Agree and disagree button

Flamed Diving

Bonito wrote: »

Yes. Hence why the multi quote feature is a doddle.

Where's the 'I don't believe you' button?

Dudess

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Yeah but why should we be able to agree & just run away but not be able to disagree & just run away? I think agreeing with someone deserves as much of an explanation as disagreeing with someone.

Ok if its a silly or trivial thread that doesn't deal with particularly serious matters then of course thank away. It just means you like ice cream as well or whatever the subject of the original post is.
But if it is a thread with a serious theme then i don't think its good enough that we're able to just agree with someone & slip away quietly but to express disagreeing you have submit a separate post?

What could you say when you agree with something, other than "I agree" and then rehash what they're saying? Would that not be just a waste of space and cumbersome to read through?

Unless you wished to add something, in which case you're free to do so?

Bonito

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Where's the 'I don't believe you' button?

Alt + F4

fonecrusher1

Dudess wrote: »

What could you say when you agree with something,

Lots. You could let everyone know why you agree.

Think about it. Lets say somebody starts a thread thats ever so slightly racist or sexist or has started a thread that has a self-serving agenda & then you get someone thanking the OP.

Would you not like to know exactly what they're agreeing with & would you also not like to counter act the thanks with the opposite sentiment?

tomhappens

The current system has very few flaws. I vote leave it alone. So what if there are thanks whores? There always will be, in the same way there are attention whores.

I thank posters who make disagreeing remarks/comments to vote in my disagreement/no thanks.

Bonito

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Lots. You could let everyone know why you agree.

Think about it. Lets say somebody starts a thread thats ever so slightly racist or sexist or has started a thread that has a self-serving agenda & then you get someone thanking the OP.

Would you not like to know exactly what they're agreeing with & would you also not like to counter act the thanks with the opposite sentiment?

Redundant point. A thread of such manner would be reported and locked. No racism, sexism or any ism allowed.

Bonito

Bonito wrote: »

Redundant point. A thread of such manner would be reported and locked. No racism, sexism or any ism allowed.

Indeed. I also remember a situation where those who thanked said post were banned too.

fonecrusher1

Before you give each other big pats on the back the point still stands. Then lets say its a thread that has an obviously self-serving agenda.

And someone (possibly a person who's friends with the OP) dives in with an appreciative, almost zombie-like thanks. You feel you want to object but don't want to contribute with a lengthy retort. You just want to click on icon (just like the thanker did) to sort of say; nah, i don't think so.
There is nothing in this forum to facilitate this.

Bonito

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Before you give each other big pats on the back the point still stands.

And you say you're not paranoid? If we were going to thank each other we'd have done it by now but we're not going to whinge about not being thanked. The poster shares my view I have no need to thank him/her.

Then lets say its a thread that has an obviously self-serving agenda.
And someone (possibly a person who's friends with the OP) dives in with an appreciative, almost zombie-like thanks.

When you're here long enough you realise where the cliques are, who's in them and then you can avoid them.

You feel you want to object but don't want to contribute with a lengthy retort. You just want to click on icon (just like the thanker did) to sort of say; nah, i don't think so.
There is nothing in this forum to facilitate this.

Are you doing this because you genuinely disagree or just because you've seen a posters "friend" has thanked them just for the sheer hell of it and now you want to even that +1 with a -1 just for spite? Or both? See it creates a bitterness. If you're going to be lazy then leave the thread. Perhaps this is why the option of disagree or -1 has not been introduced, because posters will get lazy.

fonecrusher1

Bonito wrote: »

.

Are you doing this because you genuinely disagree or just because you've seen a posters "friend" has thanked them just for the sheer hell of it and now you want to even that +1 with a -1 just for spite? Or both? See it creates a bitterness. If you're going to be lazy then leave the thread. Perhaps this is why the option of disagree or -1 has not been introduced, because posters will get lazy.

Don't be silly. You know fine well, i was referring to a hypothetical scenario. I think your just arguing for the sake of arguing to be honest.
All you've done since you became involved in this discussion is rubbish the idea of having the thanks system changed. Unfounded negative speculation is all i'm hearing from you. No no no never no, t'won't work!

The thanks button promotes laziness in my opinion. It also encourages clique activity, one upmanship & of course thanks-whoring.
If the option of only being able thank posts was taken away think about how many people would choose not to post that "hilarious" one-liner that often follows a lengthy first post & inevitably leads to further arguing that can strangle a potentially decent thread.

Bonito

Bonito wrote: »

I wasn't arguing so no your point is not proven :rolleyes:
Relax the cax. I couldn't give a toss if my post gets a thanks or not. I am in agreement with another poster so what's your problem? There's nothing wrong with the layout as it is so why change it?

You're complaining about there not being a disagree button. Lets put it this way. There's a thread that's split down the middle. 2 people are in disagreement with their point on this particular thread. I come along and I see one side of the argument, I agree with the poster, I click thanks.

You come along, you disagree with the poster I agree with but there's no disagree button, hmmmm whatever shall you do. Here's a thought. Either A) Keep looking through the thread for the post that is in disagreement with the post you agree with and click the thanks button or State your argument why you disagree.

I'll summarise that for you. If you don't agree with someone then respond to their post. You'll get one back. If there's already a post that covers everything you want to say to the person you disagree with then thank it.

Why should there be an agree and a disagree? That'd mean you click disagree on the ones you don't like and click agree on the ones you do. Which is basically the youtube set up.

With the way it is now, all you do is find a post you agree with and click thanks. Nobody is stopping you adding an extra post in agreement with this person. Sure you can do both if you want to! The point is a lot of people will agree with each other but wont just thank and leave, they'll throw their own opinion in too. Same thing would happen if there was a disagree button. Not everyone who clicks disagree will do only that and leave. A lot of people like putting their own point across. Whether people agree with them or not is different. Just because they're quoting and saying plus one doesn't mean they're thanks whoring or anything. Just means they're putting their voice across in their own words and contributing to the thread.

Bonito wrote: »

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.

Bonito wrote: »

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.

Bonito wrote: »

Exactly. This works both ways. As I said earlier if you disagree with a post you have two options. 1) Make a post and say why you disagree. People who agree with your disagreement will then be able to thank you to say they share your views or 2) See if there's already a post on the thread that disagrees with the post you also disagree with and covers all your views as to why you disagree and thank it. Simples.


You must have missed my post on the previous page

Bonito wrote: »

Ok and would you want that number grade system anonymous or public and why?

Bonito wrote: »

That'll avoid these so called "cliques" I've been hearing about but it may create paranoia. Say some clicks a -1 on a post and then they make a post. The person who has been disagreed with may lash out with an "Oh, so it was you who clicked -1"

Obviously it's not a problem unless the person is a thanks whore but, there are some people who get out branded and labeled a thanks whore and then people tend to avoid them. Then you'll get the day were they'll post something a lot of people will agree with and they'll get no thanks at all. Even though other postsers will say "Yes I completely agree" they might go "Oh, it's just him/her they're just looking for thanks".

I think a +1/-1 system would create too many one liners and things would get a tad boring =/

I'm curious as to whether the Op and fonecrusher1 mean having this system site wide or just a certain forum/fora.

Bonito wrote: »

You can't just take the thanks system away and not replace it with something. The reason the thanks feature is there is to stop all the +1 posts.

Bonito wrote: »

Look. The topic of this thread is "agree/disagree" button whereas originally you were saying just get rid of the thanks button. Which is it? Do you want thanks gone altogether or replaced with a different system like agree/disagree?

I think applying it to a popular forum would be throwing it in the deep end. It should be introduced to a somewhat small but semi popular forum/fora to start with.

TBH the only place I can see this working is the threads of NSFW were we trick people. eg. Man gets hit by train and horrific F1 accident. You know something is up when you see a load of thanks but when you see a load of -1's you're going to fall for it :pac:

Also what's to stop people completely boycotting the disagree button and only using the agree button? I think it's lazy. If I agree with someone and have something to add I'll do it. I'm not thanks whoring from the person I agree with it. I'm adding info as to why I agree and they might just happen to thank me as in to say "Good point to add, why didn't I think of that?"

If I see something I disagree with I wont bother clicking disagree because if I do disagree I'll make a post why I disagree. Yes, I know some people wont but just because they're lazy doesn't mean we should change the system IMO.

Bottom line if you disagree tell us why. If you agree click thanks. If you agree but have something to add then do both. Don't just click disagree or -1 and then run off. What's the point in that? Obviously someone may come along later and make a post that highlights why you disagree and then you'll agree with them but why wait for someone else to do it? Why be lazy and not get the finger out and do it yourself and state why you disgree with someone rather than relying on a little button?

A thanks system keeps boards at a positive attitude. There'll be more aggro with a +1/-1 or agree/disagree system.

Bonito wrote: »

Yes. Hence why the multi quote feature is a doddle.

Bonito wrote: »

Redundant point. A thread of such manner would be reported and locked. No racism, sexism or any ism allowed.

Selective reading much?

fonecrusher1

Impressive multi-quoting there. And there was me scrolling down thinking you would have a decent response at the end of it.

Bonito

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Don't be silly. You know fine well, i was referring to a hypothetical scenario.

I'm not a mind reader so no, I did not know you were being hypothetical.

I think your just arguing for the sake of arguing to be honest.

If I'm arguing then what are you doing?

All you've done since you became involved in this discussion is rubbish the idea of having the thanks system changed.

Why change something that works?

Unfounded negative speculation is all i'm hearing from you. No no no never no, t'won't work!

Unfounded? I think you're beginning to stress now as I have rubbished any argument you have and made them redundant. I have placed all my points in the post above. Get your reading glasses out and stop tossing your toys from the pram.

The thanks button promotes laziness in my opinion.

And having an option of +1 or -1 wouldn't? It'd double the amount of posters being lazy. Think about it.

It also encourages clique activity, one upmanship & of course thanks-whoring.

So go find a clique?

If the option of only being able thank posts was taken away think about how many people would choose not to post that "hilarious" one-liner that often follows a lengthy first post & inevitably leads to further arguing that can strangle a potentially decent thread.

They'd still do it. As proved by the thread linked earlier of pigheads retort in the thunderdome. He didn't receive a single thank for it but by fúck was he going to let that little issue hold him back. Not EVERYONE who posts something witty or hilarious is a thanks whore. Not EVERYONE who thanks a post is part of that posters "clique" or are "buddies" with each other and will thank each other just for the hell of thanking them

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Impressive multi-quoting there. And there was me scrolling down thinking you would have a decent response at the end of it.

As if any of your points have broken anywhere? You're being argumentative, lazy and bitter. Sure you haven't even bothered to make a poll yet, have you? You've contradicted yourself so many times throughout the entire thread. You've no idea what you want. Your sarcasm is not going to get you anywhere. I now see why you're so objective to the thanks system. You're paranoid of the cliques and you're jealous of other posters receiving thanks. You infuriate and alienate people to the point where they can't argue back because your posts are just plain pointless and stupid.

The current system works. If you don't like it then why not just boycott it?

Dudess

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Before you give each other big pats on the back

They just agreed with each other - is even that offensive to your sensibilities now?

The people who do what you object to (thanking their friends etc) are in the minority - why on earth would you let something on Boards be dictated by them?


Disclaimer: I thanked Bonito's post above because I agree with it. I know it's critical of you in parts, but that in itself is not why I thanked it - I think it's a good post.

When I joined Boards I thought it was very cliquey and in-jokey... so I just ignored that aspect of it. Now I'm one of the people who gets accused of being in a clique and I'm absolutely not - things aren't always the way they seem.

Bonito

I wouldn't give a disclaimer on account of another posters critical remarks TBH. If people want to judge other people depending on who they thank, why they thank them, how many times they get thanked, rather than paying attention to their views then, it sucks to be them really.

fonecrusher1

Bonito wrote: »

As if any of your points have broken anywhere? You're being argumentative, lazy and bitter. Sure you haven't even bothered to make a poll yet, have you? You've contradicted yourself so many times throughout the entire thread. You've no idea what you want. Your sarcasm is not going to get you anywhere. I now see why you're so objective to the thanks system. You're paranoid of the cliques and you're jealous of other posters receiving thanks. You infuriate and alienate people to the point where they can't argue back because your posts are just plain pointless and stupid.

Change frightens you. Thats why your using the various descriptions highlighted above. Can't beat me with a civil discussion so you rely on personal remarks. Always a bad sign.

Sure of course, anyone who wants to see a new idea get a trial is argumentative, lazy, bitter, jealous & their posts are pointless & stupid. I can't stop laughing at you.:D:D

BTW...... i'm waiting for admin to give me the green light to conduct the poll in AH. It would be pointless to do it here.

stovelid

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

If the option of only being able thank posts was taken away think about how many people would choose not to post that "hilarious" one-liner that often follows a lengthy first post & inevitably leads to further arguing that can strangle a potentially decent thread.

I think this is often the nub of a lot of anti-thanks feeling. People get pissy when their earnest master-work doesn't get the respect of a "decent thread" that they feel is due.

Problem is that people like posting serious stuff in a forum like AH ironically because they themselves can evade the accountability of more serious forums to vent their spleen without backing themselves up in much the same way that jokers would also get banned in said forums.

If the forum doesn't specifically outlaw "disrespectful" replies to your opus, you can't really say that the people who want lols and the people who want a serious thread have any more right than the other to impose it. Which is actually what's quite enjoyable about AH - less and less frequently it would seem though - the way that threads can go either way and you might see a hilarious thread, a train wreck or a serious discussion depending on how the dice falls.

Dudess

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Change frightens you.

Oh come on... People have offered so many explanations as to why they don't think there's any point in the no thanks button, which you ignore, and instead, you just keep firing out pot shots about cliques and not much else.

Bonito

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Change frightens you. Thats why your using the various descriptions highlighted above. Can't beat me with a civil discussion so you rely on personal remarks. Always a bad sign.

Please stop acting childish and twisting my words. I said you're acting not you are.

Sure of course, anyone who wants to see a new idea get a trial is argumentative, lazy, bitter, jealous & their posts are pointless & stupid. I can't stop laughing at you.:D:D

They're your words, not mine. Do not try twist a concrete block, you end up looking foolish. I never once objected to the introduction or the trial of a new system I simply stated that the current one works so why should/would it be changed?

BTW...... i'm waiting for admin to give me the green light to conduct the poll in AH. It would be pointless to do it here.

You're wasting your time. PM a mod and ask for permission. If they refuse then PM a cmod and ask for permission. AH has 3 cmods covering it. If they refuse then the next step is feedback. Not pm'ing an admin. .

fonecrusher1

Bonito wrote: »

Please stop acting childish and twisting my words. I said you're acting not you are.

Then ease up with the little personal digs. I'm not paranoid & i'm certainly not jealous of anyone (FFS lifes too short), in fact until now ive never even posted in this section. Theres nothing anybody can say to me to make me feel bad about voicing my opinion on the thanks button. Its not about me, theres always ways of making something work better.

They're your words, not mine. Do not try twist a concrete block, you end up looking foolish. I never once objected to the introduction or the trial of a new system I simply stated that the current one works so why should/would it be changed?

Yeah but obviously not everyone is happy with the current system. I'm not saying we should not allow people to show that they are agreeing with a post. I just think it needs tweaking.

I'l pm an admin to see what the options are.

stovelid

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

I'l pm an admin to see what the options are.

Mark it urgent, although I've little doubt they're all hunched over their computers in fervid anticipation.

Dohnny Jepp

Out of curiosity why should a feedback issue be brought to AH? I mean why not soccer or relationship issue. .

It's a feedback issue, make it on feedback.

Bonito

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

Out of curiosity why should a feedback issue be brought to AH? I mean why not soccer or relationship issue. .

It's a feedback issue, make it on feedback.

Guessing he wants to get around the bit in the After Hours charter of

"Do not post here just to reach a wider audience, it is not allowed"

Hence asking an admin for permission.

fonecrusher1

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

Out of curiosity why should a feedback issue be brought to AH? I mean why not soccer or relationship issue. .

It's a feedback issue, make it on feedback.

I'm not sure if Feedback would gather the level of interest that a poll in AH would. It doesn't have to be in AH.
Anywhere thats very popular if you know what i mean. Is feedback popular? Is there info on which is the most popular section of the forum?

BTW lads how exactly do i contact Admin? Never done it before.

Dudess

Feedback is pretty popular - not the most popular, but far from dead.

I'm not paranoid & i'm certainly not jealous of anyone

Then why such seeming anger over cliqueyness that may not even be there? You even jumped on something totally innocuous here ffs...

You're right - life IS too short. It's a discussion forum - a huge one. A suggestion: enjoy the good bits and ignore the bad. The only battle worth fighting, in my opinion, is blatant (not indirect) bullying/harassment, but other than that, there's plenty to enjoy and plenty of great people - why let a few morons spoil it?

fonecrusher1

Dudess wrote: »

Then why such seeming anger over cliqueyness that may not even be there? You even jumped on something totally innocuous here ffs...

You're right - life IS too short. It's a discussion forum - a huge one. A suggestion: enjoy the good bits and ignore the bad. The only battle worth fighting is when someone is following you around and harassing you, but other than that, there's plenty to enjoy and plenty of great people - why let a few morons spoil it?

Honestly i don't want to get into it again. I'm not a huge fan of the thanks button. Thats all.

fonecrusher1

Jesus that post is so long i can't quote it!?

Can you explain this Karma system please? If you don't mind.

Midnight_EG

fonecrusher1 wrote: »

Jesus that post is so long i can't quote it!?

Can you explain this Karma system please? If you don't mind.

Here =]

fonecrusher1

Midnight_EG wrote: »

Here =]

Here bud, dats bleedin rapid.

pickarooney

How about a facepalm icon? That way the twits who love posting Patrick Stewart over and over and over and over can still enjoy their mockery by proxy without polluting everyone's bandwidth.