It would be voluntary and a bit messy hurt feelings wise, but I'm wondering if the community thinks this might be useful?
I think it might be useful, but there are also those here that wouldn't be mature enough to take neg fu as criticism.
I think that people like that would simply attack back with G-fu slaps.
As I further think about it, that return attack would be visible as well, the intelligent posters would be able to note that a specific poster simply returned attacks.
The worst case would then fall to an intelligent, but immature, poster who took neg fu personally, but spaced and timed his revenge slaps so that they seem like legitimate criticisms themselves.
Then he could simply say that he is naturally critical of people.
And I want you to know this, because I think fu sometimes seems to arbitrary or random to the receiver. And I'd be interested in a thread where those who prefer this transparency to post their reasons for giving out positive or negative fu. It would be voluntary and a bit messy hurt feelings wise, but I'm wondering if the community thinks this might be useful?
I'd say 80% of the time, roughly, that'd be a good idea. I'm cynical enough to believe that the other 20% of the time, it would lead to a flamewar that could dwarf any we've seen here, as someone's hurt feelings resulted in douchebaggery back and forth, escalating as people got hit collaterally or came to the 'defense' of one side or the other in the flamewar.
If there were a way to list reasons for giving positive and negative fu anonymously, it'd probably have real value as a learning instrument.
This looks like a pretty good idea as well. The anonymity would work, so long as the meaning behind the neg fu was understood.
If a person couldn't understand why he got neg fu based on the short description, then it would do no good, and only lead to more bitching.
Also, I can imagine several arguments that take this structure:
A: "I think: (poorly worded sentiment/idea)
B: "But that means, (unintended meaning) and obviously, (rebuttal of sentiment or idea)
A: "No! I meant (better worded idea).
B: "But you said "(quote of original, poorly worded idea)", which means (unintended meaning).
Now, in this case, B would look like they aren't reading A's replies. To B, it looks like A is unaware of what his idea actually meant. (Obviously more common in rules-translation arguments)
A: "I think: (poorly worded sentiment/idea)
B: "But that means, (unintended meaning) and obviously, (rebuttal of sentiment or idea)
A: "Ok, I think I understand, but that isn't what I meant at all. Let me try again. (Better worded idea).
B: "Yeah, (poorly worded idea) means (unintended meaning) but (better worded idea) works out fairly well.
B is still trying to point out A's error to him, but A managed to get his
real idea across by accepting his mistake, calling it out as one, and indicating that he understood the difference.
I think this kind of back-and-forth is at the heart of quite a few arguments like Elennsar's