Downvote!

[Callback]

Until the feature is re-enabled or added as a separate tally, the only option for letting people know that their post is stupid or unpopular is to reply to it directly and tell them how bad it is.  How does anyone think this will make for a better community?  Instead of a simple -1, we will now have forums filled with flame wars over everything people don't agree on.  We need downvotes to accurately poll the opinions of the community without starting petty arguments.

 

Simple system to repair this where upvotes won't be invalidated:  2 tallys, 1 next to each button.  A post can have 21 up and 7 down, and be displayed as such.

 

Support downvotes!

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Ok, so it's been only 1 day, 28 posts, 4000 words.How does the community as a whole feel about this hot button issue?  20 people agree with me, it's easy to see that.  How many disagree?  I would need to go through each post, decide based on what is written which ones disagree with me, remove multiple posts from the same users, and add up the result.  Might take 5 minutes to do.  Now imagine that on a 1000+ post thread.

 

If you have something unique you want to say, you post it.  If you just want to show support or disagreement in an immediately visible manner to people reading the original post, and have your opinion reflected in an easy to read poll of the community on such an issue, you deserve a vote button for that!  I'm not going to have my feelings hurt just because my post shows the number of people who disagree with me.  My genuine curiosity on how people feel about this issue can only be efficiently satisfied by tallies of both upvotes and downvotes.

Edited May 7, 2013 by Callback

[vasRayya]

So basicly you want me to downvote this post?

TO BAD.

[Slorch]

Until the feature is re-enabled or added as a separate tally, the only option for letting people know that their post is stupid or unpopular is to reply to it directly and tell them how bad it is.  How does anyone think this will make for a better community?  Instead of a simple -1, we will now have forums filled with flame wars over everything people don't agree on.  We need downvotes to accurately show the opinions of the community.

 

Simple system to repair this where upvotes won't be invalidated:  2 tallys, 1 next to each button.  A post can have 21 up and 7 down, and be displayed as such.

 

Support downvotes!

-1

[Hezekiah]

I actual;y do support downvotes.  Up upvote the post on downvoting

[Bakim0n0]

The people who would flame just flamed anyways on top of making -1 comments and on top of that people would -1 comments / conversations that where totally innocent or even very on topic and well written just because they didn't like the poster.

The down-vote system in general took away a lot from discourse and detracted from conversation. I would have them remove the up-vote as well really, even tho it's far less derisive than the down-vote.

[FragtheKitten]

the only option for letting people know that their post is stupid or unpopular is to reply to it directly and tell them how bad it is.  How does anyone think this will make for a better community?

 

Uhhhh. The only way to provide feedback is with feedback. Yes, how will this make the community better indeed.

[PeterKha]

How does down voting a post provide feed back? It doesn't provide the OP with any form of constructive criticism besides him thinking that his idea and/or post was absolute rubbish hence portraying a negative community. I prefer if there was no down votes. Simple constructive criticizing posts would be enough.

[Ced23Ric]

If you have valid feedback, even if negative, post it. If you cannot formulate why you disagree, maybe you have no reason to disagree.

[Shion963]

If you see a bad idea, post reasons why you think it's bad or won't work.

If you don't agree with a post and intend to straighten out a few things, quote that post and state your arguments.

If you see a blatant troll thread/post, ignore it. Do not reply, as trolls subsist on flames and downvotes.

Bottom line is try and construct a counter-argument with coherent points. If you can't think of any, move along.

 

 

IMHO they removed downvotes because of how people end their OP with "HURR IF U LEIK MAI IDERR PLS DOWNV8TE LOL", literally fishing for downvotes as an immature way of trapping readers into a catch-22 situation, where downvoting would appease the OP's fetishistic lust for -1's, and upvoting is just plain wrong for such an undeserving and idiotic post.

 

Just my honest opinion, though. It could have been removed for any reason. ;p

 

EDIT: Dangit Ced ninja'd me.

 

A true Tenno, indeed..

Edited May 6, 2013 by Shion963

[Kyrkitao]

If you have valid feedback, even if negative, post it. If you cannot formulate why you disagree, maybe you have no reason to disagree.

By that logic you should remove up votes as well.  If you have valid feedback, post it.

[PeterKha]

By that logic you should remove up votes as well.  If you have valid feedback, post it.

It's called convenience. Why spam a thread with a bunch of people saying yes I agree when a simple up vote is enough to suffice as it means you are agreeing with the OP whereas down voting has no form of feed back whatsoever as it doesn't tell the OP where he went wrong in this thread nor does it give him any resourceful or insightful information.

[Ced23Ric]

By that logic you should remove up votes as well.  If you have valid feedback, post it.

 

Okay, allow me to point out the difference in a simple example.

 

"I think that red is a cool colour."

 

Agreement: "I think so, too."; "My favourite colour.": "Right on, bud."; "Totes agreeing!"

Disagreement: "Wait a second, I am colour blind."; "Actually, green has soothing properties."; "I find red offensive because it reminds me of communism."

 

The sentiments of those agreeing do not add new concepts in themselves. Only with an opposing opinion, agreement has grounds to pose arguements. On the other hand, disagreement has the burden of "proof", as it wants something else. A mere "Nope." is not a reasonable counter-position, it is void disagreement that cannot stimulate a debate.

 

"What about the colour blind?"

"You are right - there needs to be an alternative mode for those who cannot distinguish red from green."

"Thanks, so I propose you get your red, and we have an alternate option, with yellow/purple".

 

The disagreement posed a problem to the OP, the OP changed it's position to a more inclusive one, the debate carries fruit.

 

"I like red."

"No."

"Yes."

"No."

"Yes."

[...]

 

This produces nothing but a race of up/down votes.

[pixelsafoison]

I often came to the forums, read what had been said and upvoted what I liked and DOWNVOTED what I disliked, I don't feel like making a post to say "your idea is bad, I don't like it." when I stumble upon a bad idea, it's a waste of time and it won't even be read because it will be burried under 15 pages of "OMG WHAT DID YOU CALL MY MUM?!" so yeah .... bring back downvotes please, I'm no troll i'm no A****** it was just a simple way of saying "I like it" or "I don't like it" this is turning into facebook where you can only LIKE something -- (and I hate facebook with such a force...)

 

 

+1 OP

[Kyrkitao]

*snip*

I don't think the point of 'void disagreement' was to stimulate debate.  Sometimes ideas were bad and unsalvagable.  If someone felt strongly about an idea and had meaningful feedback they were likely to post it regardless.  Removing the ability to say "I disagree" quickly isn't going to dramatically increase the number of valuable ideas contributed to threads.  

[Ced23Ric]

@ pixelsafosion: If you don't provide reasons why you agree, how do you think it would pursuade anyone to change their mind?

 

I don't think the point of 'void disagreement' was to stimulate debate.  Sometimes ideas were bad and unsalvagable.  If someone felt strongly about an idea and had meaningful feedback they were likely to post it regardless.  Removing the ability to say "I disagree" quickly isn't going to dramatically increase the number of valuable ideas contributed to threads.  

 

And proving that those ideas are bad is not valueable how? :/ "Nope" is not constructive criticism.

[Worira]

No, it isn't. Not every idea needs constructive criticism, some need to be binned.

[Callback]

Okay, allow me to point out the difference in a simple example.

 

"I think that red is a cool colour."

 

Agreement: "I think so, too."; "My favourite colour.": "Right on, bud."; "Totes agreeing!"

Disagreement: "Wait a second, I am colour blind."; "Actually, green has soothing properties."; "I find red offensive because it reminds me of communism."

 

The sentiments of those agreeing do not add new concepts in themselves. Only with an opposing opinion, agreement has grounds to pose arguements. On the other hand, disagreement has the burden of "proof", as it wants something else. A mere "Nope." is not a reasonable counter-position, it is void disagreement that cannot stimulate a debate.

 

"What about the colour blind?"

"You are right - there needs to be an alternative mode for those who cannot distinguish red from green."

"Thanks, so I propose you get your red, and we have an alternate option, with yellow/purple".

 

The disagreement posed a problem to the OP, the OP changed it's position to a more inclusive one, the debate carries fruit.

 

"I like red."

"No."

"Yes."

"No."

"Yes."

[...]

 

This produces nothing but a race of up/down votes.

Many opinions on the forums can be either in-depth or binary.  To use a game-related example, a post could be as simple as "buff stalker."  Both agreeing and disagreeing can have a large variety of reasons.  I agree, his AI is too buggy on elevated terrain.  I disagree, he tears through anyone in the process of leveling their equipment which is the entire focus of the game.  I disagree, the bastard takes all of my revives.  I agree, he is too easy to focus down in a party.....  Both sides would need to express themselves.  In a thread about this, many people will post different reasons.  Someone will likely post your exact opinion.  What are you supposed to do, restate it?  Quote it and say they stole your idea?  Why not just click up/down vote on the OP and upvote the reply that matches your sentiment?  It lets you keep an accurate tally of the community's opinion while avoiding redundancy in threads.  Both up AND down votes are needed to achieve this.

 

True, a downvote can mean a few different things, but it is usually easy to tell by context.  

I have the opposite opinion: it is an opinion post.  

You have a poor argument:  outlandish claims, usually with horrible grammar.  

This is a troll post and does not belong on this thread:  Post is clearly trolling.

 

Upvotes can mean different things too.

I think similarly: opinion post

I support this idea: suggestion post

Ha!  That was funny:  clever post or quip.

 

I don't think anyone will be confused by what is intended by an upvote or downvote, but both are equally legitimate ways to poll community opinions, and to quickly express your own opinion without creating 100 page threads with only 5 different ideas being constantly rehashed, which become a huge pain to try to read, so you might miss the gem post hidden in page 42.

[Argoms]

Okay, allow me to point out the difference in a simple example.

<example goes here>

However, both up and down voting encourage making snap-judgements of a post without taking the time to think about what they really mean. You can't take back a vote as it stands, so you may think an idea is good at first, but when you start considering details, you see why it's bad. Too late though, that person has an upvote from you! 

If you had to reply, at least you'd take a little more time to think about what to say. There are a lot of arguments that tend to sound good on the surface, but actually don't make sense when you look a little deeper. I'm in favor of removing both up/downvotes by the way (never suggested before because I didn't really expect it to change).

[Kyrkitao]

And proving that those ideas are bad is not valueable how? :/ "Nope" is not constructive criticism.

I refer you to:

 

No, it isn't. Not every idea needs constructive criticism, some need to be binned.

[Callback]

However, both up and down voting encourage making snap-judgements of a post without taking the time to think about what they really mean. You can't take back a vote as it stands, so you may think an idea is good at first, but when you start considering details, you see why it's bad. Too late though, that person has an upvote from you! 

If you had to reply, at least you'd take a little more time to think about what to say. There are a lot of arguments that tend to sound good on the surface, but actually don't make sense when you look a little deeper. I'm in favor of removing both up/downvotes by the way (never suggested before because I didn't really expect it to change).

Not necessarily, a lot of systems will let you toggle your vote between up and down if you misclick or change your mind.

[Argoms]

Not necessarily, a lot of systems will let you toggle your vote between up and down if you misclick or change your mind.

This one, doesn't at the moment.

 

The point still stands- if you can just go oh, okay, this seems good. Upvote! And then not really think about the post again, you're more likely to be misled by a decent writer who has a terrible point.

[Inez]

The OP is a scholar and a gentlemen.

 

I fully agree with him.

 

His statement made a lot of sense to me.

 

His post was well thought out and logical.

 

He probably is good-looking and financially successful irl.

 

I concur.

 

Well stated by the OP.

 

Yes, I could've just upvoted him, but evidently voting without providing feedback is somehow bad.  So now you have yet another redundant pointless post clogging up the forums for you to sift though.  Because there aren't enough pointless posts in the forums.  And, afterall, we have all day everyday to just browse the forums and read every single post in every single forum.

 

If you're still reading this post, you must be really bored.  I'm basically just typing to type.  Like many, many of the posters here.  The great thing now is that I can just type a bunch of nonsense that has nothing to do with anything, and no one can downvote me.  Hurrah!  

 

For example, I'd love to let you guys know about the fascinating Larch.

 

Larches are conifers in the genus Larix, in the family Pinaceae. Growing from 20 to 45 m tall, they are native to much of the cooler temperate northern hemisphere, on lowlands in the north and high on mountains further south. Larch are among the dominant plants in the immense boreal forests of Russia and Canada.  Although a conifer, the larch is a deciduous tree and loses its leaves in the autumn. The shoots are dimorphic, with growth divided into long shoots typically 10–50 centimetres long and bearing several buds, and short shoots only 1–2 mm long with only a single bud. The leaves are needle-like, 2–5 centimetres long, slender (under 1 cm wide). They are borne singly, spirally arranged on the long shoots, and in dense clusters of 20–50 needles on the short shoots. The needles turn yellow and fall in the late autumn, leaving the trees leafless through the winter. Larch cones are erect, small, 1–9 cm long, green or purple, ripening brown 5–8 months after pollination; in about half the species the bract scales are long and visible, and in the others, short and hidden between the seed scales. Those native to northern regions have small cones (1–3 cm) with short bracts, with more southerly species tending to have longer cones (3–9 cm), often with exserted bracts, with the longest cones and bracts produced by the southernmost species, in the Himalayas.

 

Fascinating, no?

 

You could just downvote me, but as we know, downvoting adds nothing valuable to the conservation.  So now you need to write a detailed post explaining to me why Larches, fascinating as they are, are not really relevant to the topic at the end.  Because you have nothing better to do with your time than read about larches and respond to this silly post.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Inez

[Inez]

OMG, someone upvoted my post without providing detailed feedback.

 

The forums are officially a failure.  We need a new mode of communication.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Inez

[Kyrkitao]

OMG, someone upvoted my post without providing detailed feedback.

 

The forums are officially a failure.  We need a new mode of communication.

Sorry, that was me.  I found your reductio ad absurdum very amusing.  It was frustrating when somebody else did it to me earlier, but amusing when you did it.

[Lifeshield]

The only way to provide feedback is with feedback.

 

 

How does down voting a post provide feed back? It doesn't provide the OP with any form of constructive criticism besides him thinking that his idea and/or post was absolute rubbish hence portraying a negative community. I prefer if there was no down votes. Simple constructive criticizing posts would be enough.

 

 

If you have valid feedback, even if negative, post it. If you cannot formulate why you disagree, maybe you have no reason to disagree.

 

 

If you see a bad idea, post reasons why you think it's bad or won't work.

If you don't agree with a post and intend to straighten out a few things, quote that post and state your arguments.

If you see a blatant troll thread/post, ignore it. Do not reply, as trolls subsist on flames and downvotes.

Bottom line is try and construct a counter-argument with coherent points. If you can't think of any, move along.

 

 

IMHO they removed downvotes because of how people end their OP with "HURR IF U LEIK MAI IDERR PLS DOWNV8TE LOL", literally fishing for downvotes as an immature way of trapping readers into a catch-22 situation, where downvoting would appease the OP's fetishistic lust for -1's, and upvoting is just plain wrong for such an undeserving and idiotic post.

 

Just my honest opinion, though. It could have been removed for any reason. ;p

 

EDIT: Dangit Ced ninja'd me.

 

A true Tenno, indeed..

 

Agreed on all points in their entirety! :)

 

 

The OP is a scholar and a gentlemen.

 

I fully agree with him.

 

His statement made a lot of sense to me.

 

His post was well thought out and logical.

 

He probably is good-looking and financially successful irl.

 

I concur.

 

Well stated by the OP.

 

Yes, I could've just upvoted him, but evidently voting without providing feedback is somehow bad.  So now you have yet another redundant pointless post clogging up the forums for you to sift though.  Because there aren't enough pointless posts in the forums.  And, afterall, we have all day everyday to just browse the forums and read every single post in every single forum.

 

If you're still reading this post, you must be really bored.  I'm basically just typing to type.  Like many, many of the posters here.  The great thing now is that I can just type a bunch of nonsense that has nothing to do with anything, and no one can downvote me.  Hurrah!  

 

For example, I'd love to let you guys know about the fascinating Larch.

 

Larches are conifers in the genus Larix, in the family Pinaceae. Growing from 20 to 45 m tall, they are native to much of the cooler temperate northern hemisphere, on lowlands in the north and high on mountains further south. Larch are among the dominant plants in the immense boreal forests of Russia and Canada.  Although a conifer, the larch is a deciduous tree and loses its leaves in the autumn. The shoots are dimorphic, with growth divided into long shoots typically 10–50 centimetres long and bearing several buds, and short shoots only 1–2 mm long with only a single bud. The leaves are needle-like, 2–5 centimetres long, slender (under 1 cm wide). They are borne singly, spirally arranged on the long shoots, and in dense clusters of 20–50 needles on the short shoots. The needles turn yellow and fall in the late autumn, leaving the trees leafless through the winter. Larch cones are erect, small, 1–9 cm long, green or purple, ripening brown 5–8 months after pollination; in about half the species the bract scales are long and visible, and in the others, short and hidden between the seed scales. Those native to northern regions have small cones (1–3 cm) with short bracts, with more southerly species tending to have longer cones (3–9 cm), often with exserted bracts, with the longest cones and bracts produced by the southernmost species, in the Himalayas.

 

Fascinating, no?

 

You could just downvote me, but as we know, downvoting adds nothing valuable to the conservation.  So now you need to write a detailed post explaining to me why Larches, fascinating as they are, are not really relevant to the topic at the end.  Because you have nothing better to do with your time than read about larches and respond to this silly post.

 

 

Actually I'm going to upvote you for such an awesome lengthy, epic and pointless, reply to try and prove a point. Had you of exercised the ability to just vote this thread wouldn't have been as educational or entertaining.

 

See? Something good does come out of sharing your opinion, regardless of how fruitless or uneducational you may feel it is. :)

Edited May 6, 2013 by Lifeshield