Originally posted by @divegeester
This is a great idea and I’ve not heard a decent argument against it.
The main reason people want to remain anonymous is because they habitually and lazily thumb down the poster rather post itself.
Which incidentally is why the system is broken Ponderable, I.e. the recommended posts list is full of petty partisan driven voted posts, rather than being a reasonable reflection of quality or interest.
How many times do I publicly have to come out against this ego-driven idea before you actually run across one of my arguments? Do you actually mean you've never read my posts in the numerous threads where we argued about this?
Okay, I see. You said "decent" argument. Nice backhanded way of claiming none of my arguments against this have been "decent".
Actually, right here in this thread is a decent argument. Whoever said that arguments would boil down to "X said Y about Z", and Why did you agree and Why didn't you agree and all of the RHP forums suddenly devolve into a few personalities and their little ego wars. Do you really want these forums to turn into this kind of wasteland similar to Trump and his twitter wasteland?
All of my arguments against this boil down to the concept that votes on posts should be anonymous. Otherwise, people get needlessly "called out" for actually daring to speak out against those whose egos are so big that they think they should get away with any posting nonsense they can dream up without facing anonymous criticism. All points posted here would become more about who did and who did not agree with the poster while the original point disappears in the ego-driven miasma of indignance. Eventually, after a campaign of beating their naysayers down for daring to exercise their right to disagree, no one bothers sticking their neck out to disagree anymore and the most ego-driven posters dominate the forum. Welcome to Fascism, and the death of the forums this would bring with it.
The main argument YOU posess seems to be this rather unintelligent claim that people who disagree with you only do so because they dislike you and therefore don't really
disagree as much as voting against the person. Nice try, but you insult everyone who disagrees with the post by reassigning their agenda. Rather than accepting that people will disagree, you already try to deny their disagreement by this specious claim that they downvote the poster.
I disagree(!) with your ego-driven post that people cannot possibly be actually disagreeing with your posts. Most down votes ARE a "reasonable reflection of quality or interest", as hard as that is for you to swallow. People disagree with you because (wait for it) they disagree with you, not because of some specious claim you make that they do so for some other reason that is somehow more kind to your fragile ego.