Agree and disagree button

Dudess

Why?

stovelid wrote: »

The only time I could think of where I would hate thanked posts is when a mod intervenes in a spat and comes down on one poster (or is perceived to) and the 'opposition' thank the mod. I don't mean when an obvious idiot is censured though.

Yeah I've seen a handful of posters take it upon themselves to use the thanks button in a petty, sneaky way, thanking unpleasant posts directed at people they've an issue with, rather than just spitting out what their issue is.

But then sometimes people complain that there are members doing the above for simply thanking someone who disagrees with them.

Tar.Aldarion

Dudess wrote: »

Why?

Does he have to say? A lot of people don't have time/don't feel strongly enough about a topic to write a reply about it but might want to get their opinion across that way. I don't see thanks as adding any more significant input, just ban +1's. You may as well ahve a yorema button that got rid of the yore ma's in a thread.

I don't particularly care if somebody agrees with something, it didn't add a new point to the topic, it is lazy and not valuable. Add to it or don't. Mostly it's used for scrolling to the funniest post. I think they are both of same worth, what that worth is is open to question. There are examples where people can thank something and it need no further examination, and the same with disliking.
Conversely, people can thank something and elaborate, and not thank something and elaborate.

How about a number instead of the names under a post, that just increases or decreases with the no/thanks it receives?
It's like thanks are mini polls atm.

fonecrusher1

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

How about a number instead of the names under a post, that just increases or decreases with the no/thanks it receives?.

Thats the smartest thing i heard yet. And i'm not being sarcastic.

Thats a fair compromise.

Dudess

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Does he have to say?

Indeed he absolutely doesn't. But people do tend to look for a reason why, if someone disagrees with them, seeing as it's a discussion forum - not an agreement forum.

A lot of people don't have time/don't feel strongly enough about a topic to write a reply about it but might want to get their opinion across that way.

Yeah, that's where the thanks button makes perfect sense.

How about a number instead of the names under a post, that just increases or decreases with the no/thanks it receives?.

I'd agree with that - as well as a removal of post-count/thanks count/join date/moderator status outside of the specific forum(s) the person moderate(s) (although I don't think the latter is possible) if only to put an end to the tiresome whingeing.

fonecrusher1

Dudess wrote: »

I'd agree with that - as well as a removal of post-count/join date/moderator status outside of the specific forum(s) the person moderate(s) (although I don't think the latter is possible) if only to put an end to the tiresome whingeing.

No you see your drifting away from the core issue for some reason. This discussion is specifically about the thanks button & nothing else. I personally have no issue with another person having more posts than myself or if they are a moderator. Does it bother you?

I don't know why you're so adamant about blocking the changing of the thanks system. Also you've done exactly as i predicted and indirectly associated the the whole campaign with whingeing.
Its not a whinge, its wanting change to improve the forum & finally eliminate the clique mentality & one upmanship that exists here thanks(:D) to the 'thanks' button.

Dudess

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

No you see your drifting away from the core issue for some reason.

That often happens on any given thread though, it's no biggie. Sometimes issues are brought up that it's felt are related to the topic being discussed - in this case, the "popularity contest" concern was raised. Post count/thanks count/join date/mod status are often mentioned in this context. A thread can steer in a particular direction - nobody, not even a moderator of the forum it's in, has the right to stop this... unless it's extremely off-topic.

I personally have no issue with another person having more posts than myself or if they are a moderator. Does it bother you?

Not in the least - it does bother some people though.

I don't know why you're so adamant about blocking the changing of the thanks system.

I'm not - I just gave you a reason that might explain why a "thumbs down" button isn't on offer.

Also you've done exactly as i predicted and indirectly associated the the whole campaign with whingeing.

Some of your posts here look an awful lot like whinges.

Its not a whinge, its wanting change to improve the forum & finally eliminate the clique mentality & one upmanship that exists here thanks(:D) to the 'thanks' button.

... much of which isn't actually there though. The vast majority of the time, it's simply people liking the post (irrespective of who wrote it) nothing more.

I agree there are cliques on Boards, there is sycophancy, but it's not widespread and the thanks button isn't a cause, these were there before the thanks button. And do you really think a "thumb down" button would help get rid of these?

Also, would you not thank a post you like? And would you find it objectionable if someone thanked you because it looks like sycophancy?

fonecrusher1

Dudess wrote: »

Some of your posts here look an awful lot like whinges.

Well thats your opinion. Im not whingeing, im questioning the system. Its quite important that some people do that otherwise things would never change. You strike me as a person who often says; well its like that because its always been like that. But hey thats just my opinion.

Also, would you not thank a post you like? And would you find it objectionable if someone thanked you because it looks like sycophancy?

I have thanked posts before yes. But not because i was trying to befriend or flatter someone.
Unfortunately others do sometimes thank posters with unscrupulous intentions. Hence this discussion.

Dudess

Im not whingeing, im questioning the system.

That may be, but you're doing so in an extremely passive-aggressive, snide manner. Come on, your posts here are hardly lacking in hostility! Is it really so unreasonable of me to say they're whingey?

You strike me as a person who often says; well its like that because its always been like that.

Heh, not at all! I've challenged plenty of stuff here. In this instance though, you're getting concerned about something that isn't there anywhere near to the extent you think it is. Cliques etc will always exist - only so much can be done to stop this. Ignoring is a good strategy.

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

I have thanked posts before yes. But not because i was trying to befriend or flatter someone.

And the majority of people do the same as you.

Unfortunately others do sometimes thank posters with unscrupulous intentions. Hence this discussion.

Yeah, a tiny few - why should something be overhauled just because of those muppets? How can they actually be stopped?

fonecrusher1

Dudess wrote: »

That may be, but you're doing so in an extremely passive-aggressive, snide manner. Come on, your posts here are hardly lacking in hostility! Is it really so unreasonable of me to say they're whingey?

This is hilarious. Not once have i described you in such a derogatory manner yet you've essentially called me paranoid, snide & whingey.

Who's being hostile here?

stovelid

With Thanks, as it's a positive endorsement, it's generally (but not always) a more diffuse and less elaborate reaction to a post. A simple token of agreement, approval or thanks. The Thanks is often backed up with a explanatory post anyway. Disliking a post publicly, however, should require a larger responsibility especially -and you can absolutely bet that this would happen - if people simply follow other posters around trashing their posts based on dislike, feuds or simply in retaliation for disliking their posts.

Other than the elaboration side of things, it's the potential for abuse, as I've said already.

Nobody is going to follow somebody around boards to thank all their posts out of spite or for lols. The potential for tit-for-tat wars is huge. And worse, people bullying others and hiding behind who-me-I'm-only-disagreeing-with-their-posts-as-is-my-right cant.

Also, it will quickly give people a good idea of who doesn't like their posting in general which can lead to bad feeling and retaliatory no-thanks.

I should add that this isn't a fervent big-up for Thanks in general. If Thanks goes, it goes. Fair enough. I feel far more strongly about the negative potential of Non-Thanks than the positive aspect of Thanks, if you get me.

OutlawPete

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

This is hilarious. Not once have i described you in such a derogatory manner yet you've essentially called me paranoid, snide & whingey.

Who's being hostile here?

Don't take it personal, last night she also called me "agressive and overbearing" ..

She regularly gets unnecessarily personal in her posts.

I would advise against asking her to stop though, as apparently this is "backseat modding" according to one AH Mod .. :rolleyes:

I think Tar's suggestion was the best I have heard yet though.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

How about a number instead of the names under a post, that just increases or decreases with the no/thanks it receives?

Excellent idea and it would great if it could be implemented somehow.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

It's like thanks are mini polls atm.

It sure can be ..

stovelid wrote: »

It's not as if you can inundate another user with Thanks as a gesture of spite.

No, that is true, you can't inundate another use with 'thanks' but I have seen thanks misused quite a bit on AH in other ways.

Users will frequently just thank somebody who is disagreeing with whomever that they don't like, especially when threads get heated.

I agree with you though that a 'disagree button' would not work very well, for the very reason that it would be used in a spiteful way.

Tar's idea is by far and away the best solution that I have heard suggested thus far.

I'm surprised I didn't think of it first to be honest ..

fonecrusher1

RopeDrink wrote: »

The cold fact is this system has seen multiple discussions and those of the older members of Boards would very much FONDLY remember the failure that was the old Karma system, so yes, we have seen this before and while it's the same system with a different name and shinier buttons, it will essentially be the same thing and will not work.

If you honestly think there's some cult following of narky boardsiehermits sitting in some basement grumbling under their breath about 'change' then you really are mistaken, though given you claimed to have no idea of the past systems that's understandable - Try to see why people are pulling your posts regarding everyone other than you being the paranoid one about the system.

I honestly don't give a flying toss about who thanks my posts nor do I even bother to thank all that many, myself, unless it is something I deem as a worthwhile post or something I feel obliged to thank someone for saying something worthwhile or meaningful, or Admins/Mods/Users giving updates or critical posts - I've a grave hatred for one-liners and I see no reason to thank them as they are rarely, if ever, something I regard as a big contribution to any discussion, one-line cocky jokes least of all even if some bright spark out there always does throw them out in the bid of lighting the mood a bit (or maybe thanks-whoring, who cares) - If other people use it as an 'in with the crowd' button or a 'I regard "Thanks" as "I Concur" button' then leave them off.

The point is - A system isn't broke just because X amount of people don't like how Y people use it.

The Karma system was an embarassment and no amount of explaining or compromises will ever, in my eyes, make any form of Negative and/or Disagree'ment buttom a 'worthwhile' contribution to Boards.ie

As said, if people adopt it as their "+1" button (And I've seen multiple threads incorporate this method willingly which may have been the intention) then thats cool - I'll just keep it as a "Thanks" button, myself.

This discussion changed direction a while back. We're now talking about instead of having the thanks button it should just be a number that increase or decreases in value depending on the amount of people who agree or disagree with the post as thought of by Tar.Aldarion.

This is a fair compromise, no names therefore no potential bickering about why such & such disagreed/agreed with the other. Just a number that goes up or down.

I'm not sure what your insinuating by saying that i'm 'claiming' not to know of any failed past karma system. I can assure you ive only ever known the thanks button.
Take a look at the year & month i registered & do the maths before you speculate on whatever it is your implying.

You are a moderator & your contentedness with the current system carries no more weight than my dissatisfaction with it.

The forum will change if there is enough want for change.

Flamed Diving

I like the number system. 1-10, or A-F or something like that.

Dohnny Jepp

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

This discussion changed direction a while back. We're now talking about instead of having the thanks button it should just be a number that increase or decreases in value depending on the amount of people who agree or disagree with the post as thought of by Tar.Aldarion.

This is a fair compromise, no names therefore no potential bickering about why such & such disagreed/agreed with the other. Just a number that goes up or down.

I'm not sure what your insinuating by saying that i'm 'claiming' not to know of any failed past karma system. I can assure you ive only ever known the thanks button.
Take a look at the year & month i registered & do the maths before you speculate on whatever it is your implying.

You are a moderator & your contentedness with the current system carries no more weight than my dissatisfaction with it.

The forum will change if there is enough want for change.

I don't think its a democracy here:P, The forum will change if DeVore wants it to change .
My thoughts on this; I think the system should be left as it is. Any form of negative feedback through disagreeing/-1'ing will be extremely hurtfull to discussion. People will get negative feedback for a post they put effort into writing, they will get hurt and won't make the effort in the future as well as feeling disillusioned with the community and likely going elsewhere for a chat. I know I myself would thank people who I'm arguing agasint if they are making good arguments!

I also think the current system is versatile which is another reason to keep it. It can be used to garnish support for an idea ( see forum requests etc).

This average on a scale being discussed is no better than no-thanks/-1'ing etc. If your post starts picking up negative "thanks" then it's just gonna put off future posting.

Dohnny Jepp

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

I don't think its a democracy here:P, The forum will change if DeVore wants it to change .
My thoughts on this; I think the system should be left as it is. Any form of negative feedback through disagreeing/-1'ing will be extremely hurtfull to discussion. People will get negative feedback for a post they put effort into writing, they will get hurt and won't make the effort in the future as well as feeling disillusioned with the community and likely going elsewhere for a chat. I know I myself would thank people who I'm arguing agasint if they are making good arguments!

I also think the current system is versatile which is another reason to keep it. It can be used to garnish support for an idea ( see forum requests etc).

This average on a scale being discussed is no better than no-thanks/-1'ing etc. If your post starts picking up negative "thanks" then it's just gonna put off future posting.

Absolutely. Such a button would just put me off posting here. The average on a scale system, is that not what YouTube has?

Dudess

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

This is hilarious. Not once have i described you in such a derogatory manner yet you've essentially called me paranoid, snide & whingey.

Who's being hostile here?

Wtf? You march in here making a load of inflammatory remarks and accusations of stuff that's not even happening, therefore expect a similar reaction. I wasn't describing you, I was describing your posts - you can say what you like about mine. I've offered a number of explanatory posts for your issue, but if you think I'm being hostile, fine.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Don't take it personal, last night she also called me "agressive and overbearing" ..

Well it's unbelievably petty for a grown man to drag it into another forum, but yes, that's how I find you to be - based on YOUR conduct, nothing else (hijacking After Hours as if it's "your" forum and getting stroppy with people if they don't follow "your" line, or if they simply disagree with you). But no, it's not you at all, it's just me being mean...

I would advise against asking her to stop though, as apparently this is "backseat modding" according to one AH Mod .. :rolleyes:

Yep, you do indeed backseat mod...

Users will frequently just thank somebody who is disagreeing with whomever that they don't like, especially when threads get heated.

Like you did above to Fonecrusher's post?

Anyway, people can thank whom they want - even if it's a person who is disagreeing with someone they don't get on with. Often it might simply be because they genuinely agree, not to take a dig - it's not something that can be very easily policed.

Bonito

I seen above of rather than have names of people who thank, we should introduce a system like youtube. Thumbs up and thumbs down, then, overall it will give the support in numbers rather than saying who supported them. This has a flaw.

I'd like to direct attention to this thread;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055866378&page=5

Now, the poll in this thread has 2 options. You either agree or disagree with the current law that the poll is about. There is 200 odd people disagreeing with this law and 6 people agreeing with it.

As it stands, lets look at this poll as a sort of example of what this youtube system of agree/disagree would be like.

We have 6 people that agree with the law and that's fine. What people are having a problem with is the people who said they agreed with this law, over 200 odd others that have voted, have not stated as to why they agree with how this certain law is fair and justified.

This creates a one sided event. The only people posting on the thread are those who disagree with the certain law. What happens is that the whole thing just gets repetitive. Unless we get an insight as to why these people see this certain law as fair we are on a one track road. The only people posting are just people who agree to disagree.

Had this poll been public it would be very interesting as to who voted they were in agreement.

Back to the agree/disagree. If you're going to have an agree/disagree system you're going to have to make it public. Otherwise the threads will just be one track circles. If people are given the easy option of agreeing/disagreeing anonymously then there's no point really. Whereas if they're going to be visible as agreeing/disagreeing they can be asked why. We can't ask anonymous people why they agree/disagree and it gets frustrating because, as I said, the threads would just be one track monotonous repetitive mumbo jumbo and they'd probably be closed after a page or two.

fonecrusher1

-1.

Bonito

I hope you're not expecting people to take you seriously on this issue with posts like that :rolleyes:

fonecrusher1

Bonito wrote: »

I hope you're not expecting people to take you seriously on this issue with posts like that :rolleyes:

Its my way of trying to get my point across.

I find it difficult to take you seriously. Your rubbishing a system that isn't even in place.
How do you know it wouldn't work?

Ive never seen such fear of change.

Again. Lets make a poll of it in a very popular section of the forum & see what the masses think?

At least give the idea a fighting chance instead of lynching it in Feedback.

Bonito

Nobody is stopping you making a poll in feedback asking would people like to change the current thanks system.

1. Start thread.
2. In the Op put your point across.
3. Explain why your idea is much better than the current system.
4. Make your poll asking whether boards members would like to try out this new system or not.
5. Be prepared to justify your idea against people who do not want to change the current system.

OutlawPete

Dudess wrote: »

that's how I find you to be - based on YOUR conduct

So what?

It had no business in the thread, Admin can check the thread if they wish.

I stuck to the facts of the Romeo and Juliet case and you were more interested in telling me I was "overbearing" :rolleyes:

Dudess wrote: »

(hijacking After Hours as if it's "your" forum

I "hijack" After Hours?

I am a member five years and I think I start a thread on average once a week.

I get on the vast majority of posters there.

Three or four people don't like me on AH, that's fine, you can't like everyone.

Dudess wrote: »

Yep, you do indeed backseat mod...

Like you did above to Fonecrusher's post?

I'm "backseat modding" here too? :rolleyes:

Dohnny Jepp

Fonecrusher, what would the benefit be of changing the system to the one you want?

Dohnny Jepp

OutlawPete wrote: »

So what?

It had no business in the thread, Admin can check the thread if they wish.

I stuck to the facts of the Romeo and Juliet case and you were more interested in telling me I was "overbearing" :rolleyes:



I "hijack" After Hours?

I am a member five years and I think I start a thread on average once a week.

I get on the vast majority of posters there.

Three or four people don't like me on AH, that's fine, you can't like everyone.



I'm "backseat modding" here too? :rolleyes:

Well you're hijacking this thread now with personal issues. . .

Dudess

It might just be disagreement with it because it's considered pointless (just people's opinions btw, not a "lynching") rather than fear of change?

How on earth would a "thumbs down" button help reduce circlejerks anyway? Surely it would make it a lot worse?

My name is URL

Dudess wrote: »

Is there definitely no denying though? Just a question, not a hostile remark.

I think it's read into WAY too much...

Don't get me wrong.. I do think it's read into way too much. I don't think the system should be changed to a 'thumbs-up - thumbs-down' one either. Whatever issues the current system has would be worsened if it was made anonymous.. imagine the pseudo-bullying that would happen with that

As for the current system, well I do think it's abused to some degree. It reinforces cliques.. but no more than having a PM feature does imo

I mean what's the big deal if someone gets thanked a good bit? It doesn't unlock some new level like a video game. In fact it can be used against.. people start to say that you're only posting to garner thanks, and that you don't use the site for any reason other than to make that happen. Not everyone will be happy with whatever system is in place

Dudess

OutlawPete wrote: »

It had no business in the thread

And this does here?

I "hijack" After Hours?

Yes, I think you do. I think that based on what I've observed, I'm not just making it up for the laugh.

Three or four people don't like me on AH, that's fine, you can't like everyone.

Exactly - so get over me thinking what I think about your behaviour, rather than resorting to such extraordinarily childish nonsense as dragging it into another thread on another forum.

I'm "backseat modding" here too? :rolleyes:

Jeez, you do skim over stuff (and leave bits out to suit your argument, and throw out wild accusations with either no evidence or evidence to the contrary): I didn't even imply you were backseat modding here. You pointed out how people can abuse the thanks button by thanking those who agree with those whom they don't get on with, I noted how your thanking of Fonecrusher was a good, petty example.

Flamed Diving

Just as a thought exercise, could all the people who oppose the 'no' button please briefly outline why their argument does not apply to opposing the 'yes' button?

Flamed Diving

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Just as a thought exercise, could all the people who oppose the 'no' button please briefly outline why their argument does not apply to opposing the 'yes' button?

Sure.

Thanking a post implies that you agree with what the poster said. By it's very nature it doesn't necessarily require additional input, as what needs to be said has already been said. But to "no thanks" a post you'd be expected to explain why; it hasn't been covered.

4zn76tysfajdxp

OutlawPete and Dudess should just fuck and get it over with.