The forums are going in the wrong direction

[Rakosta_Kai]

For my part, I'm glad the dislike/laugh options got removed because to simply dis-like/lol a post was a cheap form of derision and players that wanted to farm for likes could just post one-liners that were simply mean or derisive without actually positing anything objective.

If a player disagreed with a poster's idea or stance they should constructively post specifically why and/or keep it moving to a different post and that didn't happen to the same degree of quality that it did before or since those features. 

[(PSN)FirmBizkit]

Up votes and reactions are stupid systems and encourage toxicity and attention seeking. That’s it. They exist on social media to drive engagement and therefore revenue; that’s it. They provide no benefit to you. They are a terrible tool to gauge sentiment.

Edited October 8, 2023 by (PSN)FirmBizkit

[0_The_F00l]

9 hours ago, MagPrime said:

From my point of view, keeping it simple helps people focus on the content and quality of the post over simply reacting and moving on.   It gives weight to the original post when people provide the effort and time to post a reply, even if it's monosyllabic, negative, positive or neutral.  

Hey there, been a while since we were in the same discussion i think :D

I also dont quite get this opinion of yours , if you are advocating for simplicity , then reactions are the simplest form of feedback.

You may choose to elaborate , but feedback can be either negative or positive or anything inbetween - i fail to see how limiting it is actually helping get proper feedback.

 

[Stafelund]

On 2023-10-05 at 11:29 PM, CrownOfShadows said:

Even Youtube removed their dislike indicator. There's actual good and healthy reasoning behind limiting negativity.

I think it needs to be balanced, and shouldn't be stifling, but you do have to counter negativity, because as a social phenomenon negativity travels faster than positivity. Notice how 99% of all forum posts are just pure negativity.

Youtube dislikes served good purpose though, and people can disable likes/dislikes on their channels anyways. It helps filter useless videos especially those "how to" videos that serve false information or information that's actually detrimental or dangerous to everyone. Filtering out negativity everywhere is just asking for problems, in the end.

Personally I'm fine with like/dislikes as long as they don't bury or silence the user like Reddit does. Their rating system needs to stop burying posts otherwise something like that should be abolished and never used again.

[SneakyErvin]

21 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

You seem to be going all over the place except what i am trying to get at,

I am glad you are , at the very least, questioning the existence of only having a "like" option and wouldn't mind if that was removed as well. I would rather have at least two options of like and dislike if i have to give a very brief opinion of something said. i would actually like more , maybe a scale from 1 to 5 depending on how much i agree or disagree with it and then explain why that is the case - after all you cant just have a binary opinion , it can be much more nuanced where you like some thing and dislike certain other things.

I am again not against the concept of being descriptive or being critical, i am against the concept of ONLY having the option to be descriptive for negative opinions towards a topic while having a quick reaction ON TOP OF being descriptive if you want to show a positive opinion.

I cant believe you do not understand this , its rather rudimentary.

 

Also Lets get to the basics of collecting information ,

Do you understand the concept of summarizing ? getting info at a glance? distilling the opinions into basic statistics?

DE has allowed you to summarize your opinion of a post for only one option. If you want to show anything except for a like of that opinion you need to type it out. something that takes time , adds word count , moves to later pages , can be lost in translation , can be misunderstood , can be poorly explained and then has to be sorted through by players manually.

This makes that opinion obscure. If you just clicked like / dislike , its on the first post , it is seen by everyone , you have a general understanding of what those that read it feel like. It is simpler for collecting statistics and getting a general temperature of the room.

 

If i have to put in extra effort to do one thing while i have to put in less effort to do the other, if both the options will result in equally valid outcomes , then i am being disincetivised not to do it. I am pretty sure you have the capability to understand that. And by extension i hope you can also understand that the point of the forums is to express opinions (resulting in discussion , arguments , feedbacks etc.).

So if the forums are nudging your opinions towards one direction , please let me know what you would call it if not soft censorship.

You say that bolded part then go on and ask me what I think of it as if that bolded part wasnt a thing already. I already answered you on it, the like button should go since it isnt more useful than a dislike version.

So I'll just touch the last line. How are they nudging us towards one direction? That is certainly not a thought through statement. Reason is because the like button is not only allowed to be used for positive feedback, you can like threads/post criticizing something just as much as you can like threads/post that praise. So not remotely close to censorship, since both sides need to go through the same thing if they dislike or disagree with something that is posted by the "other side". I'd suggest you take a bit longer to consider things in your head before posting them next time.

10 hours ago, (PSN)FirmBizkit said:

Up votes and reactions are stupid systems and encourage toxicity and attention seeking. That’s it. They exist on social media to drive engagement and therefore revenue; that’s it. They provide no benefit to you. They are a terrible tool to gauge sentiment.

I'd like to tip my hat and say well said, well said indeed!

Edited October 8, 2023 by SneakyErvin

[0_The_F00l]

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

So I'll just touch the last line. How are they nudging us towards one direction? That is certainly not a thought through statement. Reason is because the like button is not only allowed to be used for positive feedback, you can like threads/post criticizing something just as much as you can like threads/post that praise. So not remotely close to censorship, since both sides need to go through the same thing if they dislike or disagree with something that is posted by the "other side". I'd suggest you take a bit longer to consider things in your head before posting them next time.

And I recommend you read the other comments I posted in this thread to get clarity of what i mean . I explicitly mention exactly what you highlight.

If you are unwilling to read every single comment I made  then you are the prime example of the typical player not putting in the effort to read every comment in a thread as it explains very clearly my point of view and you should not need me to explain further.

[SneakyErvin]

1 minute ago, 0_The_F00l said:

And I recommend you read the other comments I posted in this thread to get clarity of what i mean . I explicitly mention exactly what you highlight.

If you are unwilling to read every single comment I made  then you are the prime example of the typical player not putting in the effort to read every comment in a thread as it explains very clearly my point of view and you should not need me to explain further.

But none of it would result in what you claim in the last line of your previous post. Even your comment regarding how DE wants to keep the forums as a fairlytale where everyone agrees wont realize your last claim to be true, since that in itself isnt true either. Since again it applies to both negative and positive post, both towards the game/DE and player to player interaction. And when there is only a like button there is only a like button so assuming likes are more common or the community better than others is not a valid or logical outlook, since there is nothing on the WF forums to compare to. There is no ratio to analyze.

Censorship would imply that one side would always have a far harder time to express itself, but here it comes to both the positive and the negative and it all depends which starting point the thread/post had. It promotes us to actually express our opinions for or against something even if "like" is the only reaction option. In a positive thread the negative side needs to express their thoughts, in a negative thread the positive side needs to express theirs. No censorship.

[0_The_F00l]

42 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

But none of it would result in what you claim in the last line of your previous post. Even your comment regarding how DE wants to keep the forums as a fairlytale where everyone agrees wont realize your last claim to be true, since that in itself isnt true either. Since again it applies to both negative and positive post, both towards the game/DE and player to player interaction. And when there is only a like button there is only a like button so assuming likes are more common or the community better than others is not a valid or logical outlook, since there is nothing on the WF forums to compare to. There is no ratio to analyze.

Censorship would imply that one side would always have a far harder time to express itself, but here it comes to both the positive and the negative and it all depends which starting point the thread/post had. It promotes us to actually express our opinions for or against something even if "like" is the only reaction option. In a positive thread the negative side needs to express their thoughts, in a negative thread the positive side needs to express theirs. No censorship.

Ah I think I see where the disconnect lies , you are of the opinion that when I say negative I mean the content of the thread.

I already explained that's not the case , again read the rest of what i wrote. 

When I say negative , I am specifically considering disagreement or opposition to opinions. The content of the post itself being negative or positive is irrelevant.

My whole premise is based on fair representation , The ease by which I can agree to something should be equal to the ease at which I can disagree to something.

[DrBorris]

This is nice theory and all, but it does not seem to represent the reality of the Forum's direction.

I've been here a few years, seen the tides slowly (and sometimes not slowly) change. There have been ups and downs, but generally I would say that the amount of critical thinking is lower, specifically negative assumptions are more common, people are less likely to process another's ideas, and the general "hive mind" has gotten stronger. At this exact moment, the Forums aren't at their lowest state. A few months back was a bit worse imo, but even threads like this that assume negativity is censored in an era when the Forums are more negative than ever are still running amuck.

 

This isn't the first time I've posted this example, sorry for being a broken record to who have seen it before, but I present to you...

Yes... that says 2013. Holy fudging butts I've been here for (almost) ten years now. But more importantly, look at that glorious discussion. While the use of writing a "complete" rework like this is questionable in its use to DE (arm-chair Dev'ing isn't good), it shows an extreme degree of effort and intention. Then it gets 49 pages of responses, many of which negative criticisms, that are most often well reasoned and explained. It is glorious, and I (naively) still try to hold my posts up to that standard (along with a few other folks around here).

Speaking of high effort, good-faith negative feedback...

This topic by Voltage a few months ago is basically this thread... but high effort (and a bit less pop psychology). There was some good discussion there, fairly strong points on the different sides, and in generally I think a good conversation all around. And look.... no censorship...

 

I can't think if a time when I saw properly written, good-faith negative feedback be "censored" just because it was negative. And as an extra hot-take, bad-faith negative feedback belongs only in the dumpster because it is useless (and potentially destructive) to everyone involved. Any time I see someone say "I was censored" the red flag is up. I have seen negative feedback be stifled through thread merging, but that is (in my opinion) a necessary evil and the mods (generally) have a good balance of allowing different threads to last for a few days (to allow proper discussion) before the merging. Oh, and sometimes originally good feedback gets derailed into useless dev basing, that sometimes censors criticism as well, but that's another lesser evil situation. I think there are some people here who have been around for as long as I have, they may have different opinions, but in my experience a little respect for the human beings that are trying their best to make a good game goes a long way when telling them that their design is bad.

 

This feels a bit off topic from "give me reactions," but some of the assumptions present were not fair in my opinion. So more on point, reactions aren't discussion. More importantly, reactions don't bump threads. A hundred dislikes and no comments means a topic is going to be seen by no one. This is part of why I believe negativity is a bit more common, people are more likely to comment negatively and bump a thread than they are to comment positively as they have an option to hit "like." Shorter, more poorly written threads are more likely to get bombarded with comments.

TL;DR: Only having positive reactions makes the Forums more negative.

Edited October 8, 2023 by DrBorris

[Zimzala]

20 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

So my point is not the actual content ,but the ease by which you can agree or disagree with it.

Yes, I get it as I said, you now have to exert more effort than you like and you are here to tell us the developers are doing you a disservice by removing what you think you are entitled to have at your disposal.

And as I said, "Oh, the Humanity!", because I am laughing at that idea, because that's some funny stuff.

It makes it even funnier for me that you try and make it some serious topic, like you have been personally slighted and must retort.

I am not 'defending' anything other than my right to laugh at the silly ideas other people have in their heads. 

I could not care less if any company chooses to add or subtract such things form their communication channels.

I am here to find humor in the posts trying to take game companies to task over crap like this, because it's absurd.

 

19 hours ago, (PSN)FrDiabloFr said:

I read fools comments and yours, to be honest your response seems to be cusping onto being rude for very little reason 

Yes, if you think stating that another's prose is bringing me joy in teh way of schadenfreude makes me rude, we are totally on the same page!

Glad I could get my point across so well!

[0_The_F00l]

35 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

Yes, I get it as I said, you now have to exert more effort than you like and you are here to tell us the developers are doing you a disservice by removing what you think you are entitled to have at your disposal.

And as I said, "Oh, the Humanity!", because I am laughing at that idea, because that's some funny stuff.

It makes it even funnier for me that you try and make it some serious topic, like you have been personally slighted and must retort.

I am not 'defending' anything other than my right to laugh at the silly ideas other people have in their heads. 

I could not care less if any company chooses to add or subtract such things form their communication channels.

I am here to find humor in the posts trying to take game companies to task over crap like this, because it's absurd.

Good for you mate. Happy to see you can realise it for what it is , absurdity in a comedy. But even comedy comes from a place of reasoning.

But clearly you care enough make this post. So you definitely could care less by ignoring it. So you are either wrong or lying to yourself.

But i doubt you will admit it , you know why ? Cause you believe you need to have the last word by ridiculing , admonishing or diminishing things when you realise you can't really get it and hoping the other person just gets tired enough.

I already said it , you are free to continue chewing on that leather if that makes you feel better but the only thing you will get out of it is blunted teeth. 

Edited October 8, 2023 by 0_The_F00l

[Rakosta_Kai]

1 hour ago, 0_The_F00l said:

My whole premise is based on fair representation , The ease by which I can agree to something should be equal to the ease at which I can disagree to something.

With respect, nothing is easier than electing to not respond if you don't align with a view.
Threads like that tend to fall to obscurity quickly in the forums.

If you don't align with the sentiment and can't be bothered to clearly assert why then simply don't post and keep it moving.

[0_The_F00l]

2 hours ago, Rakosta_Kai said:

With respect, nothing is easier than electing to not respond if you don't align with a view.
Threads like that tend to fall to obscurity quickly in the forums.

If you don't align with the sentiment and can't be bothered to clearly assert why then simply don't post and keep it moving.

Exactly my point.

Edited October 8, 2023 by 0_The_F00l

[Voltage]

1 hour ago, DrBorris said:

-snip-

I share the same sentiment.

I'm also flattered to be quoted next to the legend Zamboni :P

Edited October 8, 2023 by Voltage

[German]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb DrBorris:

TL;DR: Only having positive reactions makes the Forums more negative.

Thats an interesting point.

So I'm wondering if having positive and negative reactions would balance things out, I'm thinking maybe it might filter at least those out, that are just frustrated and spam threads with negative one-liners.

 

Also, I find the way steam does it with their reviews interesting (and not just steam)

You have the option to put a like or dislike on something but you have to elaborate. It gives people a good overview of how posts (especially by devs) are beeing received but also has people go into detail. Allthough this of course conflicts with my previous point.

[MagPrime]

11 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Hey there, been a while since we were in the same discussion i think :D

I also dont quite get this opinion of yours , if you are advocating for simplicity , then reactions are the simplest form of feedback.

You may choose to elaborate , but feedback can be either negative or positive or anything inbetween - i fail to see how limiting it is actually helping get proper feedback.

 

It has been a minute lol how have you been?

While you're correct that having reactions as the only form of response is probably the simplest method, it ignores the context of the Warframe Forums as DE has presented them.  DE wants interaction, they want people to articulate their agreements, disagreements or amendments.  Removing excess reactions means people are given a much simpler framework to operate in, reducing inarticulate responses, providing actual feedback & interaction.  

 

[Kaotyke]

3 hours ago, MagPrime said:

It has been a minute lol how have you been?

While you're correct that having reactions as the only form of response is probably the simplest method, it ignores the context of the Warframe Forums as DE has presented them.  DE wants interaction, they want people to articulate their agreements, disagreements or amendments.  Removing excess reactions means people are given a much simpler framework to operate in, reducing inarticulate responses, providing actual feedback & interaction.  

 

In other words they want us to... urgh! Want us to... ARGH! Want us to... Oh ##$&¨@...

Want us to... socialize.

[MagPrime]

1 minute ago, Kaotyke said:

In other words they want us to... urgh! Want us to... ARGH! Want us to... Oh ##$&¨@...

Want us to... socialize.

[0_The_F00l]

3 hours ago, MagPrime said:

It has been a minute lol how have you been?

While you're correct that having reactions as the only form of response is probably the simplest method, it ignores the context of the Warframe Forums as DE has presented them.  DE wants interaction, they want people to articulate their agreements, disagreements or amendments.  Removing excess reactions means people are given a much simpler framework to operate in, reducing inarticulate responses, providing actual feedback & interaction.  

 

Been ok , lots happening in real life. 

As to the topic, If they really want players to articulate then why have just the like option ? Does that not reduce the reasons to provide positive feedback and interactions ? Does that not also ignore the context?

Removing every reaction except like is not simpler , it is limited. It's the equivalent of being able to only take right turns on the road. If you need to take a left you need to stop your vehicle and have it towed by someone already going left or manually push it that way.

[(PSN)GEN-Son_17]

On 2023-10-05 at 2:41 PM, (PSN)robotwars7 said:

if you want to blame someone, blame the toxic people who misused their tools and disliked or mocked without providing anything constructive in return. that said, it's also more and more evident that nowadays, people just want to straight up ignore criticisms valid or otherwise: YouTube for example also got rid of dislikes on videos, and the problem with this environment is that, for lack of a better term, it can breed "snowflakes".

people shouldn't be toxic of course, but at the same time, people who are never exposed to constructive criticism remain under the illusion that whatever they are doing is ok and doesn't need to be changed or stopped in any way, and when someone actually confronts them about it, be it online or otherwise, they don't know how to react appropriately, and freak out and attack the other person as a result. 

I think this is true but only on a small scale compared to the level of toxicity that comes with forums. Constructive criticism is not as common as we want it to be, mainly because there's no "fun" involved. Honestly, I think a more common environment of constructive criticism would be overwhelmingly welcomed. 

[MagPrime]

3 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Been ok , lots happening in real life. 

As to the topic, If they really want players to articulate then why have just the like option ? Does that not reduce the reasons to provide positive feedback and interactions ? Does that not also ignore the context?

Removing every reaction except like is not simpler , it is limited. It's the equivalent of being able to only take right turns on the road. If you need to take a left you need to stop your vehicle and have it towed by someone already going left or manually push it that way.

I'm trying to track down the announcement of when they removed the reaction options but, it may be that they can't remove all reactions because of the providers restrictions.  

 

[(XBOX)C11H22O11]

8 minutes ago, MagPrime said:

I'm trying to track down the announcement of when they removed the reaction options but, it may be that they can't remove all reactions because of the providers restrictions.  

 

 

[(XBOX)sinamanthediva]

33 minutes ago, (PSN)GEN-Son_17 said:

Constructive criticism is not as common as we want it to be, mainly because there's no "fun" involved

Winner!  I think you hit the nail on the head with the no "fun" associated with Constructive Criticism, because sometimes a simple funny meme is all that is needed.  Sometimes the topics posted are pure trash and constructive criticism is just a waste of time when a  (good) meme can suffice.  TIME is something we all have to manage and coordinate through the chaos that life can throw at us, so sometimes a simple LIKE is all time someone has to offer to the conversation.  It's NOT about ego to like having "LIKES," it's more that it tells the person that others share the same opinion or that they support your ideas.   I can't imagine why anyone would want to be "Disliked" so it makes sense to not make it too easy to casually dismiss someone with a simple click.  I think it's generally not a bad thing to have people "like" something and usually it means others agree with you.   I do think the term Toxic is used too frequently and has lost the meaning and power behind its use.  Toxic should be relegated to those that are overtly demeaning and cruel and not be used against others who simply don't agree with your post.  Very few times have I encountered a truly toxic individual in the Warframe Forums. 

I agree with you that constructive criticism is always welcome and encouraged, but that would make the Forums less fun.  I think that humor can be effective at making your point and offer the Forums a little less stagnant and monotone experience.  I think we all could use a laugh occasionally being that life can be so oppressive at times.  I must say that even despite my squabbles I've had with some of the "Regulars" here on the Forums,  I still feel connected, in an odd but positive way, to everyone on the Forums as we all share the same passion for all things  Warframe.   Even when we disagree about the particulars of the game, we all still "Like" Warframe otherwise we would not be here. 

Have a pleasant tomorrow!

(Disclaimer: Nothing I mentioned was personally directed at you @GEN-Son_17  as your intellectual comment inspired me to post!)

tl:dr
I think a simple "Like" here and there, lets people know individuals, who might not have the time to commit to a written response, agree with your statement and it shows they support the game in general, simply by being here in the Forums.  Dislikes serve no Positive purpose and as such should not be available with such ease, as it won't explain your reasons for Disliking. It's like saying "I don't like it because I said so"

[(PSN)rexis12]

16 minutes ago, (XBOX)sinamanthediva said:

  I think you hit the nail on the head with the no "fun" associated with Constructive Criticism

Considering how often criticism of game unbalanced mechanics met with "lmao you just suck" from most of the community, I can see why there's no 'fun'.

[NecroPed]

On 2023-10-08 at 12:32 PM, Rakosta_Kai said:

For my part, I'm glad the dislike/laugh options got removed because to simply dis-like/lol a post was a cheap form of derision and players that wanted to farm for likes could just post one-liners that were simply mean or derisive without actually positing anything objective.

If a player disagreed with a poster's idea or stance they should constructively post specifically why and/or keep it moving to a different post and that didn't happen to the same degree of quality that it did before or since those features. 

I agree. I've even seen people argue that their opinion should be taken more seriously or holds more merit because they had x amount of total likes or whatever, but then if you went and looked at their posts and comments it was more in regards to off topic posts than even warframe related posts so it often literally held no merit to anything warframe related but was still seen that way, they were basically using their total likes as a ratio for every comment they made to say that it holds more merit than other peoples, but a lot of comments they made about warframe went without any likes or fell far below this ratio (while they also seem to forget that they started from 0 as well). And it fuelled the egos of many who really didn't need to be reinforcing their egos. 

I also just generally don't like the idea that someone is more deserving of a perspective just because they've already been well received in the past. Everyone can make mistakes, or have poor judgement, or forget about other perspectives, we shouldn't look at someones value as how many people might have agreed with them in the past (especially when it doesn't necessarily show how many people disagree, ratios of agree:disagree or anything really specific, let alone about the current topic) but look at what they're saying now. The likes and dislikes of other posts really shouldn't matter, what is being said about the current topic matters most, and I feel the way it is now promotes more discussion than simply agreeing/disagreeing or putting blind faith in people just because they hit particular like/dislike milestones, so is healthier in that regard.