then these forums would actually push them to develop ideas that make sense (or come to their senses). Reddit works the total opposite, with dissenting views hidden, rate limited, and censored so it encourages insanity in any group.
The core problem is one downvote equaling one upvote. Take the Dr. Phil thing for instance, you have 20 people in the audience that hear "trans women are women" and reflexively clap like seals. And 10 other in the planted audience who reluctantly admit that "you can't define what a woman is" is actually a good point. On reddit, Matt Walsh would be at -10 and hidden (-20 seals, +10 support), but if upvotes were say weighted 4x more he'd be a +10 (-20 seals + 10*4 support).
This scheme with upvote being a point and downvotes being 1/4 point works like a hybrid between Controversial sort and Popular sort. Popular sort is bad because you only see the hivemind, Controversial is bad because you never see the parts all sides actually agree on. Mix them together you'll still get the hivemind and can still have a forum dedicated to averageredditors, but they'll sometimes be exposed to really good counterpoints.
What's wrong with Texans? You limey fuck
The stars at night. Just too big and bright.
Clap clap
Be sure to grab c/FDS as well.
in the words of a certain actor, dew it. if your the head you make the rules for the most part right? play domain parker and see where it goes heck you could turn it into anything...
I feel like a ton of the popular ones will just be squatted on anyway. I've thought about creating something, but I have no interest in participating really, so it would be just that--to sit on the name.
The problem isn't that they are here, or on reddit, but moderation that supports a bias against reality.
If you could go into c/averageredditor, make a good rational point, and have it be seen, then these forums would actually push them to develop ideas that make sense (or come to their senses). Reddit works the total opposite, with dissenting views hidden, rate limited, and censored so it encourages insanity in any group.
The core problem is one downvote equaling one upvote. Take the Dr. Phil thing for instance, you have 20 people in the audience that hear "trans women are women" and reflexively clap like seals. And 10 other in the planted audience who reluctantly admit that "you can't define what a woman is" is actually a good point. On reddit, Matt Walsh would be at -10 and hidden (-20 seals, +10 support), but if upvotes were say weighted 4x more he'd be a +10 (-20 seals + 10*4 support).
This scheme with upvote being a point and downvotes being 1/4 point works like a hybrid between Controversial sort and Popular sort. Popular sort is bad because you only see the hivemind, Controversial is bad because you never see the parts all sides actually agree on. Mix them together you'll still get the hivemind and can still have a forum dedicated to averageredditors, but they'll sometimes be exposed to really good counterpoints.