Just a question, "inappropriate" reaction to a post

[AyelaNewLife]

14 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I asked because I laughed at someones post, then though, whoa, someone might interpret that has an attack and report me, so to be safe,  I removed the laugh and started this thread to find out if there was an "official" position on such things.

The "rules" in any online community are almost always guidelines rather than clear red lines in the sand. There is always some degree of discretion on the part of the moderators. Why? Because people are people. If you set out a crystal clear line, some people will walk up to that line, lean on it for a bit and then wiggle a single hair over that line, all while screeching about how acktuwally what they're doing is technically legal. Keeping them as guidelines shuts down most of the armchair rules lawyers in their tracks.

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

2 hours ago, KanryDrago said:

Because frankly when someone comes out with stupid idea's if you humour them in the least they will just keep coming back with more of the same. It is better by far to bring that to a halt from the outset. Any hint of kindness or taking it in the least seriously will be treated as an affirmation of the idea and before you know it we have people deciding pi is equal to 4 to make the calculations easier or making declarations that the rules of their country overrule the rules of mathematics. Both the sets of people only grew up to be able to do so because people were kind when they had stupid idea's as children rather than withering and smiting them with a righteous scorning

That's a very harsh, fundamentlaist way of looking at things, Kanry. It would seem you're only interested in damping down behaviours you don't approve of rather than conversation and learning. Would that be a fair assessment of your beliefs?

[Blush Bravin]

I'm still waiting for  

or even this

 

We really need something other than the laugh to show disdain for a post. I know some use the confused emoji, but I don't like that one either.

 

[Phil Deakins]

If we got something like a thumbs down, it wouldn't stop some people from being scornful. They'd still use the laugh for it, because they like to be scornful.

There is no need for any emoji, or anything else, to show disdain here. A thumbs down could be very useful for disagreeing with something, but showing disdain has no place in this forum. To disdain something is to consider it to be unworthy of one's consideration. Ignoring things that are considered to be unworthy of consideration works very well, if you don't want to explain your reasoning. There is no need to shove it in people's faces without a word of explanation or reasoning. All that does is show you up for what you are, but that's what you are anyway, so discussing it isn't going to improve your nature.

The uses of the word 'you' in the previous sentence does not mean everyone who reads it. But if you think I mean you, then I probably do.

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Fionalein]

58 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

I know some use the confused emoji, but I don't like that one either.

I use both for disdain, laughing when the posting is outright ridiculous and confused when I think I am missing some of the poster's logics/reasonings...

But yeah, sadly LL learned it's social media from snowflake internet (aka farcebook) where the harshest reaction you can have is getting a like revoked...

Edited December 31, 2018 by Fionalein

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

To the Op, is it directly against the forums guidelines. No. Not even if you were to laugh at multiple posts of theirs or replies. In order for it to be really considered a form of an attack and possibly harassment you would basically have to go back and do it to every single post they ever made, or at least a very large number of their posts both current and older, showing a pattern of contempt for the individual in question.

But then again it would require that person or someone else to see the behavior and decide they were offended about it and then report it, or open a support ticket with LL about the behavior. Not everyone takes reaction/reputation systems on forums serious or really cares beyond a superficial level what someone else has said or done about something they did or said.

Some may claim they use the laugh as scorn, the person seeing it may not consider it as so, no matter if the other person intended it to be. To them, it might have no power or effect or control over them and how they behave at all. Not everyone really cares if they are liked or not on forums because to them it is not a community but an impersonal means to communicate. Communication of ideas or thoughts does not a community make or require. it only maybe becomes a community to them if they let themselves become emotionally invested on a deeper level; which not everyone on the internet does or will. So cannot assume everyone posting or replying is seeing the forums on the same level of importance to them as someone else might.

Now as to why there are no negative reactions/emoji, simple. It would hurt the overall outlook and possible business of LL. You can see the forums without being logged in. So everyone, member or not, can come to see how people behave here. People might come and read them and see all the negative responses or reactions and think that the overall user base is full of insensitive and shallow or immature individuals who might be a tad bit psychopathic or sociopathic or arrogant or egocentric or narcissistic and decide they want nothing to do with the place. Thus causing the loss of potential new users and possible new 'premium' members. Can't have that now, can we? After all, LL is a business first and foremost. concerned more about their bottom line and making a profit than anything else.

Reputation/reaction systems on forums have long been abused by individuals on places that have them. Often by the more devoted or daily/lifer posters. Who comes to the forums daily to get their fix for their ego or vanity. Attempting to use those reactions to show favor or like upon those who they agree with(who fit their personality), and disdain or scorn on those they don't(who are in opposition to their personality) in attempts to make them 'tow the line' and fit in and behave how the lifer wants them too. A form of behavior modification through the use of subtle attempts at shame or embarrassment or harassment to make the other user feel unwanted or unliked unless they behave. Something akin to the old fashion concepts used by communities and religions known as shunning or public disgrace. But again this really requires the person that this is being done to, to actually care what that person or group of people are doing. beyond any superficial level.

So in regards to your concern if a single laugh at someones post even if they may have been upset/serious/down/emotional or whatever else you might have thought they were being in the post was bad. No. It only becomes possibly seen as bad if it is done repetitively. Or you just get unlucky and the person reported it to a forum mod that had their panties in a wad that day and had no tolerance so acted out in whatever way they thought was needed to bring about peace and quiet for the day for them. Which can and does happen, since mods are just humans too and not infallible about their choices or reactions to what is put before them on a daily basis by those who might have ulterior motives for their reports

I personally see reputations systems as pointless and more akin to a means to ego/vanity compensation. high reputation doesn't mean the person is better than someone with a low reputation on the forums. Just means they might have a lot of like-minded individuals responding; reaction systems are just a means to try to add emotions to an otherwise emotionless post or response. People are using the system to show their emotions about the post, which other readers may or may not agree with and the poster may or may not even care about either. an attempt to bring feelings and emotions to an otherwise dead medium of communication. Words only have the power to affect us if we allow it, not because someone else wants it to.

[Love Zhaoying]

I use my lion stIckers to react to posts.

[Love Zhaoying]

On 12/30/2018 at 9:53 AM, Rolig Loon said:

Take a look at the Community Guidelines.  In summary, here are the things that are not allowed and therefore reportable:

These Activities are Not Permitted on the Second Life Community Sites:

• Vulgarity, Profanity, and Sexually Explicit Content

• Harassment: 

• Personal Information: 

• Nudity or Adult Content: 

• Spamming, Solicitation and Advertising:

• Interpersonal Disputes or Personal Negative Commentary: 

• No Flaming: 

• Off Topic Content: 

• Abuse of Moderation or Moderators:

Notice that there is no mention among them about being an insensitive boor.  The closest that the guidelines come to telling you that you can't be a jerk is the bit about flaming (or maybe the one about interpersonal disputes).  Sadly, the world (SL and RL) will always have people who are intentionally or accidentally insensitive to other people's feelings.  You can report anything you like, of course, but I doubt that the moderators will act on one-time annoyances like the one you give as an example. 

Gee, those items read like my bucket list!

[Rhonda Huntress]

On 12/30/2018 at 8:53 AM, Rolig Loon said:

These Activities are Not Permitted on the Second Life Community Sites:

• No Flaming:

Since no flaming is not permitted, that means we must flame someone?

[Ren Toxx]

Just now, Rhonda Huntress said:

Since no flaming is not permitted, that means we must flame someone?

Can we do old flames? 🤔

[Bitsy Buccaneer]

33 minutes ago, Rhonda Huntress said:

Since no flaming is not permitted, that means we must flame someone?

/me attempts to set Rhonda on fire and realises i need lessons from the Mad one 🤔

[Cindy Evanier]

Just now, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

/me attempts to set Rhonda on fire and realises i need lessons from the Mad one 🤔

You know what is going to happen to you now

[Rolig Loon]

I think it means that LL don't not allow no flaming never by nobody.  So just be sure that you don't neither.  Ever.

[Cindy Evanier]

It's kinda simple.. laugh reaction if its an obviously funny joke.  

Reply to the post if you don't agree to state your point like an adult

or

ignore and move on

[Pamela Galli]

I used to stand in front of my class with a pen in one palm and a piece of paper saying No Pen in the other. Then I watched them enter the Twilight Zone when I asked in which hand I had no pen and in which I did not have no pen. 

For the rest of the year if anyone complained they didn’t have no paper etc., the class would say “Good for you!” 

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

6 hours ago, KanryDrago said:

Both the sets of people only grew up to be able to do so because people were kind when they had stupid idea's as children rather than withering and smiting them with a righteous scorning

I know you're joking here, Kanry, so I'm not going to make the obvious comment that withering and smiting children is not a very productive or humane approach to instructing them, but surely the same can be said of adults as well?

Use your words, people. If you don't like or agree with something, explain why, in a rational and humane way. Otherwise, you're adding nothing to the conversation.

[Rolig Loon]

9 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Use your words, people. If you don't like or agree with something, explain why, in a rational and humane way. Otherwise, you're adding nothing to the conversation.

In the end, two things seem  evident:

1. You can't tell for sure what is in someone else's mind.  The best you can do is infer their thoughts by observing behavior. More often than not, you'll guess wrong because you'll assume that the other person thinks about life the same way that you do. 

2. No one can make you mad (sad, happy, annoyed, nervous, giddy ....). You make those choices in your own mind, and they say as much about you as they do about the other person. 

There's more than enough ambiguity in the world to generate a boatload of misunderstanding. We're likely to be better off if we make choices to decrease confusion rather than increasing it.  That's true regardless of whether we are sending messages or receiving them.

[Pamela Galli]

25 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Use your words, people. If you don't like or agree with something, explain why, in a rational and humane way. Otherwise, you're adding nothing to the conversation.

We are not adding nothing, if we are adding emojis. Sometimes they say something better than words. 

I would hate to post somewhere that everyone agreed never to comment on bad behavior.

 

[Janet Voxel]

1 minute ago, Pamela Galli said:

We are not adding nothing, if we are adding emojis. Sometimes they say something better than words. 

 

 

Sometimes it’s not even worth it to respond with more than an emoji or picture.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

19 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

I would hate to post somewhere that everyone agreed never to comment on bad behavior.

I completely agree.

At issue is not whether we should call out bad behaviour, but rather, what is the most constructive and effective way to do so? I don't think that a derisive use of emoji does that, because they don't offer an explanation for how we've defined "bad behaviour." And, in my admittedly personal view, they themselves constitute something rather like bad behaviour: they are mean-spirited and exclusionary, and they make a community like this one a less pleasant and open place to be.

19 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

Sometimes they say something better than words.

Maybe. But what do they say? Mostly, they are about striking a pose of superiority, and knocking someone down a peg or two. They punish without offer instruction for how to behave better.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Scylla Rhiadra
Because grammar is hard. Apparently. Even for someone trained in English. *sigh*

[Pamela Galli]

12 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I completely agree.

At issue is not whether we should call out bad behaviour, but rather, what is the most constructive and effective way to do so? I don't think that a derisive use of emoji do that, because they don't offer an explanation for how we've defined "bad behaviour." 

These are not children we are talking about displaying bad behavior, but adults who should know better, and if they don’t, it’s time they did. IMO starting a thread by insulting those from whom you are asking help, deserves some feedback, but I don’t feel obligated to explain anything to them. If an emoji puzzles them, and they make some attempt to figure out the reason for it on their own, that’s a good thing. 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Pamela Galli

[Rolig Loon]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Maybe. But what do they say? Mostly, they are about striking a pose of superiority, and knocking someone down a peg or two. They punish without offer instruction for how to behave better.

I'd be inclined to agree with that, except for the word "mostly." I never used to use emojis, because I saw them as cutesy affectations, like the fatuous hearts that teenage girls use instead of putting dots over their i's.  I have started using them myself guardedly, when I think that they may help make my own mood more clear. They can be useful in text in the same way that more traditional punctuation marks are.  If I write, "You might want to try this. 😉 " , I hope that you will infer that I am making a gentler suggestion than if I had omitted the emoji. There's still a decent possibility that you will misunderstand me, but I am betting that the emoji has made me seem more lighthearted. 

I am less sanguine about freestanding emojis that we use as response buttons, because I don't have the additional clarifying words. (In pre-emoji days, I don't think I would have responded to an e-mail with a "!!" or a "??" I would have at least said "Wow!" or "Say what?" ) I know what I mean when I use one, but I can't be sure that you will know, so I use them more sparingly.  Personally, I rarely think of using a response button to knock someone down a peg or two, but I understand that some people do that. Rather than be misunderstood, I rarely laugh or trigger the confused button unless I am responding to a joke or a post that is a total muddle.  I can't tell whether I am in the majority or the oddball in the room, but I rather suspect that more people use emojis as genuine messages, not as ways to strike a pose of superiority.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

5 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

They can be useful in text in the same way that more traditional punctuation marks are.

This is why, and how, I use them: to clarify a text by providing additional information that might, in a normal face-to-face context, be communicated through body language or tone. I don't use them in long-form communications (such as emails) because they are usually inappropriate to the genre, and also unnecessary.

7 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

I can't tell whether I am in the majority or the oddball in the room, but I rather suspect that more people use emojis as genuine messages, not as ways to strike a pose of superiority.

What I'm arguing is that the "pose of superiority" is part of the message, whatever else may be being communicated. I think of it the same way as I might word choice, where the connotation of one particular word provides additional meaning. So, a derisive emoji can communicate in a non-textual fashion something like "I think you're wrong about this," but what it adds -- the connotative meaning -- is "and I also think your point is ridiculous and not worth the 30 seconds it might take to explain why."

[Blush Bravin]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Use your words, people. If you don't like or agree with something, explain why, in a rational and humane way. Otherwise, you're adding nothing to the conversation.

One of my favorite idioms.

Sometimes you've responded giving your rational but the person continues to be a jerk about it and you get to a point where the better response would be to use an emoji rather than to keep responding with an explanation or counter argument. Every situation is different and as a consequence it would be good if we had better ways to respond. 

[AyelaNewLife]

(I can't tell how many of the reaction laughs in this thread are genuine, ironic-scornful, or ironic-ironic scornful)