The forums are going in the wrong direction

[NecroPed]

8 hours ago, Voltage said:

There was a period of time where I was periodically approached with the assumption I work at DE. Quite the time. It still happens every once in a while but definitely not as often as before.

I usually only get a few likes here and there averaging out to about 1:1 posts:likes and I still even get this, I think it's partly because of how I type too though. And I think you do that better than I do and more consistently, with the effort one would normally expect from a company (sometimes even more effort one might expect), so that might have something to do with it too. 

[0_The_F00l]

2 hours ago, Rakosta_Kai said:

This is precisely why we don't need dislike or emoticon options back and why your definition of censoring is inherently flawed in this instance.

You had the option of posting this experience much earlier on as a means of lending credence to your stance but instead opted to simply call what someone else posited as "rubbish"

Nothing about such a tactic is valuable—It's argumentative merely for the sake of argument itself.
Much like implying someone didn't read when they clearly had, or didn't understand your use of a word when they, again, clearly had.

Ostensibly, based on your behavior in just this thread, I'm of the opinion that you want the dislike and emoticons back merely for the sake of having the option to be both derisive and lazy simultaneously. 

My advice? Pick one.
 

I am not sure I understand , you are unhappy that i voiced my opinions in the ways made available to me ? 

And you are not wanting to give me other venues to do so ? 

While you are arguing based on one statement , taken out of context where I have already clarified what the intent was to the person it wa made to ?

Are you sure I am the one being argumentative and you are not just being defensive for things not even directed towards you for some odd reason ?

But i do enjoy having to put in less effort to gain similar results if possible , i assume most people would like that ,but i prefer to use words which better express my derision. So if I am given a dislike option I will actually be less derisive.

5 hours ago, (XBOX)sinamanthediva said:

I agree with your concept that because of the limitation of only allowing "Likes" is a minor form of censorship, but we are still allowed to voice our discontent,  just not with the ease of a "click."  I don't have a problem with making people put the extra effort into "Disliking" a particular topic, because it generally requires some thought process to proceed, which hopefully stimulates a logical reason for the "Dislike."  It has already been established due to humans being humans, that there was an abuse of the Dislike button which was producing a more negative than positive tone to the Forums thus the Dislike button was removed to minimize this from happening.  Just because someone has to literally read and count the dislikes of a particular topic doesn't qualify as true "censorship," it only makes it inconvenient.   In essence we were the reason the censoring of the Dislike button occurred, thus we censored ourselves in a way.  I don't feel the loss of the Dislike button is a worthy of a "1984" or "Fahrenheit 451" dystopian level of concern. 

Have a pleasant tomorrow!

That is why I keep referring to it as "soft censorship" , it is made inconvenient to give an appearance of cordiality.

I also think you have mixed up your genres mate , I meant "pseudo utopian" not dystopian. Brave New World is the better example.

And how dare you tell me to have a pleasant tomorrow! May you have an even more pleasant tomorrow!

[SneakyErvin]

22 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Does it not ? I wish to analyse how players feel about a particular opinion , I cannot do that when there is only one way to show dislike and more than one way to show agreement with it. 

I cannot say things like "oh this post has a lot of people agreeing as compared to disagreeing " as there are two different parameters to measure , the number of likes vs number of possibly individual comments which need to be read individually to be understood are a terrible indicator.

I also fail to see how it is censoring to have more choices to represent opinions.

Yes you can when those reactions dont mean anything in the first place for statistics in this case since this is not a census board where only a single topic or angle is presented in relation to the reaction given. Like I said, look at your own post where there are both parts to agree and disagree with, or like and dislike. And you managed that with barely a handful of sentences.

Which would apply just the same with likes/dislikes/agree/disagree since again a post doesnt only talk about a singular thing you can sum up with either of the 4 mentioned reactions. You'd still need to read it just as much in either case if calculating statistics is your honest angle, which I highly doubt at this point. Since you dont seem to give a single care about actual statistic, it seems more like a shift you made when you found what else the word (with a compeltely different meaning compared to how you've used it) could mean.

It uhm isnt for the type of censoring that refers to opinions and expressing yourself. For statistics it is however, since it makes things more vague and innacurate due to lack of specifics.

22 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

What do you mean " like this " I don't recollect many other posts highlighting the limitations of the number of reactions available or their impact on a person's reputation .

"Like this" as is the part I quoted from you, which is not about statistic, but the other use of censoring i.e politically enforced limitations on "free speech" etc.

22 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

How so ? Would political opinions not also have a statistical aspect to it ?

Of course they would, but those are messured through the thing you claim to refer to, while you use the other meaning all over this board. The meaning that has nothing to do with statistic but with supressing the people by limiting what they can express.

"Which party did you vote for in the recent election?" = Part of/can be statistical censoring. Accuracy depends on follow up questions such as age, income, which area you live, occupation etc. Accuracy also depends on how a survey is sent out, if the system might ignore individuals over a certain age, of a certain sex, the unemployed, those of a specific profession etc. even if the survey isnt ment to ignore or specifically target any part of the population.

You're not allowed to criticize the ruling party/person = Political censoring.

You are not allowed to have party meatings = Political censoring.

Movies/TV-shows are not allowed to show nudity or sexual scenes = Censoring, can be ideological, based on politics or religion.

Movies/TV-shows have gore and blood removed or reduced = Censoring. Warframe has this with gore, or atleast had, in certain regions of the world. Fortnite was censored in China and the skin suit zombies were instead designed as demons over there. Same applied to Diablo Immortal with certain undead monsters. This due to cultural relations towards death and the dead.

The word #*!% gets bleeped in TV-shows = Censoring

PMRC and the Washington Wives tried to censor music in the 80's. They failed thankfully and only achieved to have the "parental advice" sticker bullS#&$ added to the packs.

22 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

If you check the context You will see why i made the comment.

But you've talked about that type of censorship since the beginning. You didnt try to shake that angle until recently. Or did I miss where you were talking statistics?

In the end though, if you are into statistics you should be happy as many reactions as possible are removed so you can get an accurate reading when you compare and compile your data gathered here.

[Rakosta_Kai]

 

4 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

I am not sure I understand , you are unhappy that i voiced my opinions in the ways made available to me ? 

I am sure that you do understand— To that point, I have no feeling on your behavior other than objective observation.
 

4 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

And you are not wanting to give me other venues to do so ? 

You don't require an additional venue to be both lazy and derisive as that isn't productive. That's rather the takeaway from this thread entirely and why DE removed those features.
 

4 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

While you are arguing based on one statement , taken out of context where I have already clarified what the intent was to the person it wa made to ?

Allow me to pull a page out of your book in this thread and note that if you were reading carefully, you'd know I didn't reference one statement—I referenced three...

 

4 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Are you sure I am the one being argumentative and you are not just being defensive for things not even directed towards you for some odd reason ?

I merely point out the flaws in what you've asked for as evidenced by the manner in which you have behaved just in this thread.
My assessment of your behavior isn't actually up for debate, those receipts are littered through this thread unless you've gone on a post deletion spree, so I don't see what there is to argue on that matter. 
Sorry Tenno, the Rubber/Glue argument falls flat in this case.
 

4 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

But i do enjoy having to put in less effort to gain similar results if possible , i assume most people would like that ,but i prefer to use words which better express my derision. So if I am given a dislike option I will actually be less derisive.

"I like being a bad guy so if you make it easier for me to do that you'll see me be a bad guy less.".

I can't remember the name of the show but I remember it being a Stephen King mini-series where the bad guy constantly says, "Give me what I want and I will go away"

That is, literally, how your comment strikes me...

[Aruquae]

Not to mention some discussions getting merged with other topics with the BARE MINIMUM of similarities. It’s like shadowing the topic, knowing full well you won’t be able to find it. 

[0_The_F00l]

2 hours ago, Rakosta_Kai said:

I am sure that you do understand— To that point, I have no feeling on your behavior other than objective observation.

I enjoy objective observations , they can be explained in a relatively concise, factual and logical method. I am assuming the actual observation is noted later.

2 hours ago, Rakosta_Kai said:

You don't require an additional venue to be both lazy and derisive as that isn't productive. That's rather the takeaway from this thread entirely and why DE removed those features

And yet despite all that here i am , being atlest one of them according to you (which i disagree with) , so DE have failed in their attempt to curtail it and made the whole thing pointless then? Also ,are you serious about being productive? you think you arguing with me or anyone supporting the inability to show more reactions on a game forum is being productive? you need to re evaluate the value of your time if that is what you think.

2 hours ago, Rakosta_Kai said:

allow me to pull a page out of your book in this thread and note that if you were reading carefully, you'd know I didn't reference one statement—I referenced three...

And allow me to use the powers to technology to take a screenshot.

https://imgur.com/zEdojai

So you quote one statement of mine ,then go on a rant cause you are offended - despite not even being the subject of the statement and i am the lazy derisive person? you might want to check on that, I already explained it was my assumption that the function of the forum was common knowledge amongst users , clearly i was wrong in that assumption. Also something i highlighted.

3 hours ago, Rakosta_Kai said:

I merely point out the flaws in what you've asked for as evidenced by the manner in which you have behaved just in this thread.

My assessment of your behavior isn't actually up for debate, those receipts are littered through this thread unless you've gone on a post deletion spree, so I don't see what there is to argue on that matter. 
Sorry Tenno, the Rubber/Glue argument falls flat in this case.

Oh thank god my behaviour is not being debated by you it means so much to me :D , i am sure it also means quite a bit to the maybe 3 people still following this thread now that its reached page 5. Also not sure what flaw and what evidence you mean outside your own presumptions of how rubber and glue are supposed to work.

i genuinely have no idea what you have a problem with,

3 hours ago, Rakosta_Kai said:

"I like being a bad guy so if you make it easier for me to do that you'll see me be a bad guy less.".

I can't remember the name of the show but I remember it being a Stephen King mini-series where the bad guy constantly says, "Give me what I want and I will go away"

That is, literally, how your comment strikes me...

Thats unfortunate , cause being disagreeable is not the same as being "the bad guy" . If you cant see past that i don't thing there is much of a quality discussion to be had as any disagreements will be seen as bad by you.

 

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Yes you can when those reactions dont mean anything in the first place for statistics in this case since this is not a census board where only a single topic or angle is presented in relation to the reaction given. Like I said, look at your own post where there are both parts to agree and disagree with, or like and dislike. And you managed that with barely a handful of sentences.

Which would apply just the same with likes/dislikes/agree/disagree since again a post doesnt only talk about a singular thing you can sum up with either of the 4 mentioned reactions. You'd still need to read it just as much in either case if calculating statistics is your honest angle, which I highly doubt at this point. Since you dont seem to give a single care about actual statistic, it seems more like a shift you made when you found what else the word (with a compeltely different meaning compared to how you've used it) could mean.

It uhm isnt for the type of censoring that refers to opinions and expressing yourself. For statistics it is however, since it makes things more vague and innacurate due to lack of specifics.

Of course they matter , they quite literally show your agreement of a post, It simply answers the question "how many players that read this post agree with it strongly enough to show their support for it without needing words?" Its a quick reasonably accurate and easily notable statistic. The same would have been true for the other reactions if they existed.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

"Like this" as is the part I quoted from you, which is not about statistic, but the other use of censoring i.e politically enforced limitations on "free speech" etc.

Are you saying you have full freedom to say what you want on the forums ? of course the forum is censored , the whole game is , some of it is reasonable and some is utterly pointless. Censoring by itelf isnt a good or bad things , its application needs to be checked.

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Of course they would, but those are messured through the thing you claim to refer to, while you use the other meaning all over this board. The meaning that has nothing to do with statistic but with supressing the people by limiting what they can express.

"Which party did you vote for in the recent election?" = Part of/can be statistical censoring. Accuracy depends on follow up questions such as age, income, which area you live, occupation etc. Accuracy also depends on how a survey is sent out, if the system might ignore individuals over a certain age, of a certain sex, the unemployed, those of a specific profession etc. even if the survey isnt ment to ignore or specifically target any part of the population.

You're not allowed to criticize the ruling party/person = Political censoring.

You are not allowed to have party meatings = Political censoring.

Movies/TV-shows are not allowed to show nudity or sexual scenes = Censoring, can be ideological, based on politics or religion.

Movies/TV-shows have gore and blood removed or reduced = Censoring. Warframe has this with gore, or atleast had, in certain regions of the world. Fortnite was censored in China and the skin suit zombies were instead designed as demons over there. Same applied to Diablo Immortal with certain undead monsters. This due to cultural relations towards death and the dead.

The word #*!% gets bleeped in TV-shows = Censoring

PMRC and the Washington Wives tried to censor music in the 80's. They failed thankfully and only achieved to have the "parental advice" sticker bullS#&$ added to the packs.

I have no clue who the PMRC is and what their alliance with the Washington wives resulted in (though now i am curious and will search for that later) ,

But yes you have articulated the different censoring well enough , and i say that both exists on the forums.

There are already a limited number of players that visit the forums , of which there are already a limited number that read beyond the first page , of which there are even more limited players that actually have an inclination to respond in anyway, and of that there are even more limited players that have the language skills to explain themselves clearly , of which even fewer have the time to actually type all of their thoughts , of which there are even fewer that follow up on the conversations. So there is already significant skewing of the type of players.

 

 

[Rakosta_Kai]

43 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

And yet despite all that here i am , being atlest one of them according to you (which i disagree with)

Since we can agree that "lazy" isn't actually an option as its' the thing DE removed and what you just so happen to be requesting with the return of those forum features, we are left with  "derisive" which you've already agreed to.

How can you both admit to being derisive and assert you don't agree with the descriptor?

 

50 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

So you quote one statement of mine ,then go on a rant cause you are offended - despite not even being the subject of the statement and i am the lazy derisive person? you might want to check on that, I already explained it was my assumption that the function of the forum was common knowledge amongst users , clearly i was wrong in that assumption. Also something i highlighted.

I'll kindly remind you, again, that I didn't quote one.  I quoted three. You even screenshot all three of them...
Since I am being redundant here, I guess it bears reminding you of your commentary on reading posts as well...

I realize how inconvenient it can be to have these aspects in your approach pointed out to you and would also note that all I've done is hand you the same treatment you gave others in this thread with precisely the same tools you used.

If they bother you then perhaps re-think using them on others in the future. 😀

Have a good day!

[0_The_F00l]

1 hour ago, Rakosta_Kai said:

Since we can agree that "lazy" isn't actually an option as its' the thing DE removed and what you just so happen to be requesting with the return of those forum features, we are left with  "derisive" which you've already agreed to.

How can you both admit to being derisive and assert you don't agree with the descriptor?

I think your comprehensions skills need some improvement (or I am not explaining myself clearly enough) along with you ability to only take bits and pieces out of a discussion.

My exact word were "I prefer to use words which better express my derision. So if I am given a dislike option I will actually be less derisive".

Being able to express my derision through words is not the same as being a derisive person.

1 hour ago, Rakosta_Kai said:

I'll kindly remind you, again, that I didn't quote one.  I quoted three. You even screenshot all three of them...

Since I am being redundant here, I guess it bears reminding you of your commentary on reading posts as well...

I realize how inconvenient it can be to have these aspects in your approach pointed out to you and would also note that all I've done is hand you the same treatment you gave others in this thread with precisely the same tools you used.

If they bother you then perhaps re-think using them on others in the future. 😀

Have a good day!

You quoted , out of a whole discussion ,whatever you could use to have an argument with me ,

you ignored most of the content actually about the topic ,

You specifically focused to me personally , and now are telling me you did that to , what ? Teach me some lesson ? 

This is just absolutely ridiculous , you are telling me you have the time , energy and vindictiveness to do all that just to spite me ? 

Hah , congratulations you just proved the point that I am making.

[Qriist]

On 2023-10-05 at 5:36 PM, (PSN)Unstar said:

"Dislike" buttons cause problems because they express something incredibly vague.  "You said something I disagree with."  But which part(s)?  And why?  It's impossible to tell whether 5 "dislikes" means that 5 people see a compelling counter-perspective to your comment or that 5 people have dumb ideas.  Because of this, "dislikes" actually get robbed of any meaning they could possibly have and just become negative noise, a distraction.

Thankfully, the forum provides the ability to "dislike" in a much more productive way: if you scroll down a bit, it's incredibly unlikely that someone else hasn't already written a counter-post.  If you agree with that counter-post, "like" it.  Now not only have you left your "dislike", but it actually expresses context, and thus has value to the discourse.

And in the rare situation where you can't find a counter-post that you agree with, you have 2 options:

1. Take the time to write your own so the discourse can move in a positive direction.
2. Take 20 seconds to make a new post saying, "I disagree".  There, you made your own "dislike" button.

I fully agree that people should elaborate on why they dissent, which is why I'm about to elaborate on why I dissent with your view.

Politics.

The various dislike features should be restored because of politics.

Not national policy, mind you, but mundane, forum level interpersonal relationships. 

Dissenting views are often nuked from orbit by community moderators (or perhaps even DE admin) which can lead later thread viewers to come away with the false impression that there's some gleaming consensus. Moreover, there's no real recourse against this kind of power abuse. This has a chilling effect on people expressing their views.

Dislike buttons aren't perfect, but they have a unique advantage of being embedded in the post you're dissenting against. This makes removing or altering dislike counts much more resistant to mod abuse specifically because (presumably) nobody can change them without directly accessing the database. That's not to say it can't happen (for example, Reddit's former CEO was caught directly editing comments in the database) but it significantly tightens up the group of people who might be able to do it.

People should definitely be encouraged to spell out why they don't like something, but there should also be ways to indelibly imprint your view into the discussion without being overly susceptible to censorship. I believe dislike buttons strike a fine balance in that regard.

 

 

On 2023-10-08 at 1:00 PM, 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"

Dissenting views often get removed, even when respectfully presented.

[(XBOX)C11H22O11]

8 minutes ago, Qriist said:

Dissenting views often get removed, even when respectfully presented.

I don't think so since there's many negative threads and replies that don't get removed. The closest thing to that statement is a thread touching a sensitive subject that isn't breaking any rules but the people that reply to it eventually do so unfortunately the thread might get nuked or locked.

Other than that when I notice something gets removed it's pretty clear that it was poorly made or broke the rules

Edited October 11, 2023 by (XBOX)C11H22O11

[Packetdancer]

1 hour ago, Qriist said:

I fully agree that people should elaborate on why they dissent, which is why I'm about to elaborate on why I dissent with your view.

Politics.

The various dislike features should be restored because of politics.

Not national policy, mind you, but mundane, forum level interpersonal relationships.

I've often found myself on the same side of a given discussion as you, Qriist, but I'm gonna respectfully disagree on this one.

I've almost never seen negative reaction buttons lead to anything constructive or positive. One of the only exceptions I can think of is for Reddit, where you have multiple response threads descending from a single parent post, and where the negative/positive value of a post can be used to sort the 'useful' conversation to the top. That's not really relevant to forums like this, where the discussion is both linear and chronological (unless someone retroactively edits their post).

I understand your argument and where you're coming from, mind you -- the idea that negative posts might be nuked from orbit, but positive posts won't, and so negative reactions on a positive post will be preserved -- but I'd argue that if you are already in the territory of assuming a default of bad faith actions on the part of the forum moderators and administrators where they're deleting posts to 'control the narrative', you have to assume the reaction tallies are also 'contaminated.' The vast majority of forum software I've ever administered would let you modify the reaction tallies as well (with the intent to let admins clean up after harassment campaigns)... so at that point, why assume you can trust the reactions on the posts that do stay, either?

(I'd admittedly also say that if you are in the territory of assuming the forum administrators are going to act in bad faith as a default behavior, that's the point at which you should probably venture to other discussion forums instead. But that's sort of tangential to my reasoning.)

But the core reason I dislike downvote/negative reaction buttons is because in my experience it actively encourages people to be nasty. If you can just anonymously say "I think your ideas are terrible and you suck" with a single click on an icon and no risk that anyone knows you specifically expressed that opinion, a lot of people will do that. Versus how many people will actually be willing to put their name on a "your ideas are terrible and you suck" post, much less will actually take the time to write an actual counter-argument.

[Qriist]

14 minutes ago, Packetdancer said:

I've often found myself on the same side of a given discussion as you, Qriist, but I'm gonna respectfully disagree on this one.

Even great minds sometimes dissent! :D

 

14 minutes ago, Packetdancer said:

I've almost never seen negative reaction buttons lead to anything constructive or positive. One of the only exceptions I can think of is for Reddit, where you have multiple response threads descending from a single parent post, and where the negative/positive value of a post can be used to sort the 'useful' conversation to the top. That's not really relevant to forums like this, where the discussion is both linear and chronological (unless someone retroactively edits their post).

Reddit has its own problems with that, for sure, but I agree downvotes are more immediately useful there. I think a better place than either here or Reddit would be a help forum like Stack Overflow, particularly where the topic OP can checkmark the best answer among a sea of user-voted answers on a complex subject. (random example I've personally found useful)

 

14 minutes ago, Packetdancer said:

I understand your argument and where you're coming from, mind you -- the idea that negative posts might be nuked from orbit, but positive posts won't, and so negative reactions on a positive post will be preserved -- but I'd argue that if you are already in the territory of assuming a default of bad faith actions on the part of the forum moderators and administrators where they're deleting posts to 'control the narrative', you have to assume the reaction tallies are also 'contaminated.' The vast majority of forum software I've ever administered would let you modify the reaction tallies as well (with the intent to let admins clean up after harassment campaigns)... so at that point, why assume you can trust the reactions on the posts that do stay, either?

Being able to adjust vote tallies is one aspect I hadn't considered. The one gaming forum I was a mod on has been defunct for around a decade and we didn't have reactions. I guess I assumed messing with votes would require higher permissions than the average mod would have access to. Definitely food for thought.

 

14 minutes ago, Packetdancer said:

But the core reason I dislike downvote/negative reaction buttons is because in my experience it actively encourages people to be nasty. If you can just anonymously say "I think your ideas are terrible and you suck" with a single click on an icon and no risk that anyone knows you specifically expressed that opinion, a lot of people will do that. Versus how many people will actually be willing to put their name on a "your ideas are terrible and you suck" post, much less will actually take the time to write an actual counter-argument.

I can kind of see where you're coming from, but with rare exception, we are already all anonymous on this forum. I have no idea who is behind the Packetdancer persona anymore than I know who is behind Tiltskillet or Voltage. For other people reading this discussion, I could be puppeteering all 3 of them and am just manifesting different sides of the debate out of sheer boredom. With that mindset even strictly positive upvotes are ripe for contamination. The only real solution I can think of in this scenario is to remove all glyph reactions, to include the single Like we have now.

I think the better option is to show who reacted with what, ala Facebook/Twitter/Gab. On Facebook everyone can see every reaction, on Twitter everyone can see a tweet's likes and retweets, and on Gab everyone can see the numeric tally of each reaction but only the post's composer can see the names of those reacters. 

Spoiler

Facebook

 

Twitter


Gab (what others see)


Gab (what post composer sees)

I think more transparency in the system helps avoid the negative user scenario you laid out, though admittedly it does not prevent the potential mod abuse you alerted me to.

 

[Packetdancer]

21 minutes ago, Qriist said:

Reddit has its own problems with that, for sure, but I agree downvotes are more immediately useful there. I think a better place than either here or Reddit would be a help forum like Stack Overflow, particularly where the topic OP can checkmark the best answer among a sea of user-voted answers on a complex subject. (random example I've personally found useful)

I'll grant you Stack Overflow is an excellent one. I tend to think of SO as a knowledge base rather than a forum so it didn't occur to me when posting, but downvotes are absolutely relevant there, yes; my experience with SO is that positive votes generally mean "a correct answer" while negative votes mean "an incorrect answer", whereas 0 votes means either "this answer is... tolerable" or "the author found a solution and forgot to come back and mark anything as the answer."

But I'll point out that on SO, you can downvote the top-level "answers" but notably not the comments in the threads beneath them; you are voting on the relevance of the answer, not on any resulting discussion.

 

24 minutes ago, Qriist said:

Being able to adjust vote tallies is one aspect I hadn't considered. The one gaming forum I was a mod on has been defunct for around a decade and we didn't have reactions. I guess I assumed messing with votes would require higher permissions than the average mod would have access to. Definitely food for thought.

In fairness, they might; half the time I'm the one providing a server to host the board, so I have administrator permissions more or less by default to facilitate things like "this board needs a security patch immediately" and whatnot. So I will grant I have less immediate personal experience of what a moderator has power to do, versus an administrator. I just know that I often have the option of wiping reactions on posts presented to me in my palette of Things I Can Do on such forums, along with "edit the post's content" and other things which I would generally prefer not be done on forums.

(Though I'd still argue that just in general, if you reach the point that you reach a point where you assume as a default that the provider of a service is going to act in bad faith, it may be time to find a different service.)

 

26 minutes ago, Qriist said:

I can kind of see where you're coming from, but with rare exception, we are already all anonymous on this forum. I have no idea who is behind the Packetdancer persona anymore than I know who is behind Tiltskillet or Voltage. For other people reading this discussion, I could be puppeteering all 3 of them and am just manifesting different sides of the debate out of sheer boredom.

While this is true, I'd argue that it's not anonymous within the context of the Warframe community. And in this case, that's the relevant context.

If a hypothetical player TennoTroll decides to consistently be a complete jerk on the forums, then when I see "TennoTroll" anywhere I associate all of that with them. Whereas if you have complete anonymity, TennoTroll could be downvoting everything for the lolz and still everyone thinks they're a paragon of cooperation and friendly interactions, because none of their "lol your ideas suck and you're a loser" reactions to things are associated with them.

So, yeah, I might not know who the real-world person is behind the Qriist handle, but if I see "Qriist" here on the forums or in-game, I have context for all our previous interactions. I mean, I started my post with "I usually find myself in agreement with you," which I would not have been able to do if all posts here were truly anonymous!

(And some of us -- myself included -- use the same handle here that we do elsewhere, so arguably things I do here could also color the opinion anyone here has of me even if they later encounter me on Reddit, or the Final Fantasy XIV forums, or wherever else the digital winds might take me.)

 

36 minutes ago, Qriist said:

The only real solution I can think of in this scenario is to remove all glyph reactions, to include the single Like we have now.

 

I think the better option is to show who reacted with what, ala Facebook/Twitter/Gab. On Facebook everyone can see every reaction, on Twitter everyone can see a tweet's likes and retweets, and on Gab everyone can see the numeric tally of each reaction but only the post's composer can see the names of those reacters.

I think either of those options would address the scenario, yes. I just think keeping everything as it is now and re-introducing a "dislike" reaction is the worst of all worlds where those interactions are concerned.

[Rakosta_Kai]

1 hour ago, 0_The_F00l said:

I think your comprehensions skills need some improvement (or I am not explaining myself clearly enough) along with you ability to only take bits and pieces out of a discussion.

My exact word were "I prefer to use words which better express my derision. So if I am given a dislike option I will actually be less derisive".

There's no extra bits or pieces to take needed.
Dissention simply isn't Derision. 

There's simply no cause to be derisive at all—It's an election you made on your part.

Doesn't matter if you clicked on an option DE gave you or you typed it out long-form. Displayed derision remains derision regardless. Which is why you, and those just like you, shouldn't have that option.

Why should DE empower folks to be both derisive and lazy ?
Likewise, why should anyone give a crap about your opinion when you lack the capacity to frame it politely?

For example, your own comments in this thread alone have been used as an example for why a dislike or emoticons are/were/will remain a bad idea.

You, like it or not, are your own best example for why they should never re-enable those features. 

[Qriist]

10 minutes ago, Packetdancer said:

But I'll point out that on SO, you can downvote the top-level "answers" but notably not the comments in the threads beneath them; you are voting on the relevance of the answer, not on any resulting discussion.

There is a voting mechanism for SO comments, though it's more simple, ironically akin to Warframe's current system, where each vote is explictly considered a "useful comment" tally. It's the little number to the left of the given comment.

Spoiler

Mousing over the number gives the "useful comment" text box

 

10 minutes ago, Packetdancer said:

In fairness, they might; half the time I'm the one providing a server to host the board, so I have administrator permissions more or less by default to facilitate things like "this board needs a security patch immediately" and whatnot. So I will grant I have less immediate personal experience of what a moderator has power to do, versus an administrator. I just know that I often have the option of wiping reactions on posts presented to me in my palette of Things I Can Do on such forums, along with "edit the post's content" and other things which I would generally prefer not be done on forums.

I've been there, too. When you have access to everything it can be hard to remember what restrictions are placed on different account types.

"What do you mean you can't just toggle that yourself?" -me, more than once. XD

 

10 minutes ago, Packetdancer said:

(Though I'd still argue that just in general, if you reach the point that you reach a point where you assume as a default that the provider of a service is going to act in bad faith, it may be time to find a different service.)

While I have issues with some staff I think the forums are big enough, and that the user has enough free reign, that it's pretty much impossible for even the most militant bad-faith staff imaginable to actively act in bad faith at all times. Too many people, too many posts, too much effort. That aside, I don't think the staff actions that I disagree with are usually bad faith. Even in my own scenario described above, I don't believe the mod actions started out in bad faith.

 

10 minutes ago, Packetdancer said:

While this is true, I'd argue that it's not anonymous within the context of the Warframe community. And in this case, that's the relevant context.

If a hypothetical player TennoTroll decides to consistently be a complete jerk on the forums, then when I see "TennoTroll" anywhere I associate all of that with them. Whereas if you have complete anonymity, TennoTroll could be downvoting everything for the lolz and still everyone thinks they're a paragon of cooperation and friendly interactions, because none of their "lol your ideas suck and you're a loser" reactions to things are associated with them.

So, yeah, I might not know who the real-world person is behind the Qriist handle, but if I see "Qriist" here on the forums or in-game, I have context for all our previous interactions. I mean, I started my post with "I usually find myself in agreement with you," which I would not have been able to do if all posts here were truly anonymous!

(And some of us -- myself included -- use the same handle here that we do elsewhere, so arguably things I do here could also color the opinion anyone here has of me even if they later encounter me on Reddit, or the Final Fantasy XIV forums, or wherever else the digital winds might take me.)

That's an entirely fair take!

 

10 minutes ago, Packetdancer said:

I think either of those options would address the scenario, yes. I just think keeping everything as it is now and re-introducing a "dislike" reaction is the worst of all worlds where those interactions are concerned.

I emphatically agree! :D

[(XBOX)sinamanthediva]

2 hours ago, Qriist said:

I recall one thread complaining about the then-upcoming change to Tauforged Archon Shard drop rates simply poofing after about a week. I wasn't even the dissenting voice at that time -it wasn't my thread, IIRC it was @(XBOX)sinamanthediva's- and I still don't think that discussion should have been silenced. whether or not I thought his complaint was stupid (which I did) and regardless of how acrid the thread may have become (which was "very") and despite how much DE might not have liked his criticism (which they probably hated), he still didn't deserve to be silenced. His dissent mattered just as much as my own agreement. Arguably more, because it provided echo chamber-preventing contrast. That's the entire point of a feedback forum. This level of thread-nuking is likely much more rare, though it's impossible to say for sure.

Wow I feel honored someone actually remembers me and that traumatic deletion, which like you said was not warranted, at least by our standards.  I also inquired about why I was silenced and never got a reply, SHOCKING!  My opinions about Tau Shards has never faltered and I don't recall the specifics of your dissent, but most definitely you/ we should be allowed to voice whatever opinion we have on any subject presented, provided we remain somewhat civil.  I have no problem with mild catty banter and see it more as a way to show our passion and inject some humor; if just to reinforce the point that we need not take ourselves so seriously, as most of the discussions here are not that important in the grand scheme of things.  I appreciate your candor and fortitude towards your posts and despite our differences of opinions, I truly hold no grudges against anyone that might challenge my perspectives.  

I still am on the NO Dislike button side of the fence, as it realistically is just more problematic then beneficial, in the context of the Forums.  If anything it promotes more discussion by forcing those that oppose a topic to stop and think about the why when they reply, generally speaking of course.  Even I like a good meme to sum up my thoughts, so yes it's not a total fix, but it's a nudge in the right direction.

Have a pleasant tomorrow!

[Packetdancer]

3 hours ago, Qriist said:

There is a voting mechanism for SO comments, though it's more simple, ironically akin to Warframe's current system, where each vote is explictly considered a "useful comment" tally. It's the little number to the left of the given comment.

I was thinking more explicitly of the 'downvote' mechanic, but you're right; there is at least a "like" equivalent on the comments, true.

 

2 hours ago, (XBOX)sinamanthediva said:

My opinions about Tau Shards has never faltered and I don't recall the specifics of your dissent, but most definitely you/ we should be allowed to voice whatever opinion we have on any subject presented, provided we remain somewhat civil.

(Bolding for emphasis on my part.)

In all honesty, I do recall that thread going well into territory one would be hard-pressed to define as still being "civil." Which was why it didn't surprise me that it got locked down; I think it was less from "this is negative feedback" and more "this has degenerated into a bunch of name-calling while people metaphorically roll around in the mud pulling each other's hair, and has lost all constructive value."

[(XBOX)sinamanthediva]

31 minutes ago, Packetdancer said:

(Bolding for emphasis on my part.)

In all honesty, I do recall that thread going well into territory one would be hard-pressed to define as still being "civil." Which was why it didn't surprise me that it got locked down; I think it was less from "this is negative feedback" and more "this has degenerated into a bunch of name-calling while people metaphorically roll around in the mud pulling each other's hair, and has lost all constructive value."

Like I said somewhat civil, and if it did degenerate, then remove the degenerate comments and leave the rest that were civil, but don't silence an entire post.  It was well into 10 pages of discussion all wiped from existence because of some Mod's decision to be Judge and Jury without any notice to me about it being deleted.  It is distressing to think the ease at which we can be silenced and erased from existence.  I don't have a problem with some mud being thrown as sometimes you need to get dirty to defend your perspective from the trolls that you might encounter.  I prefer to be civil but have no issue with hair-pulling if needed, as I will not be bullied into complacency or mediocrity. 

Have a pleasant tomorrow!

[(XBOX)Hellsteeth30]

There shouldn't be even a "like" button in my opinion.

I either like a comment or I don't.  Ultimately we're all faceless entities on a message board with one thing (for certain) in common, that being Warframe in this instance.

Outside of blatant trolling/non-sequiturs etc, all comments are valid.  Voting is why Reddit is such an unwashed armpit 

[SneakyErvin]

21 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Of course they matter , they quite literally show your agreement of a post, It simply answers the question "how many players that read this post agree with it strongly enough to show their support for it without needing words?" Its a quick reasonably accurate and easily notable statistic. The same would have been true for the other reactions if they existed.

But it isnt accurate at all. You can only claim it is remotely accurate if the post/thread speaks only about a single subject. The moment a second or more subjects, opinions or angles enter the post/thread a "like" or any other reaction turns completely innacurate since "like" isnt a forced reaction to a "positive" subject, since it can just as well be used for the "negative" subject.

21 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Are you saying you have full freedom to say what you want on the forums ? of course the forum is censored , the whole game is , some of it is reasonable and some is utterly pointless. Censoring by itelf isnt a good or bad things , its application needs to be checked.

Nope not saying that at all. I'm saying that regarding anything within the framework of the forum rules you are fully free to express your opinion. Reaction buttons being there or not does not change that since you are still allowed to express your agreements, likes, disagreements or dislikes etc. in text with reasons. Everything in the world is in essence censored and the forums are based on those common censoring steps that most nations around the world have adopted. 

The forums are really as free as any normal nation, you can just check the off-topic board for that to be a fact. Just go through "what music do you listen to", no censoring etc. Music/videos about drugs, violence, murder, sex, sodomy, suicide, "criticism" towards religion, cartoons, video games, movies, fantasy, mythology, theology and so on, fully free to be expressed just as it should be by those that enjoy the art within.

21 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

I have no clue who the PMRC is and what their alliance with the Washington wives resulted in (though now i am curious and will search for that later) ,

But yes you have articulated the different censoring well enough , and i say that both exists on the forums.

There are already a limited number of players that visit the forums , of which there are already a limited number that read beyond the first page , of which there are even more limited players that actually have an inclination to respond in anyway, and of that there are even more limited players that have the language skills to explain themselves clearly , of which even fewer have the time to actually type all of their thoughts , of which there are even fewer that follow up on the conversations. So there is already significant skewing of the type of players.

It resulted in the silly black/white sticker you see on CDs and Vinyl records etc. It also resulted in some hilarious and epic court statements from people like Dee Snyder, Rob Halford and all the other great old fellows. Plus without PMRC and The Washington Wives we wouldnt have brilliant songs like Harder, Faster by W.A.S.P, nor would us swedes have idiots like Sivert Öholm try to make up a meaning of W.A.S.P (We are Satan's People (lol)) and then try to pronounce it with horribly broken english on swedish TV. It resulted in so many invalueble epic golden moments.

Of course both exsist, there is no way around that. However the reactions themselves have the most negative impact if you are actually after useful statistics.

Yes of course, no one says otherwise. I'm simply stating that the loss of reactions does not make it more censored. It does infact do the very opposite since it incentivices those that can to express their actual opinion. The reactions would change nothing for those you line up. If someone has lacking language skills it could just aswell result in them also just hitting the dislike/like/disagree/agree button based on what they thought they read while maybe not comprehending it. Instead now they are quiet, meaning you can focus on those that are actually active and potentially understand and have an interest to engage within the community. You can also see which people seem "non-native" that express their opinion, something that would be 100% hidden to you with just a reaction button to hit. Which also lets you see if those people actually do comprehend what they decided to take part in and formulate an opinion regarding. Which means lowered censoring in the statistics as opposed to if reactions were available.

18 hours ago, Qriist said:

Dissenting views often get removed, even when respectfully presented.

No not really. When they get removed it tends to be when they are done disrespectfully. Or when there are several similar topics around at a given time, which tends to end up with merging. Many of us has spoken against various things over the years and never had any threads or posts removed. I was even what I'd call disrespectful in some of my approach concerning Liches when they were released, specifically in connection to the design choice of the auto-kill of the frame when a sequence was bad. But it didnt get removed nor modded, it stayed even though it targetted a dev.

Edited October 12, 2023 by SneakyErvin

[Dunkelheit]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb (XBOX)Hellsteeth30:

There shouldn't be even a "like" button in my opinion.

I either like a comment or I don't.  Ultimately we're all faceless entities on a message board with one thing (for certain) in common, that being Warframe in this instance.

Outside of blatant trolling/non-sequiturs etc, all comments are valid.  Voting is why Reddit is such an unwashed armpit 

Exactly, all those "likes" and "emojis", they all achieve only one thing: A dopamine hit for the person who wrote the posting. Since a dopamine hit is very addictive, people try to get it again. Slowly you are trained to no longer voice your opinion, but the opinion that will achieve the most likes.

This is why the internet is such a mess and discussions died down with the exception of warriors who like to mess up their body chemistry with constant enraging.

[0_The_F00l]

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

But it isnt accurate at all. You can only claim it is remotely accurate if the post/thread speaks only about a single subject. The moment a second or more subjects, opinions or angles enter the post/thread a "like" or any other reaction turns completely innacurate since "like" isnt a forced reaction to a "positive" subject, since it can just as well be used for the "negative" subject.

Which is why i said i would actually like a more nuanced reaction option from full agreement to full disagreement and some options in between, but i will settle for 2 options at the bare minimum. The like isn't accurate without something to counter it with equal ease of expression and weight.

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Nope not saying that at all. I'm saying that regarding anything within the framework of the forum rules you are fully free to express your opinion. Reaction buttons being there or not does not change that since you are still allowed to express your agreements, likes, disagreements or dislikes etc. in text with reasons. Everything in the world is in essence censored and the forums are based on those common censoring steps that most nations around the world have adopted. 

The forums are really as free as any normal nation, you can just check the off-topic board for that to be a fact. Just go through "what music do you listen to", no censoring etc. Music/videos about drugs, violence, murder, sex, sodomy, suicide, "criticism" towards religion, cartoons, video games, movies, fantasy, mythology, theology and so on, fully free to be expressed just as it should be by those that enjoy the art within.

And within the framework of a painting you are free to paint whatever you can express as long as its blue , if that's the only color you have been given.

I am once again iterating my dissatisfaction is at the ability to more easily express agreement than disagreement leading more people to skew towards giving agreements (or simply ignoring the topic) than expressing their dislike, I am perfectly OK to remove the like button as well , but that's like killing the only cow to promote equality in a village. Maybe my experience with other debate forums skews my opinions , but having more options is usually better if they can be moderated well.

The forums are fine for people that are willing to and capable of expressing themselves , but very much a swamp for those that cannot.

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

It resulted in the silly black/white sticker you see on CDs and Vinyl records etc. It also resulted in some hilarious and epic court statements from people like Dee Snyder, Rob Halford and all the other great old fellows. Plus without PMRC and The Washington Wives we wouldnt have brilliant songs like Harder, Faster by W.A.S.P, nor would us swedes have idiots like Sivert Öholm try to make up a meaning of W.A.S.P (We are Satan's People (lol)) and then try to pronounce it with horribly broken english on swedish TV. It resulted in so many invalueble epic golden moments.

Interesting,

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Of course both exsist, there is no way around that. However the reactions themselves have the most negative impact if you are actually after useful statistics.

I disagree , anyone that wishes to offend or be offended by a few pixels will do so regardless. I believe as long as you are required to justify yourself the reactions are an excellent tool.

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Yes of course, no one says otherwise. I'm simply stating that the loss of reactions does not make it more censored. It does infact do the very opposite since it incentivices those that can to express their actual opinion. The reactions would change nothing for those you line up. If someone has lacking language skills it could just aswell result in them also just hitting the dislike/like/disagree/agree button based on what they thought they read while maybe not comprehending it. Instead now they are quiet, meaning you can focus on those that are actually active and potentially understand and have an interest to engage within the community. You can also see which people seem "non-native" that express their opinion, something that would be 100% hidden to you with just a reaction button to hit. Which also lets you see if those people actually do comprehend what they decided to take part in and formulate an opinion regarding. Which means lowered censoring in the statistics as opposed to if reactions were available.

That is actually a fair point , not being able to react correctly - if one lacks the necessary comprehension skills. In which case the player should ideally not pick either and ask for a translation / clarity before making a decision. This indeed does goes both ways.

It does not change my opinion , having only one reaction is still pretty dumb.

I would be a lot less pissed at it if at the bare minimum i could set up a poll in my posts -i know its possible and i know its intentionally been kept off cause i have seen posts with polls in the past,

 

[SneakyErvin]

2 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Which is why i said i would actually like a more nuanced reaction option from full agreement to full disagreement and some options in between, but i will settle for 2 options at the bare minimum. The like isn't accurate without something to counter it with equal ease of expression and weight.

It isnt accurate with something to counter it either. If you want accuracy all reactions should be removed. No matter the number of reaction options, none would be accurate since they can all apply to the same part of a post that handles more than a single opinion at a time, which is practically what most posts/threads do besides those that bring no productive value at all.

5 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

And within the framework of a painting you are free to paint whatever you can express as long as its blue , if that's the only color you have been given.

I am once again iterating my dissatisfaction is at the ability to more easily express agreement than disagreement leading more people to skew towards giving agreements (or simply ignoring the topic) than expressing their dislike, I am perfectly OK to remove the like button as well , but that's like killing the only cow to promote equality in a village. Maybe my experience with other debate forums skews my opinions , but having more options is usually better if they can be moderated well.

The forums are fine for people that are willing to and capable of expressing themselves , but very much a swamp for those that cannot.

Very wierd analogy to say the least. When is a specific color tied to an opinion? Can you not express all your thoughts, opinions and emotions with a single color? Do we not have black/white paintings, drawings, tattoos done only with the color black? 

That is a scewed way of looking at it. Since again the like can also be used to like disagreement with the original topic when an actual debate has started. Since at some point someone must write a post of disagreement, otherwise there will be no productive value of the thread in the first place. Just having the OP and then peiople slapping likes and dislikes ontop of that does not move the topic of discussion forward. And if your "debate" forums rely heavily on reactions, then they arent debate forums in the first place.

How is it a swamp for the others? Why are they here in the first place if they have no interest or capability to express themselves. Why did they seek out potential debates if they have nothing to say? How hard is it to post "I agree" or "I disagree" even for those with a problem expressing themselves to a greater extent? They managed to log in here, they managed to log into the game, they managed to comprehend the post/thread they intended to react to etc. So what stops them from posting something simple if that is all they can muster? Or do you just want people that dont comprehend post/thread context to just dump reactions so they can feel part of something? Because that is what it feels like, some internet savior complex so everyone is included even though it matters jack squat.

19 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

I disagree , anyone that wishes to offend or be offended by a few pixels will do so regardless. I believe as long as you are required to justify yourself the reactions are an excellent tool.

You disagree and then you start talking about people being offended when the part you quoted was about statistical censoring and the negative impact reactions have on that? Which was also the "censoring" part you claimed so adamantly to be refering to in the first palce. So which "censoring" do you actually refer to at this point? Which is it that you will refer to going onward? One last time. Reactions serve nothing but a negative purpose if your interest is in the statistical side of the forums and people opinions.

23 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

That is actually a fair point , not being able to react correctly - if one lacks the necessary comprehension skills. In which case the player should ideally not pick either and ask for a translation / clarity before making a decision. This indeed does goes both ways.

It does not change my opinion , having only one reaction is still pretty dumb.

I would be a lot less pissed at it if at the bare minimum i could set up a poll in my posts -i know its possible and i know its intentionally been kept off cause i have seen posts with polls in the past,

What someone should do or not is not a good starting point regarding what should or should not be part of something. Incentiviced expression of thoughts and ideas automatically leads to correction of ones opinion if needed. Like in a case where a language barrier might scew the perception and understanding of context/message in a thread. Without any need to have ask to have it explained prior to someone posting their opinion. Since people would see that the person misses the context or fails to comprehend the message overall, and potentially mention that. Which potentially also leads to learning eventually. Reactions however are so simple to hit without anyone know who hit it, so never a chance to explain how they might be wrong if they are due to poor comprehension.

And yes, having a single reaction is dumb since having reactions is dumb at the get go.

Polls are nice aslong as the creator of them doesnt scew them *cough*politicians*cough*. But I think those were intended to be reserved for DE purposes, just as certain thread #tags are. And even DE does S#&$e polls. "Do you want a Werewolf frame?" majority answers yes, we get a wolf frame... Wtf did I asnwer on?

[0_The_F00l]

29 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

It isnt accurate with something to counter it either. If you want accuracy all reactions should be removed. No matter the number of reaction options, none would be accurate since they can all apply to the same part of a post that handles more than a single opinion at a time, which is practically what most posts/threads do besides those that bring no productive value at all.

If you ever worked in statistics you will know, You will never have all the data , you always have to settle for a close approximation of it , a thousand words are more accurate at describing something than 100 and a million words will be even more accurate. That is the nature of accuracy , you can always squeeze more out , the question is how much is enough and when does it stop being worth the effort.

Do you like this ? yes or no, the bare minimum objective,

How much do you like it? 1 out of 10 ? 3 out of 10 , 8 out of 10? more accurate and still objective,

Describe what you like or dislike about it? Accurate but subjective and not objective ,

Write an essay describing your opinions with clear references and examples- even more accurate and extremely subjective extremely difficult to categorize.

As to being "Productive" i say HAH! sir , you are in the wrong place if your objective is productivity! hah!

36 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Very wierd analogy to say the least. When is a specific color tied to an opinion? Can you not express all your thoughts, opinions and emotions with a single color? Do we not have black/white paintings, drawings, tattoos done only with the color black? 

That is a scewed way of looking at it. Since again the like can also be used to like disagreement with the original topic when an actual debate has started. Since at some point someone must write a post of disagreement, otherwise there will be no productive value of the thread in the first place. Just having the OP and then peiople slapping likes and dislikes ontop of that does not move the topic of discussion forward. And if your "debate" forums rely heavily on reactions, then they arent debate forums in the first place.

How is it a swamp for the others? Why are they here in the first place if they have no interest or capability to express themselves. Why did they seek out potential debates if they have nothing to say? How hard is it to post "I agree" or "I disagree" even for those with a problem expressing themselves to a greater extent? They managed to log in here, they managed to log into the game, they managed to comprehend the post/thread they intended to react to etc. So what stops them from posting something simple if that is all they can muster? Or do you just want people that dont comprehend post/thread context to just dump reactions so they can feel part of something? Because that is what it feels like, some internet savior complex so everyone is included even though it matters jack squat.

It is not weird at all , you can still describe and be expressive with one color (up to a degree), but you can always be more expressive if you have more options. you can paint a better picture if you have more colors.

And now we just run around in circles, i guess, For you to like someone that disagrees you need someone that is willing to disagree in the first place. That can take time , its never always the first post or second post , it may be 3 pages down and made very succinctly and well , but has been bogged down with gibberish that came before. And you need to get through all the gibberish (the swamp) to actually find it or you may just get bogged down and leave. you can yourself also start one but it faces the same challenge of never getting seen by others.

You kind of just described voting with your last paragraph there :P

46 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

You disagree and then you start talking about people being offended when the part you quoted was about statistical censoring and the negative impact reactions have on that? Which was also the "censoring" part you claimed so adamantly to be refering to in the first palce. So which "censoring" do you actually refer to at this point? Which is it that you will refer to going onward? One last time. Reactions serve nothing but a negative purpose if your interest is in the statistical side of the forums and people opinions.

 

Ah, i seem to have misunderstood you and what you meant about negative impact my apologies about that. i was not referring to censoring at all at this point but the "feeling" of negativity one can create or feel  with a dislike or a comment.

49 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

What someone should do or not is not a good starting point regarding what should or should not be part of something. Incentiviced expression of thoughts and ideas automatically leads to correction of ones opinion if needed. Like in a case where a language barrier might scew the perception and understanding of context/message in a thread. Without any need to have ask to have it explained prior to someone posting their opinion. Since people would see that the person misses the context or fails to comprehend the message overall, and potentially mention that. Which potentially also leads to learning eventually. Reactions however are so simple to hit without anyone know who hit it, so never a chance to explain how they might be wrong if they are due to poor comprehension.

And yes, having a single reaction is dumb since having reactions is dumb at the get go.

I am confused by this statement of yours, its very difficult to follow,

Firstly What a person should do is the starting point of any civilized action ,

And i agree that incentivised expression of thought can change ones opinions , that is how debates and discussions work and should continue to work.

Never in my points did i say that one should not be more descriptive , but only being descriptive is also not helpful.

There is a time for words and a time for reactions :D

57 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Polls are nice aslong as the creator of them doesnt scew them *cough*politicians*cough*. But I think those were intended to be reserved for DE purposes, just as certain thread #tags are. And even DE does S#&$e polls. "Do you want a Werewolf frame?" majority answers yes, we get a wolf frame... Wtf did I asnwer on?

And there really is no need for that reservation as we are more than capable of linking to external poll tools as well. Having reactions is the equivalent of having polls in my opinion.

 

[Qriist]

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

No not really. When they get removed it tends to be when they are done disrespectfully. Or when there are several similar topics around at a given time, which tends to end up with merging. Many of us has spoken against various things over the years and never had any threads or posts removed. I was even what I'd call disrespectful in some of my approach concerning Liches when they were released, specifically in connection to the design choice of the auto-kill of the frame when a sequence was bad. But it didnt get removed nor modded, it stayed even though it targetted a dev.

This has not been my experience. I've presented my anecdotal observations above, as well as that of someone else's. A third individual even corroborated the former existence of the second's nuked thread.

The mere act of having posts removed renders the question of if posts were removed into an unfalsifiable state to anyone short of the mods themselves.

In short, I cannot prove a negative.

This is an excellent example of censorship's pernicious nature.