Posrep for holocaust denial exposing the foolishness of only having a pos rep button

has 6 green gems, apparently indicating the support of the TSR community,

Isn't it illegal in the UK to deny the Holocaust; the only instance where free speech us not allowed? The thread should have been closed or deleted and the opening poster banned!

Posted from TSR Mobile

The more serious trolls and idiots on this site, naming no names, have been getting very good at slipping between the lines of late - posting things that would previously have got them negged to hell and back and are generally thought outrageous by most normal people, but are phrased in such a way that it doesn't quite feel appropriate to report them for offensiveness. The holocaust denial thread (one of several that appear to have sprung up in the last couple of days) is one of these

it's clear the poster has a serious agenda that a lot of people find highly offensive, but have managed to just about veil it behind a serious discussion topic.

The fact that this thread, with an OP praising Adolf Hitler and drawing on Mark Weber, a notorious holocaust denier, for support, has 6 green gems, apparently indicating the support of the TSR community, aptly demonstrates how silly it is to have only positive rep.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2567751

We desperately need a thumbs up/thumbs down system for posts. In the former system, this post would have had 6 positives and 100 negatives. As it stands, to a casual observer, TSR supports holocaust denial.

So you are only allowed to criticise states and nobody else ? Not even controversial people, groups, gangs cos they are not states?

If the point is not freedom of speech, then the point is the right to voice opinion. And I don't think TSR counts as a private sites with 1 million + members and having debate and religion section which TSR seems to promote it a lot.

The problem is if TSR can't tolerate right of speech according to you, why they don't close Religion and Debate forums in the first place. Then we wouldn't be having complaints regarding Holocaust denier getting positive reps.

If someone says something genuinely offensive, the warning system is at your disposal to deal out justice.

Negging just led to people feeling like they could not share their views because they are not shared with the majority. In that way, I find the new system liberating.

As for people you don't agree with not getting negs, why not just reply to them saying why you disagree. It's a small price to pay for people not feeling stigmatised for holding minority views. The fact that he got 6 reps hardly makes it seem like he is more popular on TSR than the reality - it says exactly the reality; that 6 people agree with his views.

Before neg rep was taken away I saw threads like that one with neg rep yes, but with far fewer responses in retaliation. Receiving 100 neg reps is one thing, being presented with 100 posts that disagree explaining why is what will change that OPs opinion.

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored.

Considering other sites/systems with a rep system implement both sides of it, I can only guess that its done as a last ditch attempt to increase user retention, not realising that bullying has probably nothing to do with people leaving. As I asked previously, id love to know what evidence, if any, they have to suggest people were put off by down votes.
The thing is, a good community should be made up of different ideas and opinions, otherwise its boring as hell. To claim its bullying is just PC BS.

I think you overestimate the support on TSR for Holocaust deniers, if you look at the commetns, the ones which challenge him actually received more positive reputation.

I think you overestimate the support on TSR for Holocaust deniers, if you look at the commetns, the ones which challenge him actually received more positive reputation.

I neither said anything regarding Holocaust. My point was why whining about positive rep on controversial topic just because someone gives it a rep. Most people gave it a rep for it being stupid and controversial not necessarily cos they agreed with it. But its still better than neg rep as it discourages people to voice opinion for fear of neg rep. Having -100 rep next to your post may make you feel like an outcast which is not desirable.

On a side note: My view regarding Hitler is same as most people are : He is a mass murderer.

From a casual viewers perspective not so much. It's unfortunate in this case that the first post disagreeing decided to put in a little dig at Islam ( ) but even so right this minute the OP has 15 thumbs up, the first (iffy) reply 4 thumbs up and the second reply 18 thumbs up.

That doesn't really show overwhelming support either way tbh - it makes it *appear* that the forum is split pretty evenly between people who think Hitler was amazing and those who disagree. From an advertisers point of view that's not really the sort of place a lot of organisations would want to associate their brand with.

but then that's partly because the thumbs are tied to rep values which means that people are restricted on how many posts they can rep and how often they can rep particular people. If Facebook limited everyone to 10 likes a day and you couldn't like people without liking someone else between it would change the way likes work on FB.

Unfortunately, because the site is run along a kind of sloppy seconds version of commercially-motivated libertarianism, we are apparently going to have TSR be a gateway for this kind of material, without any ability whatever to show instant disapproval, other than getting involved on page 12 of the thread with tedious and probably pointless attempts to talk about the facts.

Me, I'm your proof.

Do you genuinely believe that the OP in that thread is interested in changing their opinion (I'm guessing not because the OP on that thread has been banned)?

And that having a lot of people react angrily (or thoughtfully) towards them is not what their intention in starting the thread was?

Because that's pretty much the opposite to the way most people advise responding to this sort of crap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_not_feed_the_trolls

It's like law number one of internet forum administration.

Never, ever, ever, ever give in to the will of the members.

One person shouldn't be the reason why the majority have to suffer. Also, why did it matter to you so much?

You're suffering because neg reps are gone?

My friend, there is a solution of course!!

Solution = Get a life

You don't need reps to justify your points.

You think David Cameron gives a red thumbs down sticker to the opposition? No he argues his point as we all should because that's how to get a viewpoint across.

Nub