Just a question, "inappropriate" reaction to a post

[Scylla Rhiadra]

5 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

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. 

I suppose I can see an argument for the use of a laugh emoji as a sort of "response of last resort." I actually don't think that's the way it's most often used, however. For a few of the regular posters here (I'm sure you know whom I mean), it's almost invariably the first, and often only, response.

We've all reached points in an argument/discussion where there really doesn't seem much point in carrying on. In such cases, maybe ending on a derisive note is appropriate? Or maybe it just adds to the angst and dramaz.

Myself, at that point, I generally just walk away, more out of exhaustion than anything else.

[Blush Bravin]

4 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

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.

I think disdain has a place in these forums specially when some continues to berate and argue past reason just so they can be right. I wouldn't respond with an emoji as a first or even second response to someone's post. But should the person be a jackass about it then I would like to have a way to show disdain even here in these forums.

[MoiraKathleen]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

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.

This had never occurred to when reacting to a post with an emoji.  Neither had using the laughing one to indicate scorn or derision.  When I do post a laughing reaction is is because the post actually made me laugh or smile, in a good way.   I never use it intentionally to indicate scorn or derision, and I hadn't realized that so many see it as a negative reaction. 

Likewise I used the confused emoji when I am confused and can't figure out what the poster is trying to say.  Generally if I do that, I also follow that up with a reply that tries to elicit some clarification from the poster.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, moirakathleen said:

This had never occurred to when reacting to a post with an emoji.  Neither had using the laughing one to indicate scorn or derision.  When I do post a laughing reaction is is because the post actually made me laugh or smile, in a good way.   I never use it intentionally to indicate scorn or derision, and I hadn't realized that so many see it as a negative reaction. 

Likewise I used the confused emoji when I am confused and can't figure out what the poster is trying to say.  Generally if I do that, I also follow that up with a reply that tries to elicit some clarification from the poster.

My sense (and I'm not about to do formal survey, so it will have to remain impressionistic) is that most people employ emoji sympathetically and generously. That is to say, they use them to mirror or agree with a post, rather than critique it. They laugh at something intended to be funny, they use a heart to show at least partial approval, and they use a "sad" face to commiserate and show sympathy with something sad. The confused one is a bit weirder: it's not so obviously easy to employ in sympathy for a post. But it's also not a harsh response: it essentially just requests, as your use does, some additional information.

And, again, none of this is to suggest that we can't criticize or disagree with posts. But there are ways, and ways, of doing that.

[Blush Bravin]

I find that the confused and laugh emojis are often used to denote a negative response. I see it all too often. That's why I think we really need an emoji that is specifically used for a negative response, because as it is now the meaning of those two emojis is very ambiguous.

[MoiraKathleen]

5 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

My sense (and I'm not about to do formal survey, so it will have to remain impressionistic) is that most people employ emoji sympathetically and generously.

That is what I would hope, and had initially believed.  Reading this thread however, has made me wonder about that belief.  I may need to rethink my use of reacting to posts.

 

[Blush Bravin]

I actually find negative responses beneficial. I have on more than one occasion been part of one of those I'm right, no I'm right debates. It was the negative responses, both as written and emojis,  of some of those not involved that made me take a second look and ask myself why the heck am I letting that person get under my skin. So, even negative responses can have positive outcomes.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

So all the reactions are considered positive then?

My rep shows hundreds of reactions have been set and I had always interpreted a considerable percentage of the reactions in response to my posts as negative. 

Wow, I guess you all do love me after all.

 

[Rolig Loon]

34 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

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."

I think we are on roughly the same page, using the weasel word "roughly" because I think that the connotative meaning may not always be present -- at least not on both ends of the conversation.  Personally, I rarely think to use a laugh emoji to mean "and I also think your point is ridiculous and not worth the 30 seconds it might take to explain why."  As a result, I rarely read one aimed at me to have that meaning either. Call me naive or a bit thick. I understand, however, that many other people may have exactly that connotation in mind.  A  result, I hesitate to use freestanding emojis for fear that the recipient will read a pose of superiority where I never intended to send one. 

I can hear my mother's voice telling me either "Watch your mouth" or "Consider the source," depending on whether I was about to say something or about to hear it.  Even after all these years, she has a great inhibiting effect on me.  I don't think that she would have approved of emojis.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

4 hours ago, Drakonadrgora Darkfold said:

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.

I don't recall ever seeing the person make a post before, or at least nothing noteworthy, but they had started the thread to talk about the horrible thing that had happened to them inworld recently and they was here to demand an explanation and maybe even justice.

They finally got around to naming the horrible place they were tped to, a place that maybe mentally scarred them for life, and my first thought was to hit reply and say "omfg are you serious?", However, that would have crossed several forum rules, so i figured the best response was a laugh, because..... seriously?

However  I deleted the reaction, asked my question here,  and then reported their post as a forum violation, because the place mentioned was so disgusting and vile that someone else might have been traumatized just by reading the words they wrote.

I guess I can see that a pattern of "negative" reactions to one persons post could mayyybe considered harassment, but I'm pretty sure now that one scornful reaction would be safe.

Edited December 31, 2018 by BilliJo Aldrin
prefers gender neutral pronouns

[Rolig Loon]

8 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

So all the reactions are considered positive then?

Well, at least opportunities to rethink whatever you said to provoke the response.  When I toss a thought out there for someone else to read, I can't be sure whether someone reading it will catch what I meant to say, or will maybe see something that I never intended.  Any kind of feedback gives me a sanity check.  It tells me something about the other person and it tells me how my own words and emojis might appear.  Our exchange may be a conversation or a game of whack-a-mole.  Either way, we learn things about each other and ourselves if we listen carefully.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

19 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

I think we are on roughly the same page, using the weasel word "roughly" because I think that the connotative meaning may not always be present -- at least not on both ends of the conversation.  Personally, I rarely think to use a laugh emoji to mean "and I also think your point is ridiculous and not worth the 30 seconds it might take to explain why."  As a result, I rarely read one aimed at me to have that meaning either. Call me naive or a bit thick. I understand, however, that many other people may have exactly that connotation in mind.  A  result, I hesitate to use freestanding emojis for fear that the recipient will read a pose of superiority where I never intended to send one. 

I can hear my mother's voice telling me either "Watch your mouth" or "Consider the source," depending on whether I was about to say something or about to hear it.  Even after all these years, she has a great inhibiting effect on me.  I don't think that she would have approved of emojis.

Yes, I think we are coming at this from two slightly different angles, but are likely to end up in more or less the same place -- or at least close enough to it that you're probably not going to be tempted to respond to me with a laugh emoji.

And your mother? A very wise woman.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Blush Bravin]

1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said:

Our exchange may be a conversation or a game of whack-a-mole.

emphasis mine

Perfect description! This will help me to keep my fingers off the keys when I want to respond because someone has pushed my buttons. Thanks for that image.  

[Selene Gregoire]

[Rolig Loon]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

And your mother? A very wise woman.

Indeed.  She could have a sharp tongue, and she knew how to use it. I think she also understood that it could be a dangerous tool and that it could be turned against her. Of all the lessons she left me with, perhaps that was the most valuable one.

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

17 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I guess I can see that a pattern of "negative" reactions to one persons post could mayyybe considered harassment, but I'm pretty sure now that one scornful reaction would be safe.

2

They may or may not have even seen it as scornful so would have had no reason to worry about it. but it is really not just them you have to worry about; but the others here too and how they might have reacted to it. yet I think you are probably safe, considering which thread it probably was.

[Janet Voxel]

If you really want to get deep into it, we shouldn’t have positive or negative emojis at all. We definitely shouldn’t have negative ones because at best all it’s going to reinforce is that “someone doesn’t like you”. I put that in quotations because it’s all in your interpretation of the emoji. Which...when you think about it is kind of silly, because you’re in your feelings over what amounts to a sticker someone gave you.

The same goes for the positive ones. All they really do is reinforce a particular type of behavior, a certain kind of post...a certain mindset. Then you end up with a forum full of look at me posts. Just to get that little rush of endorphins you get from getting your daily fix of likes, people will go to some interesting lengths.

All that being said, I prefer them to a bunch of responses that just quote a post or just quote the post and just say This, which is a staple of many forums.

People are going to take things how they’re going to take them whether words or pictures or stickers are being used. The important thing is are they being used derisively by a person that has a history of saying rule breaking things. They’re just stickers.

[Selene Gregoire]

2 minutes ago, janetosilio said:

All that being said, I prefer them to a bunch of responses that just quote a post or just quote the post and just say This, which is a staple of many forums.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

3 minutes ago, janetosilio said:

you’re in your feelings over what amounts to a sticker someone gave you.

In RL, stickers can be thrown away, gotten rid of. You can't remove an emote someone else put on your posts.

6 minutes ago, janetosilio said:

People are going to take things how they’re going to take them

and there is nothing anyone can say or do that is ever going to change that. It's part of what makes us human.

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I suppose I can see an argument for the use of a laugh emoji as a sort of "response of last resort." I actually don't think that's the way it's most often used, however. For a few of the regular posters here (I'm sure you know whom I mean), it's almost invariably the first, and often only, response.

We've all reached points in an argument/discussion where there really doesn't seem much point in carrying on. In such cases, maybe ending on a derisive note is appropriate? Or maybe it just adds to the angst and dramaz.

Myself, at that point, I generally just walk away, more out of exhaustion than anything else.

It's helpful to remember that, when you are in an argument/discussion in a public forum, the audience is potentially more important than the opposition. I have made quite a few collateral friendships over three decades of public discussion, simply for my ability to exhaust an argument while staying civil. Ending on a derisive note is, at best, a pyrrhic victory.

When I feel the need to vent frustration over dealing with people like you, I step out onto my patio and curse the squirrels while feeding them dill flavored peanuts (which the little devils love).

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 hour ago, Rolig Loon said:

Call me naive or a bit thick.

Do you want me to do that here, or in IM? And can I call you both?

Edited December 31, 2018 by Madelaine McMasters

[Drakonadrgora Darkfold]

3 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

In RL, stickers can be thrown away, gotten rid of. You can't remove an emote someone else put on your posts.

and there is nothing anyone can say or do that is ever going to change that. It's part of what makes us human.

You cant remove the emote yourself, but a forum mod could if they thought it was inappropriate or abusively used.

Well, you can report the post then add in a reason for the report or you could go as far as copy the url and then open up a support case about it and complain and then leave it up to LL to deal with.

though this might not directly change the person that did it, they could be punished by the mods for doing it, which does, in fact, change it since they might not be able to post anymore at that point. Unless they went as far as to create an alt account just to come back to continue. I have seen even this sort of behavior on forums before in many video game forums.

[Rolig Loon]

11 minutes ago, janetosilio said:

The same goes for the positive ones. All they really do is reinforce a particular type of behavior, a certain kind of post...a certain mindset.

That's a good point.  Feedback of any type tends to reinforce norms.  Positive feedback tells other readers that at least someone thought the original post was "acceptable," and therefore worth emulating.  That's usually somewhere in my mind as I click the response emoji or receive one.  I'm usually a bit disappointed if I post a thought and nobody seems to even notice.  A positive emoji at least says, "Hi!  I read your note and find some merit in it."  It's not necessarily a ringing endorsement, but at least evidence that we are talking and listening to each other.

[Rolig Loon]

10 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

1 hour ago, Rolig Loon said:

Call me naive or a bit thick.

Do you want me to do that here, or in IM? And can I call you both?

Call me irresistable. Call me a cab.  Call me whatever you like.  You're still my friend.    << -- unambiguous emoji

Edited December 31, 2018 by Rolig Loon

[Madelaine McMasters]

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

My sense (and I'm not about to do formal survey, so it will have to remain impressionistic) is that most people employ emoji sympathetically and generously. That is to say, they use them to mirror or agree with a post, rather than critique it. They laugh at something intended to be funny, they use a heart to show at least partial approval, and they use a "sad" face to commiserate and show sympathy with something sad. The confused one is a bit weirder: it's not so obviously easy to employ in sympathy for a post. But it's also not a harsh response: it essentially just requests, as your use does, some additional information.

And, again, none of this is to suggest that we can't criticize or disagree with posts. But there are ways, and ways, of doing that.

"If you can't say something nice..."

We all experience the temptation to do otherwise. I notice when others succumb and expect they notice when I do. Remember, we are our own worst enemies.

[Janet Voxel]

10 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

In RL, stickers can be thrown away, gotten rid of. You can't remove an emote someone else put on your posts.

So how does an emoji effect your thoughts or feelings either way? The only thing they really do is make you feel validated, because they make you feel nice. That goes all the way back to primary school and getting a gold star. You get a gold star for writing neatly. Timmy, you don’t... it’s not that different.

Caring about being able to get rid of what someone thinks about your thoughts or opinions sounds to me like you only want to hear when someone agrees with you, which is why I said having positive ones can actually be a bad thing, because that’s often how they are used.