How about a colour code option?

Brussels Sprout · 07-02-2011 12:35am #1

I mostly read the political forums and I keep coming across the same few hundred posters who are also regulars there. Every so often one of them will write a post that obviously shows which way they lean (liberal/conservative, FF supporter, SF die-hard etc). I'd love to be able to colour code them to help me remember this so that I can then view their future posts through this prism.

Is this even possible and if so would it be something that you would consider adding?

Wolfe Tone · 07-02-2011 12:39am

You could just write it down?

GuanYin · 07-02-2011 12:53am

Why color code? Why not just take each post on the merit of content?

Just because a person has a leaning in their world view, doesn't mean that they are incapable of making a valid point.

Read posts and make up your own mind*.

(this should really be something applied to all of boards.)

Brussels Sprout · 07-02-2011 1:03am

GuanYin wrote: »

Why color code? Why not just take each post on the merit of content?

Just because a person has a leaning in their world view, doesn't mean that they are incapable of making a valid point.

Read posts and make up your own mind*.

(this should really be something applied to all of boards.)

If I'm reading somebody's comments in an AH thread about their favourite 1980's children's cartoon show then obviously I don't care what way their political leanings are and I'd be happy to take each post on it's own merit.

However on political matters (and possibly even sporting matters) most people are biased in one way or another. I'd like to take that into account when I'm weighing up someone's argument in a debate.

bonkey · 07-02-2011 12:18pm

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

However on political matters (and possibly even sporting matters) most people are biased in one way or another. I'd like to take that into account when I'm weighing up someone's argument in a debate.

How would that work?

If two poster's were arguing for the same thing, how would it matter if one was (say) a conservative and the other a liberal?

Even ignoring the reality that such monikers are generally hopeless over-simplifications in the first place....why would someone's political leanings influence the validity of their argument?

pablomakaveli · 07-02-2011 6:53pm

This wouldn't work at all. For example im liberal on some issues and maybe more conservative on others. I don't really have a favourite political party either.

So how would i fit into this system?

Brussels Sprout · 07-02-2011 7:33pm

bonkey wrote: »

How would that work?

If two poster's were arguing for the same thing, how would it matter if one was (say) a conservative and the other a liberal?

Even ignoring the reality that such monikers are generally hopeless over-simplifications in the first place....why would someone's political leanings influence the validity of their argument?

Ok let's say for example that in my personal scheme I choose to use Dark Green for people who I suspect to be FF members (or people who strong ties to that party).Well if there's a discussion about the Bank bailout and someone comes along saying that they think that Brian Lenihan had no choice but to guarantee Anglo I'd give their arguemtent less attention if I had previously tagged them as dark Green.

I've noticed that there a lot of people who are extremely pro-SF as well who pop up in threads all over the place. It'd be handy for labelling them as such.

This idea is used in on-line poker to help you players categorize players based on their previous play. While in theory a player could make any random play on any given hand in reality if they think a certain way then this will governt heir future actions and colour coding helps you assess their actions and what they really mean.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

This wouldn't work at all. For example im liberal on some issues and maybe more conservative on others. I don't really have a favourite political party either.

So how would i fit into this system?

The colour coding would be completely subjective. For my own settings I'd probably colour code people who are vociferously pro-one party or another. If I came across someone like yourself I'd probably just leave you colourless. If you came out strongly in favour of one party on one issue I might give you a provisional colour but I'd wait to see if you repeated that line before I'd give you a permanent colour. If you disagreed with that party on a differnt issue I'd probably make you colourless again.

Gordon · 07-02-2011 7:50pm

You might be able to do a greasemonkey script on Firefox if you know how to code, otherwise ask a friend that can put some of their free time into coding it for you?

AckwelFoley · 07-02-2011 9:04pm

I dont know why the star of david has entered my head -

But you need to read a post and evaluate and opinion based on its merits, i don't mean to offend, but it screams of narrow mindedness if you will treat an opinion based on what part of the political spectrum it comes from.

I may not like Labour, but i will give credit to their policies when they present one that i feel deserves merit. If you rule out , or want to prejudge what someone says based on their political allegiance, you rule out giving merit to possible good ideas.

Sunnyisland · 07-02-2011 9:13pm

I dont think i would like the coloured code,it might make a lot of people not read some very valid points/posts just because they think the poster is supporting one party, I would rather read them if interested then make up my mind.

southsiderosie · 09-02-2011 3:56am

I don't really understand this proposal for a number of reasons.

First, it is often difficult to map people's politics onto specific parties, especially in Ireland. There isn't a socialist party, nor is there a traditional Liberal party, so just because someone may vote Labour or Fine Gael, that isn't necessarily representative of their actual political beliefs.

Second, I think it is quite limiting to slap on labels, given that people may have wildly different political positions depending on the issue. Someone may believe quite strongly in socialist economic policies, but be quite conservative on religious matters.

Finally, I think most people with party affiliations and/or strong political ideologies on this site are quite open about it, so I don't think it is important to physically 'flag' them - if you hang around long enough, it becomes quite clear who has nailed their colors to the mast, so to speak. Hell, some people have parties in their usernames or signatures. Plus it just seems intellectually lazy to dismiss someone because of a stated (or perceived) political affiliation. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

seamus · 09-02-2011 10:30am

There are data protection issues here.

If you are labelling other posters with your own colour code of choice, then other posters are entitled to know who has labelled them and in what way they've been labelled.

Use your memory, or failing that a pen & paper.

bonkey · 10-02-2011 12:41am

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

It'd be handy for labelling them as such.

More or less exactly why I'd think its a bad idea. Labelling people is, for me, rarely a positive thing.

This idea is used in on-line poker to help you players categorize players based on their previous play. While in theory a player could make any random play on any given hand in reality if they think a certain way then this will governt heir future actions and colour coding helps you assess their actions and what they really mean.

Fair enough...but carrying that across, surely one would rate people either by the quality or nature of their posting style, and not what political leanings they had.

I could understand wanting to remember who makes credible arguments, who tends to be a bit impulsive, who tends to trot out whatever is the popular controversy of the day, etc....but tagging someone as "supports party <X>" or "supports ideology <X>" would only make sense to me if you've already put all people who support <X> into a nice little box.

The colour coding would be completely subjective. For my own settings I'd probably colour code people who are vociferously pro-one party or another. If I came across someone like yourself I'd probably just leave you colourless. If you came out strongly in favour of one party on one issue I might give you a provisional colour but I'd wait to see if you repeated that line before I'd give you a permanent colour. If you disagreed with that party on a differnt issue I'd probably make you colourless again.

All of which might be great if you were trying to discern the demographics of the forum posters, but I would still argue that it would be less then useless when trying to determine if someone's argument was worth listening to.

All that said...a subjective colouring scheme would basically allow anyone to tag specific users to appear in colours of their choosing. I see how this could be interesting for some people...and even useful in some applications. Mostly, though, I'd see it as counter-productive.

To go back to your poker analagy...in poker, the aim (simplified) is to win. While arguments may also be about winning, discussions should not be.

boards.ie is a discussion forum, and in my opinion one of the biggest problems it faces in forums such as Politics is people trying to win arguments rather then partake in discussion, followed closely by people using labels, monikers and boxes to dismiss (valid) points rather then discussing them.

How about a colour code option?

Comments