I feel the fear that people will just post 'yes I agree with this post' is toothless, who here would honestly do that themself? We would just internally agree with a post, or post a reply if we feel there's more to say on the topic
My own criticism of removing reactions is removing a method of communication for people who don't post as often. Some of these threads get super buddy buddy and move so quickly anybody not in the circle have a hard time keeping up. Being able to just plop down reactions while catching up to conversations allows partial participation
At the same time feelings of cliques are enhanced when you notice which people react to only specific other people, or feelings of isolation when your post gets minimal reactions and the post below yours of just somebody saying 'fart' gets the whole forum behind it
I feel it grants a nuance to communication via forums you can't get otherwise, but it does make us lazier when participating in conversations
like, the degree of parsing and remembering you'd have to do to even notice this is baffling
I can see that some people might skim a thread for heavily-reactioned posts (though it's not how I like to read threads), but actually paying attention to who reacted is not within my experiential zone.
I think removing them sounds excellent. Far too many times it's people posting 'I agree with our posts' with everyone hitting agree or awesome on each others posts in a big jerking chain anyway.
May as well cut out one aspect of that. Also people might actually think about posts a bit more if they don't automatically know whats the most accepted/unaccepted posts. Because things like Witness Me are definitely used negatively anyway.
I think people disagree with you because they actually disagree with you, not because they are being tricked by gamified reaction buttons
I never actually said anything about people disagreeing. I mean more the chain of people dogpiling one person with all the same dozen people agreeing or awesomeing each others identical posts all the way down.
Step on over to the election thread to see this in action every two or three pages. Where somehow hitting 'agree' then making a lengthly post anyway to say the same thing the four posts you just agreed to is in any way useful, then those three posters hit agree on yours as well because.. Solidarity?
It's silly and isn't really cutting down on anything but definitely letting people feel ganged up on in an even more overt fashion.
It just feels even weirder that people on a forum feel like they want to express an opinion but cant be bothered so just want a button for it, but I mean thats the very basis of Reddit and that got pretty popular so I can see why others want to emulate it.
I feel the fear that people will just post 'yes I agree with this post' is toothless, who here would honestly do that themself?
Yo.
I know I would, sometimes you want to express agreement with someone, and if the only way to do that is by quoting it and adding "I agree" then that's what you do. That's what it was like before reactions were a thing.
I feel the fear that people will just post 'yes I agree with this post' is toothless, who here would honestly do that themself?
Yo.
I know I would, sometimes you want to express agreement with someone, and if the only way to do that is by quoting it and adding "I agree" then that's what you do. That's what it was like before reactions were a thing.
Otoh if turning them off returns the forums to a time when threads would hit the moon in a day then I probably wouldn't complain.
I feel the fear that people will just post 'yes I agree with this post' is toothless, who here would honestly do that themself?
Yo.
I know I would, sometimes you want to express agreement with someone, and if the only way to do that is by quoting it and adding "I agree" then that's what you do. That's what it was like before reactions were a thing.
Otoh if turning them off returns the forums to a time when threads would hit the moon in a day then I probably wouldn't complain.
... I'm pretty sure others would, though.
At the very least, @DaMoonRulz would probably get pretty sick of getting hit by threads all the damn time.
I can see that some people might skim a thread for heavily-reactioned posts (though it's not how I like to read threads)
I've totally done this for fast moving threads. Seeing a few hundred posts since I've last looked at a thread usually results in me skimming through highlights until I get a couple pages from the end.
I think removing them sounds excellent. Far too many times it's people posting 'I agree with our posts' with everyone hitting agree or awesome on each others posts in a big jerking chain anyway.
May as well cut out one aspect of that. Also people might actually think about posts a bit more if they don't automatically know whats the most accepted/unaccepted posts. Because things like Witness Me are definitely used negatively anyway.
I think people disagree with you because they actually disagree with you, not because they are being tricked by gamified reaction buttons
I never actually said anything about people disagreeing. I mean more the chain of people dogpiling one person with all the same dozen people agreeing or awesomeing each others identical posts all the way down.
Step on over to the election thread to see this in action every two or three pages. Where somehow hitting 'agree' then making a lengthly post anyway to say the same thing the four posts you just agreed to is in any way useful, then those three posters hit agree on yours as well because.. Solidarity?
It's silly and isn't really cutting down on anything but definitely letting people feel ganged up on in an even more overt fashion.
It just feels even weirder that people on a forum feel like they want to express an opinion but cant be bothered so just want a button for it, but I mean thats the very basis of Reddit and that got pretty popular so I can see why others want to emulate it.
I honestly don't see the dogpiling you describe, but that might just mean I am part of the glob of majority opinion that does the dogpiling. The only solution I can see to that problem is just to not have a politics thread though. Wouldn't taking away reactions just make every person who contributes to what you feel are dogpiles with reactions now just do the same thing with a bunch of individual posts then? It's not like people will stop wanting to present their stance if they have to write a short post instead of clicking a reaction.
I have looked at the leaderboards maybe twice my entire time here, but one of the main reasons I post is for the reactions to know that other people like what I am posting.
I think removing them sounds excellent. Far too many times it's people posting 'I agree with our posts' with everyone hitting agree or awesome on each others posts in a big jerking chain anyway.
May as well cut out one aspect of that. Also people might actually think about posts a bit more if they don't automatically know whats the most accepted/unaccepted posts. Because things like Witness Me are definitely used negatively anyway.
I think people disagree with you because they actually disagree with you, not because they are being tricked by gamified reaction buttons
I never actually said anything about people disagreeing. I mean more the chain of people dogpiling one person with all the same dozen people agreeing or awesomeing each others identical posts all the way down.
Step on over to the election thread to see this in action every two or three pages. Where somehow hitting 'agree' then making a lengthly post anyway to say the same thing the four posts you just agreed to is in any way useful, then those three posters hit agree on yours as well because.. Solidarity?
It's silly and isn't really cutting down on anything but definitely letting people feel ganged up on in an even more overt fashion.
It just feels even weirder that people on a forum feel like they want to express an opinion but cant be bothered so just want a button for it, but I mean thats the very basis of Reddit and that got pretty popular so I can see why others want to emulate it.
same. 90% of posts right below mine where someone is rudin' me have like twelve agrees.
A magician gives you a ring that, when worn, will let you see the world as it truly is.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
I have on occasion felt that they were being used in a way that could at least be perceived as dog piling, as well as the general clique-ishness. I also know there are times I've decided not to make a post because if I did it was rather likely someone would just post a simple "No, you're wrong" and get a bunch of agrees for it, so why bother? (ie. having a contrary opinion on some of the forum favorites like Ultimate Peter Parker or the Speed Racer movie, even if the current discussion is someone asking for opinions on said topic and an array of opinions would be useful).
Though as an addition, empty posts that just say "I agree" or "Lime for truth" should probably be made to be against the rules (if they aren't already, I previously thought they were but didn't see it on a quick glance at the rules) to encourage people to actually make a worthwhile post if it's an issue they feel strongly enough about.
I think removing them sounds excellent. Far too many times it's people posting 'I agree with our posts' with everyone hitting agree or awesome on each others posts in a big jerking chain anyway.
May as well cut out one aspect of that. Also people might actually think about posts a bit more if they don't automatically know whats the most accepted/unaccepted posts. Because things like Witness Me are definitely used negatively anyway.
I think people disagree with you because they actually disagree with you, not because they are being tricked by gamified reaction buttons
I never actually said anything about people disagreeing. I mean more the chain of people dogpiling one person with all the same dozen people agreeing or awesomeing each others identical posts all the way down.
Step on over to the election thread to see this in action every two or three pages. Where somehow hitting 'agree' then making a lengthly post anyway to say the same thing the four posts you just agreed to is in any way useful, then those three posters hit agree on yours as well because.. Solidarity?
It's silly and isn't really cutting down on anything but definitely letting people feel ganged up on in an even more overt fashion.
It just feels even weirder that people on a forum feel like they want to express an opinion but cant be bothered so just want a button for it, but I mean thats the very basis of Reddit and that got pretty popular so I can see why others want to emulate it.
same. 90% of posts right below mine where someone is rudin' me have like twelve agrees.
It's possible you're confusing the order of events. It's possible someone disagreed, posted to the effect, then refreshed the thread and found similar posts. That they agreed with.
As an example.
e: also I don't see how removing reactions would alleviate dogpiling in any way. If anything, people who otherwise would have simply reacted will now post, and add further content, which will make the dogpile bigger
I think removing them sounds excellent. Far too many times it's people posting 'I agree with our posts' with everyone hitting agree or awesome on each others posts in a big jerking chain anyway.
May as well cut out one aspect of that. Also people might actually think about posts a bit more if they don't automatically know whats the most accepted/unaccepted posts. Because things like Witness Me are definitely used negatively anyway.
I think people disagree with you because they actually disagree with you, not because they are being tricked by gamified reaction buttons
I never actually said anything about people disagreeing. I mean more the chain of people dogpiling one person with all the same dozen people agreeing or awesomeing each others identical posts all the way down.
Step on over to the election thread to see this in action every two or three pages. Where somehow hitting 'agree' then making a lengthly post anyway to say the same thing the four posts you just agreed to is in any way useful, then those three posters hit agree on yours as well because.. Solidarity?
It's silly and isn't really cutting down on anything but definitely letting people feel ganged up on in an even more overt fashion.
It just feels even weirder that people on a forum feel like they want to express an opinion but cant be bothered so just want a button for it, but I mean thats the very basis of Reddit and that got pretty popular so I can see why others want to emulate it.
I honestly don't see the dogpiling you describe, but that might just mean I am part of the glob of majority opinion that does the dogpiling. The only solution I can see to that problem is just to not have a politics thread though. Wouldn't taking away reactions just make every person who contributes to what you feel are dogpiles with reactions now just do the same thing with a bunch of individual posts then? It's not like people will stop wanting to present their stance if they have to write a short post instead of clicking a reaction.
The difference is the clicking the reaction is a lot easier, especially since in a forum like D&D where you're generally expected to put more than one sentence of effort into your post. So before if you said something "controversial" like 10 people would post some variation of "fuck you", now you have 3 posts that say your ideas are bad and you should feel bad and 25 agrees on the first one. There's a reason very few people with right-wing positions stick around to discuss politics, and it's not because you all convinced them to change their minds.
However I personally feel that political discussion on the internet is a fool's errand anyway, and politics are also not what the majority of the forum discussion is about. So I think that drawback is worth the benefits reactions give to the rest of the forum. And reactions are not, for example, why presidential threads keep getting locked in D&D anyway (at least in my opinion that is not the fuel for it).
It's been said, but I think my answer's going to depend on how long "a while" is here. If it's a short term experiment or research then it's not a big deal. If you're looking at months (or, as some people seem to be assuming, thinking about removing them completely), then maybe it's an awful sounding thing.
Speaking for myself, I like the reactions functionality. Having the ability to agree or awesome a post without actually making a new post to say so is nice and seems to reduce the whole signal to noise ratio, and the extra reactions (be they "Bro", "Raven" our current Mad Max inspired ones, or whatever comes next) adds to the flavor and uniqueness of the forum and community. I mean, it's always fun to see the threads debating what "Witness Me" actually means as a reaction.
I mean, I'm not going to quit the forum over this one way or the other, but for my vote I'd like the reactions to stay around.
Also, I like the Best Of page, like the old "Awesome Posts" board, it let's me see posts in threads that I ordinarily would skip over entirely.
I will say that "reactions = dogpiling" is a perception of things I hadn't considered. I'm not sure I agree with that thought, but I can certainly see where others might agree.
I think some uses could be construed as dog piling, but overall I think reactions are a net benefit to the forum rather than a detriment, plus it is fun to have some seasonal ones and see how the site develops it's only language around them.
"Go down, kick ass, and set yourselves up as gods, that's our Prime Directive!"
The points and leaderboards are silly, and I think the non agree/awesome reaction buttons are corny and fraudulent.
0
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
Keep the reactions
Ditch the leaderboards (seriously, we had those?! I had no idea)
If anything, keep Agree and Awesome around, because even if a bunch of people agree with a post in an argument, with the Reaction it's a crowd mumbling agreement instead of the deafening Greek Chorus that a series of agreeing posts would be.
I like reactions, because a lot of stuff that I post doesn't necessarily prompt a more detailed response, but it's a nice self-esteem boost to see that people bothered to read it, and enjoyed it. And I also like handing reactions out. As a less-frequent poster, most of my interactions with the forums come through the reaction buttons.
Didn't even know about leaderboards, though. I'd say you can ditch those.
Realizing lately that I don't really trust or respect basically any of the moderators here. So, good luck with life, friends! Hit me up on Twitter @DesertLeviathan
Leaderboards seem a little weird. I don't think anything is gained by their presence at all.
I am super down with getting rid of Hail Hydra and Mad Max style reactions. I was so damn sick of "witness me" and such being tossed around before I got around to seeing the movie that those moments wound up being a bit ruined for me.
Reactions encourage people to make snappy one liners, fantastic put-downs, and impassioned monologues, and they have turned the forum into a sort of discussion theater where a few forumers - or even one talking to and about nobody in particular - make the rounds for a larger audience, who then may take turns on stage.
Before reactions, discussions tended to be esoteric, and long, split quote trees were common across all boards as people felt the need to respond thoroughly rather than make a simple post easy to understand by someone not really committed to the conversation, but interested enough to click the reaction button. It was more intimate and felt as if the only people listening to the conversation were also actively participating.
However, around the time reaction buttons became popular, so did phone posting, and reactions served the purpose of shortening and twittering posts to make mobile foruming more convenient.
The behavior encouraged by reaction buttons can't be changed back with just a temporary ban, and it is not obvious that such a change is desirable. I'd like to know what brought up this suggestion in the first place. What are the problems reactions have caused? Would a temp ban really help, or is an attitude correction and increased awareness sufficient?
I don't use reaction buttons or any of the newfangled forum tech because I'm old and I fear change. I try to ignore reactions and not let them affect my attitudes toward other forumers. I don't really have a stake in this.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Eh, quote trees died on mobile for me. If I'm on my PC, I'm way more likely to engage. On mobile if I start seeing long ass quote trees I just start scrolling, waiting for a post with a bunch of reactions, or a tweet, so I can get a feel for the general pulse of the convo
I like reactions in fast-moving threads, when I am bus postin'.
If a funny post happens on page 32 of the podcast thread, and I am acutely aware that it will be page 35 before I can get a full post out, it's nice to have a shorthand that says, "I appreciate this, but do not have the time to verbalize that fact."
It allows me to feel like I'm participating, and a part of the community, even when my schedule/circumstances are interfering.
Posts
look crwth is a forum institution
Yo.
like, the degree of parsing and remembering you'd have to do to even notice this is baffling
I can see that some people might skim a thread for heavily-reactioned posts (though it's not how I like to read threads), but actually paying attention to who reacted is not within my experiential zone.
I never actually said anything about people disagreeing. I mean more the chain of people dogpiling one person with all the same dozen people agreeing or awesomeing each others identical posts all the way down.
Step on over to the election thread to see this in action every two or three pages. Where somehow hitting 'agree' then making a lengthly post anyway to say the same thing the four posts you just agreed to is in any way useful, then those three posters hit agree on yours as well because.. Solidarity?
It's silly and isn't really cutting down on anything but definitely letting people feel ganged up on in an even more overt fashion.
It just feels even weirder that people on a forum feel like they want to express an opinion but cant be bothered so just want a button for it, but I mean thats the very basis of Reddit and that got pretty popular so I can see why others want to emulate it.
crwth was an infuriating thing when I first came here
now if he suddenly popped up in my home in a family conversation to say Fart I wouldn't even notice
I know I would, sometimes you want to express agreement with someone, and if the only way to do that is by quoting it and adding "I agree" then that's what you do. That's what it was like before reactions were a thing.
Otoh if turning them off returns the forums to a time when threads would hit the moon in a day then I probably wouldn't complain.
... I'm pretty sure others would, though.
At the very least, @DaMoonRulz would probably get pretty sick of getting hit by threads all the damn time.
I've totally done this for fast moving threads. Seeing a few hundred posts since I've last looked at a thread usually results in me skimming through highlights until I get a couple pages from the end.
I honestly don't see the dogpiling you describe, but that might just mean I am part of the glob of majority opinion that does the dogpiling. The only solution I can see to that problem is just to not have a politics thread though. Wouldn't taking away reactions just make every person who contributes to what you feel are dogpiles with reactions now just do the same thing with a bunch of individual posts then? It's not like people will stop wanting to present their stance if they have to write a short post instead of clicking a reaction.
The leaderboards seem a bit pointless
Well being a dinosaur helps
all those feathers are really reaction-provoking
Agreed
up with verbal circle jerks
also up with actual circle jerks
same. 90% of posts right below mine where someone is rudin' me have like twelve agrees.
However, the ring will never leave your finger, and you will be unable to ever describe to another living person what you see.
I have on occasion felt that they were being used in a way that could at least be perceived as dog piling, as well as the general clique-ishness. I also know there are times I've decided not to make a post because if I did it was rather likely someone would just post a simple "No, you're wrong" and get a bunch of agrees for it, so why bother? (ie. having a contrary opinion on some of the forum favorites like Ultimate Peter Parker or the Speed Racer movie, even if the current discussion is someone asking for opinions on said topic and an array of opinions would be useful).
Though as an addition, empty posts that just say "I agree" or "Lime for truth" should probably be made to be against the rules (if they aren't already, I previously thought they were but didn't see it on a quick glance at the rules) to encourage people to actually make a worthwhile post if it's an issue they feel strongly enough about.
It's possible you're confusing the order of events. It's possible someone disagreed, posted to the effect, then refreshed the thread and found similar posts. That they agreed with.
As an example.
e: also I don't see how removing reactions would alleviate dogpiling in any way. If anything, people who otherwise would have simply reacted will now post, and add further content, which will make the dogpile bigger
However I personally feel that political discussion on the internet is a fool's errand anyway, and politics are also not what the majority of the forum discussion is about. So I think that drawback is worth the benefits reactions give to the rest of the forum. And reactions are not, for example, why presidential threads keep getting locked in D&D anyway (at least in my opinion that is not the fuel for it).
Speaking for myself, I like the reactions functionality. Having the ability to agree or awesome a post without actually making a new post to say so is nice and seems to reduce the whole signal to noise ratio, and the extra reactions (be they "Bro", "Raven" our current Mad Max inspired ones, or whatever comes next) adds to the flavor and uniqueness of the forum and community. I mean, it's always fun to see the threads debating what "Witness Me" actually means as a reaction.
I mean, I'm not going to quit the forum over this one way or the other, but for my vote I'd like the reactions to stay around.
Also, I like the Best Of page, like the old "Awesome Posts" board, it let's me see posts in threads that I ordinarily would skip over entirely.
add three new gimmick reactions to replace them
Ditch the leaderboards (seriously, we had those?! I had no idea)
If anything, keep Agree and Awesome around, because even if a bunch of people agree with a post in an argument, with the Reaction it's a crowd mumbling agreement instead of the deafening Greek Chorus that a series of agreeing posts would be.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
Didn't even know about leaderboards, though. I'd say you can ditch those.
Seems like solid circular logic to me
Leaderboards seem a little weird. I don't think anything is gained by their presence at all.
I am super down with getting rid of Hail Hydra and Mad Max style reactions. I was so damn sick of "witness me" and such being tossed around before I got around to seeing the movie that those moments wound up being a bit ruined for me.
Before reactions, discussions tended to be esoteric, and long, split quote trees were common across all boards as people felt the need to respond thoroughly rather than make a simple post easy to understand by someone not really committed to the conversation, but interested enough to click the reaction button. It was more intimate and felt as if the only people listening to the conversation were also actively participating.
However, around the time reaction buttons became popular, so did phone posting, and reactions served the purpose of shortening and twittering posts to make mobile foruming more convenient.
The behavior encouraged by reaction buttons can't be changed back with just a temporary ban, and it is not obvious that such a change is desirable. I'd like to know what brought up this suggestion in the first place. What are the problems reactions have caused? Would a temp ban really help, or is an attitude correction and increased awareness sufficient?
I don't use reaction buttons or any of the newfangled forum tech because I'm old and I fear change. I try to ignore reactions and not let them affect my attitudes toward other forumers. I don't really have a stake in this.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Up with disney sitcom reactions
If a funny post happens on page 32 of the podcast thread, and I am acutely aware that it will be page 35 before I can get a full post out, it's nice to have a shorthand that says, "I appreciate this, but do not have the time to verbalize that fact."
It allows me to feel like I'm participating, and a part of the community, even when my schedule/circumstances are interfering.