Board Thread:Reporting station/@comment-26583782-20161219202554/@comment-24024415-20161224005205

YammaYamer21 wrote: Legofan9o5 wrote: YammaYamer21 wrote: Legofan9o5 wrote: Mental Skillness wrote: It's never harmful to have a vote giving the bad parts of a thread.

so basically if my opposing is for the lols, I have to either support or not vote at all to not get blocked at all for having an opinion Yes it can be, when an opposition changes the meaning of the original thread to gain support for their side out of misleading information that is only slightly true. Take the phrase "Don't make mountains out of molehills", meaning people shouldn't hyperbole about certain aspects of something. THAT can easily be harmful, so yes, stating bad parts of a vote can turn out badly and have a negative effect on the vote. First, that statement is usually BS IMO. It can easily be turned against anything that has a few complaints, and sometimes one seemingly small detail could actually mean the difference between a good idea and a bad one. Secondly, FFF doesn't use misleading or partially true information... Give me an example of an oppose with such a barely true statement. I was saying how giving "bad parts" can become hazardous, in response to FFF's position on how it was "never harmful". I did not say that he himself used such tactics before, but that they exist and that ignoring that vary real possibility is a very problematic way of thinking.

Heh, you know what? It seems that's my example: he made the possibility of a harmful opinion smaller than what it could be in order to garner sympathy. That's a perfect example of exaggeration to make his side better. So yeah, he definitely did use such a statement. //Slight grammar fix

Something being "never harmful" is a pathetic excuse, really, but he is expressing himself. The odds of people bandwagoning on this stupid a statement are nigh zero. It being mildly possible for people to follow him is completely allowable. Also, you assume that just because he's opposing means that it's stupid to do so...

The key point is, FFF forces us to think for a moment. That's a good thing. Plus, I don't think that anyone has the power to ban someone from voting if they keep voting for the choice not chosen. It's just that his methods are not overly sound, I've explianed how he could improve by adding other points and to expand to neutral and other vote options other than pure oppose or support.

People following him when he presents a single side without any consideration for the potential benefits is what is hazardous. It's not that he can't have a different opinion, but that he does not consider the grander scale of most votes. I wouldn't have an issue if he did, and his style of finding errors is great, but its the unconstructive repetition that gets to me and so many other users.

I do agree that no one should be able to remove the rights of another simply because of going against the grain, it's the onesided and continuous nature that I disagree with.