The forums are going in the wrong direction

[0_The_F00l]

2 hours 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.  

 

Rubbish , 

Also thanks @(XBOX)C11H22O11

[PrideB4TheFall]

Being stripped of quick reactions and emojis is hardly a bad thing. Wouldn't it be better to have nuanced discussions  where genuine insight and a deeper involvement coupled with understanding of the subject matter is fostered? Why do people constantly want to cater to the lowest possible denominator? 

Expect more from yourself, and frankly other people as well.

 

Edited October 11, 2023 by PrideB4TheFall
Forgot a word.

[SneakyErvin]

21 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

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.

That still doesnt mean it is censorship or close to it. All it means is that it promotes a discussion.

And while "like" isnt serving any real purpose, it is atleast not harmful, wont lead to reaction spamming on someone disliked etc. So is more healthy overall. I bet people would be complaining if dislike was added but gave +1 score to a person when their posts were targetted by it. This because people see score as winning or approval, when in reality +score could also mean that the poster simply have posted things that have resulted in many reactions, both positive and negative.

[0_The_F00l]

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

That still doesnt mean it is censorship or close to it. All it means is that it promotes a discussion.

I am not going to explain the same things again if you simply choose to ignore what is already said.

Any sort of curtailing of expressions is censoring things no matter how ineffective it may actually be.

You are free to disagree with me of course .

2 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And while "like" isnt serving any real purpose, it is atleast not harmful, wont lead to reaction spamming on someone disliked etc. So is more healthy overall. I bet people would be complaining if dislike was added but gave +1 score to a person when their posts were targetted by it. This because people see score as winning or approval, when in reality +score could also mean that the poster simply have posted things that have resulted in many reactions, both positive and negative.

I prefer fairness and honesty over building a pseudo utopian setup that doesn't even work. 

Edited October 9, 2023 by 0_The_F00l

[SneakyErvin]

1 hour ago, 0_The_F00l said:

I am not going to explain the same things again if you simply choose to ignore what is already said.

Any sort of curtailing of expressions is censoring things no matter how ineffective it may actually be.

You are free to disagree with me of course .

I prefer fairness and honesty over building a pseudo utopian setup that doesn't even work. 

No that just isnt true at all, since censoring would imply that there would be no way to voice a specific opinion in any way really. Yet here we both are voicing completely different opinions. It could be considered hampering, but even that is a stretch given the situation.

Just that you bring in words like utopian also shows a nack for exaggeration. When people can still fully disagree as we do here, how is that anything close to either something utopian (even pseudo) or censorship? 

Also, look at your own post here. What if I'd just answered back with a dislike, disagree, like or agree here. What would I actually aim that at? I mean I agree with you here regarding me having the right to disagree, I also agree that things should be fair and honest (hence my opinion of "like" going dodo aswell). However I disagree with your alarmist "censorship" and "utopia" statements and the wrecked usage of those words. So which reaction should I go with?

You also gotta admit the sillyness in your use of censorship. Imagine if you meet someone that has actually gotten censored, like a journalist or a politician belonging to the "wrong" view in their country and you go "yeah I totally get what you've been though since I've been there myself. I got censored on the WF forums, they removed the dislike button". Or something even more down to earth effecting "common" people, like it being criminal to play heavy metal in some mid eastern countries, even if the lyrics themselves arent anti-ideological (read islamic).

edit: Honest question. Do you feel your WF forum experience is on level with the reporters and writers that had to flee Russia and Ukraine recently in order to avoid state imposed censorships and potential hard prison time?

Edited October 9, 2023 by SneakyErvin

[Numerounius]

On 2023-10-05 at 7:06 AM, German said:

Up until recently, every person had a community rating which was essentially just a "like count". But still, it gave credit to people who have been playing a big role in the community (e.g. people like Voltage) and put some form of weight or impact on posts.

I am not 100% sure but I think you are referencing to the checkmarks on the Q & A posts. Which was rarely used. And if you are talking about the reactions based on the user profile and how many posts they had are hardly brought up in discussions so they hardly had weight, the context of the post is the primary thing being used in discussions.

 

To me, the hallmark of the forums is having good moderated discussion which is the case for the Warframe forums. If you want to voice something, comment it in the right area. If it is against the forum rules it gets removed. I'm not on other forums but I imagine there are some cesspool ones out there that Warframe's can't compete with.

 

Now are there some stuff that I dislike for the forums just like you such as how the report feature hangs up or getting logged out of the forums or how moderator actions are not viewable? Yes, but they don't restrict the general enjoyment of the forums on a regular basis.

[0_The_F00l]

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

No that just isnt true at all, since censoring would imply that there would be no way to voice a specific opinion in any way really. Yet here we both are voicing completely different opinions. It could be considered hampering, but even that is a stretch given the situation.

You keep using that word , censoring, as a crutch for your arguments , you are using only one aspect of it.

I am going by this : 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censoring_(statistics)

Hopefully that will clarify my intent.

You are probably referring to the political aspect of it ,  which is still applied but is just pathetic in its attempts to actually control anything.

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by 0_The_F00l

[MagPrime]

16 hours ago, (XBOX)C11H22O11 said:

 

You're amazing, thank you!

 

14 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Rubbish , 

Also thanks @(XBOX)C11H22O11

The possibility that there are features unavailable is...rubbish?  I'm unsure what you're trying to convey here.  

After a few hours of massaging Google search results, this is the closest thing I can find that shows there are some things DE can't do with the Forums - 

Downside to memory issues; I know @Letter13 has talked about this limitation but I can't find it nor remember when it happened. 

Thanks to C11H22011's efforts, however, I can point out that DE did simplify things by removing extra reactions as they detracted from participation in topics & still counted towards the overall community standing, making them pointless in the grand scheme of things.  

[0_The_F00l]

27 minutes ago, MagPrime said:

The possibility that there are features unavailable is...rubbish?  I'm unsure what you're trying to convey here.  

No , your assumption that DE is not removing the like reaction because of some technical limitations is rubbish , my apologies if that was not clear enough.

28 minutes ago, MagPrime said:

After a few hours of massaging Google search results, this is the closest thing I can find that shows there are some things DE can't do with the Forums - 

Downside to memory issues; I know @Letter13 has talked about this limitation but I can't find it nor remember when it happened. 

Technical limitations can exist , sure , but it does not exist when it comes to the current state of affairs for reactions.

30 minutes ago, MagPrime said:

Thanks to C11H22011's efforts, however, I can point out that DE did simplify things by removing extra reactions as they detracted from participation in topics & still counted towards the overall community standing, making them pointless in the grand scheme of things.  

Pointless is exactly what the change was as I have no visible proof of it in  participation of players , cause in one of their great decision they have also disallowed the use of setting up polls.

 

[MagPrime]

37 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

No , your assumption that DE is not removing the like reaction because of some technical limitations is rubbish , my apologies if that was not clear enough.

Why is it rubbish when it's entirely possible that there is a limitation in place?  You even acknowledge the possibility here

38 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Technical limitations can exist , sure

But are strangely confident they don't in this instance, as you've said here

38 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

but it does not exist when it comes to the current state of affairs for reactions.

and fail to provide any information as to why it's not possible.  Do you know what provider is used and what kind of product DE selected?  I have no idea how to find that out and would like to see more.

[Letter13]

1 hour ago, 0_The_F00l said:

technical limitations

36 minutes ago, MagPrime said:

limitation

There are a lot of features that simply aren't turned on, and not because of technical limitations (though I imagine some other features are disabled because of technical limitations). 

IIRC, there were a few reasons why the reactions were simplified. Originally there were upvotes and downvotes, but that system began to see abuse as people began to rampantly downvote posts purely out of spite, using downvotes as an excuse for why people shouldn't be listened to, and so on. Reactions were then changed to include certain emoticons, wherein any reaction acted as a +1 (or upvote) to a player's reputation, however people started using the 'Haha' emoticon reaction as a pseudo-downvote to mock people. As a result, it was all consolidated to just a single 'Like' button to streamline the reactions (since they all did the same thing) and to cut down on the misuse/abuse of certain reactions.

 

When it comes to thread tags, the forum backend doesn't actually have a way to allocate/separate tag use based on user permissions; this is a technical limitation of the Invision Board Software. There's no way to set a rule on the backend that says 'Only users in group X, Y or Z can assign tags A, B or C'. It is possible to limit tag use based on subforum, which is why there are subforum specific tags for things like bugs or general discussion and so on. As a result, 'Megathread' and 'PSA' tags can be used by anyone (but is discouraged unless permission from a moderator or DE staff member is given) in the subforums where such tags are enabled. The other option would be to disable these tags completely, which would prevent moderators and DE Staff from being able to use them as well.

 

This is about as much insight as I can provide, as forum moderators like myself aren't administrators and don't have access to the forum backend to actually see what is and isn't turned on or off. 

[Skoomaseller]

i want the reactions back i want to laugh at people LET ME INDULGE IN SCHADENFREUDE 

[Zimzala]

21 minutes ago, Letter13 said:

IIRC, there were a few reasons why the reactions were simplified. Originally there were upvotes and downvotes, but that system began to see abuse as people began to rampantly downvote posts purely out of spite, using downvotes as an excuse for why people shouldn't be listened to, and so on. Reactions were then changed to include certain emoticons, wherein any reaction acted as a +1 (or upvote) to a player's reputation, however people started using the 'Haha' emoticon reaction as a pseudo-downvote to mock people. As a result, it was all consolidated to just a single 'Like' button to streamline the reactions (since they all did the same thing) and to cut down on the misuse/abuse of certain reactions.

So, to put this another, very snarky, way, the only 'technical limitations' around how and why the WF forums have nothing more than a Like option for posts is the 'technical limitation' of the human condition to not go after each other like jerks over trivial things using any tools or loopholes they can find.

Seems legit.

[Letter13]

25 minutes ago, Zimzala said:

So, to put this another, very snarky, way, the only 'technical limitations' around how and why the WF forums have nothing more than a Like option for posts is the 'technical limitation' of the human condition to not go after each other like jerks over trivial things using any tools or loopholes they can find.

Seems legit.

Humans gonna human. 

[Zimzala]

So I think my opening post in this thread holds true,

On 2023-10-05 at 7:55 AM, Zimzala said:

Personally, I have watched the 'evolution' of gaming forum interactions since about 1998 and on BBS's previous to that.

If, in fact, 'the forums are going in the wrong direction', from my POV, they have been moving in the same direction since 1998.

as

46 minutes ago, Letter13 said:

Humans gonna human. 

remains the order of the day and the primary reason why the changes continue in the same direction they always have - because people are jerks - not because the game company wants to censor or otherwise downplay things. Quite possibly, in fact, it's because the game company is just trying to manage the forum PvP as best they can with the available resources, over trying to change human nature with forum icons that gamers 'annoyed' with the differing opinions of other gamers choose to weaponize.

Reality is wild.

[Voltage]

14 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

And while "like" isnt serving any real purpose, it is atleast not harmful, wont lead to reaction spamming on someone disliked etc. So is more healthy overall. I bet people would be complaining if dislike was added but gave +1 score to a person when their posts were targetted by it. This because people see score as winning or approval, when in reality +score could also mean that the poster simply have posted things that have resulted in many reactions, both positive and negative.

People like to see some metric of community value behind a post, but the reality is just that this platform weighs all your post's value based on the timing of your OP or where your comments fit chronologically in any given thread. I am proof of that as well as developers when you see their OP likes versus their comment likes halfway through a post. It has been part of my position for the last several years. I don't often have novel or inspiring takes that I bring to a discussion, I'm just an active player who knows a lot about Warframe, wants to tell players (and devs) how several areas feel to me, and I do so while always staying on the tip of the spear when it comes to current hot topics (hottest of all being patch notes, the thing most players only care about and rightfully so. I've pretty much stopped caring about this avenue after several incidents over the years). I like being an example of how the platform actually plays out.

Likes aren't harmful, nor are dislikes. The only thing that's really "harmful" in this case is the organization of the platform (which is not really on DE and moreso on the provider). The balance for post ranking and reactions is somewhere between Reddit, these Forums, and Twitter at the same time. I'm not sure how'd you engineer something, but it would ideally be as deep as how Google portrays searches to you. Someone getting lots of likes isn't automatically the most helpful, but someone getting lots of likes simply for being one of the first posts isn't either. 

I feel like the solution to the discussion areas in this topic just won't be reality and we need to live with how these Forums work now. 

I've intentionally made myself the example of "how the Forums look if you treat the like feature as a game" while simultaneously making myself the example of "likes literally mean nothing" as you would see from my post history and what I have and haven't accomplished over the years.

Honestly speaking, I would be down to just hiding reputation altogether, and just have a like and dislike reaction. People who chain well written posts become known for the behavior, and the same goes for chained troll posts anyways.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Voltage

[taiiat]

that's just how all Social Media interactions are and will always be. the majority aren't even going to Read, let alone engage. the 'solution' would be for everyone with some opinion to engage, but that's never going to happen.
both because the majority just won't spend a few Minutes to do so despite claiming that they have some opinion or personal investment, as well as the majority isn't and may even refuse to be educated enough on any particular subject as to be able to have a useful opinion at all (or atleast to not be basing themselves off of misinformation or promoting misinformation).

 

40 minutes ago, Voltage said:

People like to see some metric of community value behind a post, but the reality is just that this platform weighs all your post's value based on the timing of your OP or where your comments fit chronologically in any given thread. I am proof of that as well as developers when you see their OP likes versus their comment likes halfway through a post.

indeed, much of any 'fault' lies with People not caring enough to be involved anyways. People aren't going to be involved, and nothing is really going to change that.

[0_The_F00l]

9 hours ago, Letter13 said:

There are a lot of features that simply aren't turned on, and not because of technical limitations (though I imagine some other features are disabled because of technical limitations). 

IIRC, there were a few reasons why the reactions were simplified. Originally there were upvotes and downvotes, but that system began to see abuse as people began to rampantly downvote posts purely out of spite, using downvotes as an excuse for why people shouldn't be listened to, and so on. Reactions were then changed to include certain emoticons, wherein any reaction acted as a +1 (or upvote) to a player's reputation, however people started using the 'Haha' emoticon reaction as a pseudo-downvote to mock people. As a result, it was all consolidated to just a single 'Like' button to streamline the reactions (since they all did the same thing) and to cut down on the misuse/abuse of certain reactions.

 

When it comes to thread tags, the forum backend doesn't actually have a way to allocate/separate tag use based on user permissions; this is a technical limitation of the Invision Board Software. There's no way to set a rule on the backend that says 'Only users in group X, Y or Z can assign tags A, B or C'. It is possible to limit tag use based on subforum, which is why there are subforum specific tags for things like bugs or general discussion and so on. As a result, 'Megathread' and 'PSA' tags can be used by anyone (but is discouraged unless permission from a moderator or DE staff member is given) in the subforums where such tags are enabled. The other option would be to disable these tags completely, which would prevent moderators and DE Staff from being able to use them as well.

 

This is about as much insight as I can provide, as forum moderators like myself aren't administrators and don't have access to the forum backend to actually see what is and isn't turned on or off. 

Appreciate the information as always ,

Aligns with my own experience.

I am against the reason given here (though I know you are just referencing what DE said) as it is possible to keep reputations unaffected by reactions as well though it is a bit complex to implement.

9 hours ago, MagPrime said:

Why is it rubbish when it's entirely possible that there is a limitation in place?  You even acknowledge the possibility here

But are strangely confident they don't in this instance, as you've said here

and fail to provide any information as to why it's not possible.  Do you know what provider is used and what kind of product DE selected?  I have no idea how to find that out and would like to see more.

Because I have worked on other invision community forums and boards. As both a user and with some limited administration while evaluating different options.

Invision is the forum software (you can scroll down to the bottom and it's right there) currently used. You can check their feature list if you want.

Most limitations I am aware of come to certain naming conventions and integrations with other social media ,but i am fully aware that you can remove all reactions IF the administrators really wanted to. (You can also add quite a few interesting features that would help in a lot of data collection and simplification as well).

Hence I call your assumption rubbish.

[MagPrime]

2 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Because I have worked on other invision community forums and boards. As both a user and with some limited administration while evaluating different options.

Invision is the forum software (you can scroll down to the bottom and it's right there) currently used. You can check their feature list if you want.

Most limitations I am aware of come to certain naming conventions and integrations with other social media ,but i am fully aware that you can remove all reactions IF the administrators really wanted to. (You can also add quite a few interesting features that would help in a lot of data collection and simplification as well).

Hence I call your assumption rubbish.

Ah, you decided to dismiss my assumption instead of actually expanding as to why it was incorrect.  Saying that you have experience with this would have saved everyone a lot of time, instead of drawing things out.

Since that's how you choose to approach the conversation, I'm going to bow out.  I really don't have an interest in expanding time & effort with someone who can't be upfront and clear with their responses. 

[0_The_F00l]

15 minutes ago, MagPrime said:

Ah, you decided to dismiss my assumption instead of actually expanding as to why it was incorrect.  Saying that you have experience with this would have saved everyone a lot of time, instead of drawing things out.

Since that's how you choose to approach the conversation, I'm going to bow out.  I really don't have an interest in expanding time & effort with someone who can't be upfront and clear with their responses. 

You are disengaging because I chose not to elaborate a technical fact ? I was under the impression the forum being powered by invision was common knowledge as it shows up in every single forum page. My apologies if that's was an incorrect assumption.

You are of course free to bow out , though I was hoping for some more towards the discussion or argument depending on how it went, as I assumed you also saw the original post about the changes to the reactions.

[SneakyErvin]

On 2023-10-09 at 4:31 PM, 0_The_F00l said:

You keep using that word , censoring, as a crutch for your arguments , you are using only one aspect of it.

I am going by this : 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censoring_(statistics)

Hopefully that will clarify my intent.

You are probably referring to the political aspect of it ,  which is still applied but is just pathetic in its attempts to actually control anything.

 

No it really doesnt clarify your intent since that is a completely different use of the word (practically a different word) that does not apply to the things removed from the forums such as reactions. Nor is it even remotely properly used in your posts if that is the censoring word you are looking for or intend to use. Since if you are interested in statistics the reactions themselves lead to statistical censoring because we dont know what they actually refer to within a post. 

And you clearly dont refer to statistics when you go and post things like this.

On 2023-10-07 at 12:44 PM, 0_The_F00l said:

It is limiting your choices as well as what can be written and expressed.

Since at that point you talk about what would be considered censoring in the "political" sense. Followed by this aswell.

On 2023-10-07 at 6:13 PM, 0_The_F00l said:

Censorship ,if governed correctly , helps to moderate the content to suitable audiences. Censoring mature content such that it does not reach less than mature audiences? perfectly reasonable. Censoring comments so they are not toxic ? ok if moderated , but needs to have checks and balances. Censoring the ability to have a reaction with the justification that its to incentivize discussions ? laughably dumb and doesn't even do as advertised and only skews optics.

So... yeah... you clearly talk about statistics... nope.

 

21 hours ago, Voltage said:

Likes aren't harmful, nor are dislikes. The only thing that's really "harmful" in this case is the organization of the platform (which is not really on DE and moreso on the provider). The balance for post ranking and reactions is somewhere between Reddit, these Forums, and Twitter at the same time. I'm not sure how'd you engineer something, but it would ideally be as deep as how Google portrays searches to you. Someone getting lots of likes isn't automatically the most helpful, but someone getting lots of likes simply for being one of the first posts isn't either. 

For me the "harmful" parts comes in the shape of things following someone into the game. It has been a thing in the past in several MMOs where a bad forum or community board reputation has followed people into the game and resulted in blacklists etc. surrounding game activities. For me those two should be seperate, forums should be like Vegas, what happens here stays here. I never let it follow me into the game. If I see someone here saying something stupid or acting some way I dont like I wont have an issue to sit down with them in a game session and have fun.

Regarding the bolded part. So very true, been there myself in some other games, most recently with Diablo Immortal where I got heaps of upvotes for simply posting common sense thoughts regarding the game, both monetization and simple things like builds. Extremely annoying even if it was upvotes since people started to ask me questions personally on a frequent basis as if I was some ancient wise man or a revolutionary. Luckiliy I used a different nickname on reddit than I do in games.

 

[0_The_F00l]

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

No it really doesnt clarify your intent since that is a completely different use of the word (practically a different word) that does not apply to the things removed from the forums such as reactions. Nor is it even remotely properly used in your posts if that is the censoring word you are looking for or intend to use. Since if you are interested in statistics the reactions themselves lead to statistical censoring because we dont know what they actually refer to within a post. 

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.

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

And you clearly dont refer to statistics when you go and post things like this.

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 .

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

Since at that point you talk about what would be considered censoring in the "political" sense. Followed by this aswell.

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

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

.

So... yeah... you clearly talk about statistics... nope.

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

[Voltage]

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

So very true, been there myself in some other games, most recently with Diablo Immortal where I got heaps of upvotes for simply posting common sense thoughts regarding the game, both monetization and simple things like builds. Extremely annoying even if it was upvotes since people started to ask me questions personally on a frequent basis as if I was some ancient wise man or a revolutionary. Luckiliy I used a different nickname on reddit than I do in games.

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.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Voltage

[(XBOX)sinamanthediva]

9 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 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!

[Rakosta_Kai]

19 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Hence I call your assumption rubbish.

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.