I've never used the down-vote simply because I don't believe in it. if I can't persuade someone in their discourse of thought, then I simply agree to disagree and move on. If someone comments with a prescient and interesting bit of information, I will up-vote. If someone posts something that is an outlier to the general discourse here. I simply move on. Lastly, I never name call or use ad hominems even after I am called names. To me, it only sours the discussion. I want to know what people think and why.

The question becomes-- Who determines who is a shill? You? Me? An on-line gang? The down-votes tend to be used for avoiding debate simply because someone disapproves what is being said. GAW is most definitely not a place intended for 'group think', gang-like behavior, or an echo chamber. I believe it is best left to the moderators to make this determination. Another consequence is the down-votes make it possible for certain alliances to attack a 'marked' individual. These alliances may even be pre-conceived by outside nefarious entities (ergo, paid infiltration groups). There's plenty of examples of forums being destroyed by these tactics.

You and other enlightened people post here with other rational lurkers wanting to learn. I certainly do. Each one of us are indeed-- 'We are the news'. That 'news' each of us brings through astute perspective and are incredibly valuable to me. I may not always agree, but certainly that person has the right to express it.

The question becomes-- Who determines who is a shill? You? Me? An on-line gang? The down-votes tend to be used for avoiding debate simply because someone disapproves what is being said. GAW is most definitely not a place intended for 'group think', gang-like behavior, or an echo chamber. I believe it is best left to the moderators to make this determination. Another consequence is the down-votes make it possible for certain alliances to attack a 'marked' individual. These alliances may even be pre-conceived by outside nefarious entities (ergo, paid infiltration groups). There's plenty of examples of forums being destroyed by these tactics.

You and other enlightened people post here and other rational lurkers want to learn. I certainly do. Each one of us are indeed-- 'We are the news'. That 'news' each of us brings through astute perspective and are incredibly valuable to me. I may not always agree, but certainly that person has the right to express it.

I've never used the down-vote simply because I don't believe in it. if I can't persuade someone in their discourse of thought, then I simply agree to disagree and move on. If someone comments with a prescient and interesting bit of information, I will up-vote. If someone posts something that is an outlier to the general discourse here. I simply move on. Lastly, I never name call or use ad hominems even after I called names. To me, it only sours the discussion. I want to know what people think and why.