Do you click?

[Paul Hexem]

39 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Actually, I think it would remove the oxygen from them fire.  Instead of a response (which may be a flame, but will certainly be expressing the disagreement) the poster only sees "nope, I disagree".  I think the latter would produce much less fire, ESPECIALLY if the initial poster got, say, 10 thumbs downs instead of one or two detailed "I don't  agree here's why".

If you can't articulate why you disagree without breaking the rules, I'd argue that you're worse than the person you're disagreeing with.

10 downvotes without responses? The poster gets to think "You're all just salty whiners that can't handle the truth".

One only needs to look at reddit to see how a dislike/downvote button can be abused. Even Blizzard removed the option from their forum entirely due to abuse. 

[Beth Macbain]

If we can't have a thumbs down reaction, at least give me something to use that quickly says, "I think you're full of crap but I'm also too tired/lazy/busy/not interested enough to argue with you right now." 

[Mollymews]

2 hours ago, janetosilio said:

Thumbs down/dislike reaction would be a really, really....reeeeeeally bad idea.

agree. I am not into negative emotes

if I was a forum owner I would have only 4 buttons

Heart - really like

Agree - i agree with this (even when I might not like it)

Acknowledge - i acknowledge what you said (even when I might disagree with it)

Thanks - thank you for what you said

 

emotes like Sad and Confused and Disagree I think are lazy responses when clicked and nothing else

when we are any of these then if want to make this known, on my forum (if I had one) then have to type a post expressing the sentiment, and/or also asking for clarification or further explanation

[kali Wylder]

I am a hap hazard clicker.  Sometimes I click everything I see, other times I don't click anything. I do try to click the posts that are replying to something I posted, but I don't always remember to.

[Beth Macbain]

2 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

motes like Sad and Confused and Disagree I think are lazy responses when clicked and nothing else

If anything that could be considered a negative response with no dialogue is going to be considered lazy, then so do positive emojis with no dialogue.

Clearly the only answer is to get rid of all the reactions. 

[Tolya Ugajin]

15 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

If you can't articulate why you disagree without breaking the rules, I'd argue that you're worse than the person you're disagreeing with.

10 downvotes without responses? The poster gets to think "You're all just salty whiners that can't handle the truth".

One only needs to look at reddit to see how a dislike/downvote button can be abused. Even Blizzard removed the option from their forum entirely due to abuse. 

Not sure where anyone referenced breaking the rules?  Besides, it's not the point.  This place is basically the SL equivalent of a workplace where nobody bothers to pick up the phone or walk over and talk to other people, instead sending emails back and forth ad nauseum.  That's how things spiral out of control - here or in a workplace. 

On your second line - exactly my point.  They think that, and the potential for the flame war with the 1-2 of those 10 who would otherwise have responded with a reply post is eliminated.

I don't frequent reddit or blizzard, but my limited understanding is that those are places where people take their up and down vote totals seriously and personally and their pathetic lives are affirmed of crushed by their perception of whether or not people like them and their silly posting of the trivialities of their existences.  From what I've seen here, most people at least claim they don't care about points and we don't seem to have paid "influencers" here, so I don't really see this as a valid comparison.

 

[Tolya Ugajin]

11 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

If we can't have a thumbs down reaction, at least give me something to use that quickly says, "I think you're full of crap but I'm also too tired/lazy/busy/not interested enough to argue with you right now." 

Sorry, we live in a world where you're not supposed to hurt anyone's precious little feelings by saying such things, even if only by an emoji.

[Mollymews]

2 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

If anything that could be considered a negative response with no dialogue is going to be considered lazy, then so do positive emojis with no dialogue.

Clearly the only answer is to get rid of all the reactions. 

depends on what we are wanting to achieve as a forum owner

when wanting a happyish community then make positive reinforcement simple and make negativity difficult

 

[Mollymews]

Just now, Tolya Ugajin said:

Sorry, we live in a world where you're not supposed to hurt anyone's precious little feelings by saying such things, even if only by an emoji.

on my forum (if I had one) you could say anything hurtful about anyone anytime you like.  I would just make you have to work for it

[Paul Hexem]

14 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

On your second line - exactly my point.  They think that, and the potential for the flame war with the 1-2 of those 10 who would otherwise have responded with a reply post is eliminated.

Then why have replies, or a forum, at all? If we're just going to spew our opinions with no rebuttals or feedback, we can do that with our profile feeds and comments disabled. 

[Beth Macbain]

17 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Sorry, we live in a world where you're not supposed to hurt anyone's precious little feelings by saying such things, even if only by an emoji.

Well, for two people who exist on completely opposite ends of the political spectrum, we certainly agree on that. 

[Janet Voxel]

See the problem here is this forum has a veneer of civility, but there’s a whole lot of passive-aggressive stuff going on, which to me is super obvious.

Thats why, you have people using reactions wrong.

If you disagree with someone disagree. Although, some people get overly dramatic when you disagree and some people just aren’t worth disagreeing with in a discussion because you’ll be going back and forth for a long time.

[Paul Hexem]

7 minutes ago, janetosilio said:

See the problem here is this forum has a veneer of civility, but there’s a whole lot of passive-aggressive stuff going on, which to me is super obvious.

Civility, even if fake, is underrated. Especially in modern times. 

[Tolya Ugajin]

17 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

Well, for two people who exist on completely opposite ends of the political spectrum, we certainly agree on that. 

Stop agreeing with me!  It hurts my snowflaky wingut feelings!

[Janet Voxel]

1 minute ago, Gadget Portal said:

Civility, even if fake, is underrated. Especially in modern times. 

I’m not sure I agree with that. There’s no need for fake civility and it’s pretty clear when it’s happening, even on the internet. How about actually being civil?
 

You can disagree with someone and still be respectful. You don’t have to like what someone said and still hear them. That is what is being lost in communication the “I hear you, but...”

[Tolya Ugajin]

19 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

Then why have replies, or a forum, at all? If we're just going to spew our opinions with no rebuttals or feedback, we can do that with our profile feeds and comments disabled. 

You're missing my point.  I wouldn't get rid of replies - I'd just add a simple "I don't like" to complement the "I like", which would give people the option to express disagreement without needing to reply, as a way to avoid flaming.

[MoiraKathleen]

4 hours ago, Pamela Galli said:

How much do you click the reaction buttons? What makes you click or abstain? 
 

ETA  If you could edit the buttons what would you do?
 

Except for a couple of picture threads, I don't click a reaction button for every comment I read. 

I am more likely to click 'like' when a comment really resonates with me.  If a comment basically says the same thing I would have said if I had posted a response, I will click the 'like' button rather than just saying the same thing in an additional comment.  Sometimes I will click 'like' to show support for a position in a comment.

I don't use the 'laugh' reaction very often, but when I do, it is because the comment actually made me laugh.

I use the 'thanks' one when I want to thank some one for what they posted, be it information or explanation that is really helpful and important, or because someone corrected or clarified information that I had posted, or because someone has complemented me.

I rarely use the 'sad' or 'confused'.  There have been a couple of threads where someone apparently wanted some type of help, but what they posted was so unclear that I did respond with 'confused' (and hopefully I followed that up with a comment about why I was confused, and question(s) to get clarification).   If I have used 'sad' before, it probably was used on a post that I would have rather used a 'hug' for. 

If I could edit the buttons, I would add a 'hugs' one.

[Pamela Galli]

2 minutes ago, moirakathleen said:

I would add a 'hugs' one

I would trade the sad one for a hug one. 

[Pamela Galli]

11 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

Civility, even if fake, is underrated. Especially in modern times. 

I would put it like this: you can get your point across — disapproval, disagreement, etc. —— and still be civil. Civility does not require either agreement or niceness. It does require not getting down in the gutter with insults and name calling. 
 

I confess I appreciate a well delivered, civil but pointed zinger.

[LittleMe Jewell]

There are too many people that enjoy arguing for the sake of argument.  Thus, I simply give a reaction and don't further engage.

[Paul Hexem]

11 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

You're missing my point.  I wouldn't get rid of replies - I'd just add a simple "I don't like" to complement the "I like", which would give people the option to express disagreement without needing to reply, as a way to avoid flaming.

I suspect I am, because it seems contradictory to me to say "I wouldn't get rid of replies, I'd just make it so people don't reply".

I'll also take a moment to expand upon my original point. I've always believed there's nothing wrong with being incorrect, mistaken, or even ignorant. Having someone helpfully and/or politely explain something can be a nice thing to experience. Simply clicking a negative button and moving on leaves that person with that incorrect information and they may even spread it to others.

[Beth Macbain]

I find that people who truly enjoy a good, heated back and forth debate are often labeled as people who enjoy arguing just for the sake of arguing. 

Untrue.

I love Taylor Swift and I'm not going to argue about what a goddess she is with someone else who also loves her and thinks she's a goddess. I will, however, debate until my last breath with someone who insults her for a contrived reason. Or I would have a couple weeks ago. These forums killed my fighting spirit and pretty much my will to live (as an avatar). 

I can hear you cheering.

[rasterscan]

2 minutes ago, Gadget Portal said:

.. there's nothing wrong with being .. ignorant. 

I have to disagree sowwy buddy.

[Amina Sopwith]

I was on a forum once where instead of reactions, you could rate comments from 0 to 3 and they'd get an average overall (think Reddit does something similar, but actually adds and deducts points rather than calculating averages?). It worked for a while. Comments that received an average of 0 after three or more ratings were classed as hidden, but in practice everyone had that feature turned off, so no comments really were hidden. Needless to say, the 0 rating got abused to hell and back; people even invented bots that would automatically 0 all comments by any given poster. 1-3 rating averages could work, though, maybe.

 

[Maryanne Solo]

Thrown into notes for age appropriate students from time to time, usually regarding bad life choices: (gang membership, consumables, excessive risk taking).

Edited January 28, 2020 by Maryanne Solo