No, that's an anecdotal example. The troll button is a negative rating (which can have a negative affect on a person's account depending on how many posts they have), this is used to combat trolls and allows forum members to self moderate. However, post ratings can be taken away from members who abuse the feature. The "Dislike" and "Disagree" ratings are neutral and do absolutely nothing to a person's account. Such is life: some people just aren't going to like what another says or agree on a topic. If you don't want people to dislike or disagree with what you are saying....then don't say anything at all...because there will always be someone with a different opinion, not matter how rational or logical your argument is. These ratings (along with the other positive, neutral and negative ratings) help keep everyone in check with reality. Facebook/Twitter....neither have a dislike button and their content is 90% garbage. If you remove the possibility of ever hearing or being told someone doesn't like or agree with what you are saying you will end up in an echo-chamber and nothing of use will ever be said. If you wish for everyone to agree with you and never have someone disagree or dislike one of your posts I suggest you go post in those echo-chambers instead of here. They are much better and keeping your feed full of things and people that will always agree with you. Dislikes aren't going to make a bit of difference to you or anyone else. If you feel you have been wrongly given a negative "troll" or "abhorrent" rating then privately report the post or publicly create a thread in the appropriate sub-forum and explain why you think it was given in err. I have removed many negative ratings because a user unknowingly or accidentally clicked the rating or was just being a dick by giving a negative rating. A moderator will make a judgement call on the rating (or contact the user that gave the negative rating) and either remove it or let it stand (they almost always get removed). However, with neutral ratings....I'm not going to waste time with that because it is impossible to tell if someone honestly disagreed or disliked a post or if they hit it on accident, and it really doesn't even matter. Understand that tone gets lost in text and a person might not be reading your post as you meant for it to be read. If someone read the post you're using as an example with a lot of sarcasm it could have been taken the wrong way. Someone also could have misread your post and thought it meant something completely different. TL:DR Chill out, it's just a neutral rating. Edit: Negative ratings will have no affect on your account. Negative ratings can get a member banned if their negative ratings to posts ratio goes above a certain ratio....unless the user has more than 500 posts. Established and contributing members can only be banned by a moderator through the warning points system or by an admin. DI members have banned several trolls (and rather quickly) without any moderator/admin needing to get involved. See here: Notable Members | Dumaguete Info
Hmmmm.......for you to know that data is doctored infers that you know the what the "real" data is, please share it.
100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering | The Deplorable Climate Science Blog World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online Tracking Climate Fraud Follow the money---Fat Al Gore got filthy rich off the global warming scheme---its always about money and power and research grants, not climate change, something that is constant!
Years ago I read about the British Government introducing something I think called a "Clean Air Tax" so that they could tax the nomadic Gypsies that move from place to place, at the time I posted it online to suggest to Aussies that I wondered how long it would take the Australian Government to cotton onto something like this. I think it was around two/three years ago I read something online where the Australian Government had laws passed in Parliament where they could take the Superannuation from Retirees and instead hand them a Pension (which I believe what Income Tax was originally supposed to do before they took that away and introduced forced self funded retirement) That gave the Government access to Trillions of dollars that before they were not allowed to touch, but because they said they would use it to fight Global Warming it made it all okay... When I was living in Oz there was a lot of debate on the Online News Pages regards this, but I noticed a year or so back that there is no longer any information online regards this, especially about both the Liberal and Labor Governments enacting these changes in Parliament to allow them access to Superannuation Funds, it is as if it never happened... Censorship?? I KNOW IT WAS ONLINE, but be stuffed if I can find a single thing on it in Google now... IMHO GREED is the underlying factor to taxing the poor out of existence to fight something Mother Nature will change in good time with or without our input.
Getting off Topic now but in 2012/2013 I think it was, Aquino introduced the Sin tax that was supposed to pay for new Hospitals and Upgrade Education, I can see no real advancements here. Can anyone?
I thought they denied prostitution exists here? Although I have to admit over the past decade or so of talking online with other Filipinos, I have heard some very strange things which people here consider to be a 'Sin'...