Remove Thumbsdown & Confused

[Troo]

How's the old saying go? If we don't have something nice to say we shouldn't say anything at all.

 

Thumbsdown & Confused are at times being used in a way that is more aggressive than probably intended.

 

Would this make for a nicer forums.. maybe, maybe not. But at least folks would need to articulate their disapproval and could be held accountable for any actual harassment.

[Glacier Peak]

4 minutes ago, Troo said:

How's the old saying go? If we don't have something nice to say we shouldn't say anything at all.

 

Thumbsdown & Confused are at times being used in a way that is more aggressive than probably intended.

 

Would this make for a nicer forums.. maybe, maybe not. But at least folks would need to articulate their disapproval and could be held accountable for any actual harassment.

I want to show my disapproval and confusion of this suggestion, but it would be ironic using a Thumbs Down or Confused reaction. 😕 

[Rudra]

The problem with  "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all" is that too often simply disagreeing with a post is taken as saying something not nice. Emotes/emojis are going to be used however people want. The aggressiveness or lack thereof with any emoji is highly subjective. Just like the aggressiveness or lack thereof when someone tries to explain their support for or opposition to any given post. I'm against the OP. Even in the feedback rules provided for the forum, we are told we can disagree with a post and not have to give a reason for it. I would prefer the reason be given, it makes it more feasible for me to understand where another is coming from, but still does not mean it is required.

 

Let people have the thumbs down and confused emojis. Feedback should not be limited to thumbs up I agree or silence (which more signals lack of concern/interest than disagreement).

[Ruin Mage]

Give me a knife reaction instead and I'll agree to this idea.

[Coyotedancer]

<_<

 

>_>

 

I want a pitchfork.

 

 

[Cancrusher]

Don't necessarily want to remove any of the emojis, but it does personally annoy me when someone thumbs down without any context, particularly on in-depth posts making multiple points.  Which parts are you thumbs-downing?  Some of it?  All of it?  Just feeling negative today?  Beyond the initial feeling of annoyance I have when I see them, I typically ignore a thumbs-down without any additional context.  It provides no useful information.

 

Confusion has legitimate use (theoretically), but I most often see it used in response to a comment that is perfectly easy to understand for anyone that doesn't have English as a second language.  So, what is the explanation for why the emoji was used?  IMO, it's one of 3 things:

 

1)  English is not the confused person's native tongue.

2)  They are generally confused (highly unlikely, in about 98% of the cases where the emoji is used, unless the reader is an imbecile.  I think most readers here, regardless of their position on a particular topic, are not imbeciles).

3)  They don't like the stated opinion and/or suggestion of the person they are replying to, but either don't have a legitimate rebuttal, or are too lazy to articulate their opposition to said comment, so they gaslight by pretending that they don't understand what is being said.

 

I think scenario #1 happens on occasion, scenario #2 happens almost never, and scenario #3 is the explanation most of the time.

 

Just my opinion, for what it's worth, which is probably nothing, I suppose... still, it made me feel better to get it off my chest.  🤷‍♂️

[Greycat]

4 hours ago, Troo said:

How's the old saying go? If we don't have something nice to say we shouldn't say anything at all.

 

 

Flip side of this is that they can be a good way to just indicate disagreement without wanting to get into an argument, which is how I'll often use them.

 

Of course, I'm well aware of, and have been the recipient of, what just looks like snipey, "oh yeah well here's one for you then!" - but, eh, if someone's trying to annoy me with that, they're barking up the wrong tree, wrong forest, wrong continent.

 

[Troo]

5 minutes ago, Greycat said:

Flip side of this is that they can be a good way to just indicate disagreement without wanting to get into an argument, which is how I'll often use them.

 

I totally wish this is how it was being used.

 

Unfortunately I see new folks or folks with lower post counts often getting pilied on from the same groups of like minded players.

Edited October 10, 2022 by Troo

[Rudra]

*looks at @Troo's emoji response to my previous post* See? They serve a purpose.

[Troo]

I'm glad you picked up on the intended irony.

[ScarySai]

I think if I hate what you say, my thumbs down is just as valid as any thumbs up.

 

Kinda miss that from YouTube and say, the Blizzard forums, really.

[PeregrineFalcon]

On 10/9/2022 at 4:56 PM, Greycat said:

Flip side of this is that they can be a good way to just indicate disagreement without wanting to get into an argument, which is how I'll often use them.

Ya know, it's funny that you say that. Cause that's exactly what I used to use this for:

 

 

But ya'll freaked out about that. So now you want to remove the thumbs down cause your fee-fees might get hurt. Seriously? How long until I'm just not allowed to disagree with anything anyone says?

 

 

[Excraft]

57 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

Seriously? How long until I'm just not allowed to disagree with anything anyone says?

 

That's what's coming.  Can't say I'm surprised either.

[Troo]

  lol

 

  at this rate I'm never gonna make it to 200 much less my goal. such weaksauce.

[Troo]

Appreciated @agentx5, thank you. We'll get there.

[biostem]

The more fundamental question here is whether we want to permit people to respond to posts without having to give an in-depth explanation or justification behind their reaction - if we are being charitable and assume everyone has good intentions, then we can assume that someone responding to you has given some thought about a post and reacted accordingly.  OTOH, there's the notion that someone might downvote a post simply because they don't like the author.  How do you reconcile a desire for free & open communication with minimizing toxicity?  it's no easy task...

[PeregrineFalcon]

6 minutes ago, biostem said:

The more fundamental question here is whether we want to permit people to respond to posts without having to give an in-depth explanation or justification behind their reaction...

The problem with that line of thought is that you don't have any way to control that.

 

I can respond to a post with a simple "No." And if you institute a minimum post length then I can always respond with "I disagree highly with the thoughts expressed in this post. I would really hate to see this instituted into the game. In short, no."

 

The best way to "minimum toxicity", as you put it, is to allow people to just put a thumbs down on a post that they don't like. You see, it's a lot easier than you think.

[battlewraith]

On 10/9/2022 at 3:12 PM, Troo said:

Would this make for a nicer forums.. maybe, maybe not. But at least folks would need to articulate their disapproval and could be held accountable for any actual harassment.

 

I'm going to say most people here don't want a nicer forum. They want a cure for their boredom and that often entails winning an argument. If you can't win the argument, or you simply don't want to make an effort, you go for the next best thing which is garnering approval from other people--that might entail getting emojis (primarily thumbs up or thumbs down) or applying emojis in consensus with the group. So you were included in showing your approval or disapproval of some thing with the rest of the club.

 

People generally want drama and want to harass the people they disagree with--as long as the harassment is socially accepted (ie the rules allow for it, regardless of how someone may actually take it). It's only seen as a problem when there isn't a strong consensus on the thing being discussed. Then you might jump in on the dogpile but suddenly find yourself on the bottom. Oooops! When that type of situations boils over, people will start wringing their hands about toxicity on the forums and a peacemaker like Flea will swoop in and try to smooth things over with weaponized pleasant vibes. Then after things have cooled down somewhat, someone will write some satirical take on the whole situation to help people orient themselves again to what is the norm.

[Luminara]

On 10/9/2022 at 4:12 PM, Troo said:

How's the old saying go? If we don't have something nice to say we shouldn't say anything at all.

 

That adage is applied when speaking about a person, a reminder that it's discourteous to bad-mouth someone behind his/her back.  It does not mean, "Agree with me or keep your mouth shut".

[Grouchybeast]

12 hours ago, biostem said:

The more fundamental question here is whether we want to permit people to respond to posts without having to give an in-depth explanation or justification behind their reaction

 

If anything, let's have more of that.

[UltraAlt]

1 hour ago, Grouchybeast said:

If anything, let's have more of that.

 

The thumbsdown is a lazy /jranger.

Less typing involved. Just a button click.

 

 

"/jranger is a meme meaning no. JRanger was a poster on the Official City of Heroes/ Villains forum who would reply to ideas on the Suggestions and Ideas forum by only stating "no" without further explanation.

Instead of saying "no", users started replying to posts by simply saying "/jranger" instead (the first instance being Memphis_Bill 9/21/07, since deleted). Both actions were ultimately made actionable and "bannable" by Ex Libris [1]. Although it ultimately led to JRanger being banned from the Official City of Heroes/ Villains forum, the usage still sees some use on the PWNZ forums and at least once by a developer[2] after this rule was placed." - https://cityofheroes.fandom.com/wiki//jranger

[Doc_Scorpion]

15 hours ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I can respond to a post with a simple "No." And if you institute a minimum post length then I can always respond with "I disagree highly with the thoughts expressed in this post. I would really hate to see this instituted into the game. In short, no."

I think it was the old Live forums...  But I've been on forums where there was a 10 character minimum post length.   And you saw exactly that - "I agree, ten characters worth."

[agentx5]

17 hours ago, biostem said:

The more fundamental question here is whether we want to permit people to respond to posts without having to give an in-depth explanation or justification behind their reaction - if we are being charitable and assume everyone has good intentions, then we can assume that someone responding to you has given some thought about a post and reacted accordingly.  OTOH, there's the notion that someone might downvote a post simply because they don't like the author.  How do you reconcile a desire for free & open communication with minimizing toxicity?  it's no easy task...

 

And this is why I don't agree with censorship

 

"Better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"

 

Truth be told, you can't actually control what people say or do; you can only influence. 

 

So the goal should be re-worded on how one could to positively influence those around themselves. Don't underestimate the power of influence, because as other quote I love goes:

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups"

 

The #1 rule (and arguably the only real rule) of a particular gaming community I've been a part of since 2009 (which is a long time for one online community across multiple games) is simply to treat other individuals with respect.  We can tease or troll each other from time to time for humor's sake, but at the same time we've always had each other's back (especially when it come to IRL issues). It becomes harassment and uncool if it crosses that line of blatant disrespect, and that is not tolerated no matter who it is.  Open communication is key here, such as verbalizing somebody feels when something has crossed the line into a personal attack one's character rather than their opinions or actions. And let me be clear this group even includes a some individuals people who started our with racist/sexist/agist/whatever-ist viewpoints but have had their opinions challenged and fundamentally changed by leaning about and becoming friends with a person who they didn't even realize was part of the "other" group they thought they despised.  This is actually a feat a well managed online community that is run on principles of mutual respect (teasing allowed, as long as it's not a personal attack), practically no censorship, and plenty of time spend playing as a team in a variety of game.  In fact, this "XMod" / Sector-Thirteen group Is how I found out about CoH HomeComing in the first place in 2019.

 

I guess to summarize all that, the best antidote for toxicity in online communities is not to censor (word filters, removing thumbs down buttons, etc) but rather to be a good influencer and not allow personal attacks (which cross that line of disrespect).  It is completely ok to disagree, and no I do not feel anyone is "owed" and explanation.

 

PS: I'm calling myself a fool though because I can't help sharing my 2 cents some times 😅 lol

[agentx5]

18 hours ago, Troo said:

Appreciated @agentx5, thank you. We'll get there.

 

Sure thing!  Feel to free to thumb me up or down anytime-- wait... that sounds bad.

 

ROFL

 

 

PS: Am I blind looking at this on my smartphone, or did somebody hide or delete my post?  🤨

Heck, maybe I mis-clicked/mis-tapped something and did it

[Blood Speaker]

On 10/9/2022 at 2:28 PM, Coyotedancer said:

I want a pitchfork.

 

Then we'd need a torch.