Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re: Moderators suck (Score 1) 62

On many issues, there's a prevailing point of view.

Prevailing != unanimous. Slashdot's moderation guidelines suggest browsing at -1 for exactly this reason: a moderator might very well represent a minority viewpoint, and moderating at -1 means that the minority viewpoint can still moderate worthwhile content upward.

Comment Re: Moderators suck (Score 1) 62

Why not show who moderates a post?

Given that you can't even be bothered to post under a pseudonymous user name in a conversation that isn't likely to get anyone fired, I am having trouble finding much empathy for your cause. More to the point, I'm the only one in this branch of the thread that isn't posting as AC.

When you come out from behind the AC cloak, maybe we can have a reasonable conversation on the topic.

Comment Re:Moderators suck (Score 1, Interesting) 62

Second reply, different than the first:

It's biased and leads to groupthink.

How, exactly, does the moderation system lead to groupthink? Are you imagining that all of slashdot agrees on any given point, and anyone who thinks different will be modded down? This doesn't seem very likely, given the heated debates that regularly take place here. Are you instead imagining that slashdot readers will eventually be corrupted by a single-sided point of view, and thus achieve groupthink? Because in order to do so, you would first have to succeed in having a single-sided viewpoint, which (as observed earlier in this post) is implausible, given the heated debates. So at first blush, it does not seem like there is a valid mechanism by which the moderation system could "lead to groupthink".

Just my opinion.

Comment Re:Moderators suck (Score 1, Insightful) 62

I browse at -1. In my experience, meaningful, well-thought-out comments rarely end up at -1. Even if some disagree, others will agree, and things will balance out.

Posts that start with statements like "Moderators suck", however, usually end up marked as "troll" or "flame bait". Nobody is interesting in counterbalancing those kinds of statements, because they lack meaningful content.

TL;DR: Seems like the system works to me.

Comment Re:Selling renwable power (Score 1) 107

God, I hope not, that would be a terrible future. "Renewable Power" isn't reliable, so 100% renewables would lead to rolling blackouts, or wouldn't be 100% renewables.

"Renewable Power" is a broad category. You are thinking narrowly of things like solar and wind, and ignoring nascent trends toward energy storage using increasingly creative methods.

But please, by all means, go ahead and continue to be close minded. That's the sure-fire proven way toward progress. ~

Comment Re:Simple: (Score 1) 507

And in the meanwhile, shameless promotion for the Libertarian party!
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and wholly and selfishly uninterested in the common good.

A vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil.

And wholly ignorant of political reality, too. That's the Libertarian way!

Slashdot Top Deals

"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked." -- John Gall, _Systemantics_