We want Forum Feedback!

[Amazon_warrior]

~~~ Sorry, wrong thread entirely! ~~~ o_O

Edited March 26, 2013 by Amazon_warrior

[Banuk]

I was just saying...

 

I've seen a push around here to FORCE people who don't like a suggestion to state a reason they don't like it.

 

It's only fair, if you want to force people to do that, that people who like a suggestion also state a reason.

 

Honestly, I really fail to see why a multitude of, "I support!" is any more conducive to proper discussion on an idea than a multitude of "I don't like.".

[Zovesta]

I guess because people feel like there needs to be a reason for someone to dislike something, but liking something is positive so it gets a free pass?

 

Plus, if someone doesn't like something, that means that there's probably something wrong, and this being a suggestions board, it would be best to think of ways to improve it, rather than just tossing it. A bunch of "i supports" just means "i can't really think of anything to add here, looks good to me!".

[angelicdragonpuppy]

My biggest concern with it, really, is that it represents an unnecessary level of strictness. The only other place I frequent is dA, where everyone can say pretty much anything but death threats without restriction; while I don't want the forums to be THAT relaxed, I do think warns should only be handed out for things that are genuinely bad.

 

It shouldn't be a question of whether or not someone can contribute more to the discussion than "I support," it should be a question of whether or not simply posting the words "I support" should be a punishable offense, to which I would say the answer ought to be a firm and resounding NO. What they've posted isn't offending anyone or going off topic, so leave them alone. They have done nothing that warrants punishment.

Edited March 26, 2013 by angelicdragonpuppy

[Banuk]

If it is a warnable offense in any section to simply post that you don't like something, and I've seen a push to make requiring a reason in other sections, then it's only fair that "I support" posts get the same treatment.

 

I don't see why you need an explicit reason to not like something, yet just saying, "Support" is fine even though it doesn't contribute to the topic or discussion any more than "I don't like this" does.

 

If you honestly can't find a reason why you like something, well...no one is forcing you to respond to a topic. It's not going to hurt anyone to go a little more in-depth than just, "I like this", and it's definitely going to keep discussion in a topic going more than a bunch of +1 posts would.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

If it is a warnable offense in any section to simply post that you don't like something, and I've seen a push to make requiring a reason in other sections, then it's only fair that "I support" posts get the same treatment.

 

I don't see why you need an explicit reason to not like something, yet just saying, "Support" is fine even though it doesn't contribute to the topic or discussion any more than "I don't like this" does.

 

If you honestly can't find a reason why you like something, well...no one is forcing you to respond to a topic. It's not going to hurt anyone to go a little more in-depth than just, "I like this", and it's definitely going to keep discussion in a topic going more than a bunch of +1 posts would.

Alternately, we could just get rid of warnings for saying "I don't support" without a reason. Let's push for less restrictions instead of making everything equally restricted.

Edited March 26, 2013 by angelicdragonpuppy

[kerrikins]

What confuses me about a lot of this back and forth is that there's a very simple way to allow for 'i like it' responses without needing to have a post... Polls. I know sometimes I respond only to a poll in a thread because I *don't* want to just say 'yes, I like this idea' because I know it doesn't contribute anything of value to the thread.

 

So maybe people should use polls more often? I don't see anything bad about asking people to expand a little when they're replying on why they do or don't like a suggestion.

[Zovesta]

What confuses me about a lot of this back and forth is that there's a very simple way to allow for 'i like it' responses without needing to have a post... Polls. I know sometimes I respond only to a poll in a thread because I *don't* want to just say 'yes, I like this idea' because I know it doesn't contribute anything of value to the thread.

 

So maybe people should use polls more often? I don't see anything bad about asking people to expand a little when they're replying on why they do or don't like a suggestion.

But you see, son.

 

Polls don't bump.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I think you're both missing the point I meant to make.

 

My question is simple: is the posting of the words "I support" or "I don't support" really so horrible that people should be warned for doing so?

 

Should people who post "I support" in a BSA thread really be getting the same punishment that someone else gets for calling someone a flaming retarded moron?

Edited March 26, 2013 by angelicdragonpuppy

[Lythiaren]

If it is a warnable offense in any section to simply post that you don't like something, and I've seen a push to make requiring a reason in other sections, then it's only fair that "I support" posts get the same treatment.

It's because if someone doesn't like something I made, I feel compelled to ask them why so I can find a way to appease them and coax them to the supporting side. No such compulsion exists when someone approves; I won't go out of my way to deliberately tell supporters to bugger off because that makes no sense. People are already parroting each other, but to me it seems like needless busywork to have the mods slog through suggestions to warn people for innocuous +1 posts all the time. Those resources could be better spent elsewhere, imo.

 

I mean, who is hurt by a +1 post? Are they any less hurt when those people go "people already said why I like this" instead?Is a +1 post disrespectful? Off-topic? Click begging? Do they contain eggs? Are these support posts insultingly unconstructive somehow? Are they porn? If not then they aren't technically breaking any rules, so...

 

I mean breaking Rule 7 doesn't seem to be a warnable offense (otherwise a lot of people in the Help forum would've gotten warnings and that's a scary thought).

Edited March 26, 2013 by Lythiaren

[Zovesta]

Are these support posts insultingly unconstructive somehow? Are they porn?

LMAO.

 

Gotta partly agree with angelicdragonpuppy here. I repeat, it won't kill someone to type a few more lines, but it isn't exactly... needed... either. And I don't think posting "I don't like this" is a warnable offense in the slightest, just be prepared for people immediately rushing to you shouting "SIR I WOULD LIKE YOU TO EXPLAIN THIS NOW PLEASE FOR SCIENCE".

[Rally Vincent]

Say 90% of people who like ascended dragons approve because they want an additional challenge once they collect a lot of dragons, and like the fact that the difficulty makes them exclusive, but all I see is that people want ascending. I then decide that the suggested method of obtaining them is too hard, and implement an easier way of obtaining them. And suddenly, no one likes ascending, even though the thread was overwhelmingly positive.

Then why would you be changing the way of obtaining them without testing the waters in the thread? I don't see that members would post "I like it, but I don't want it easier" because they do not have reason to say their opinion about an easier way. They are discussing the suggestion as it is posted. If you think it would be too hard, ask for people's opinion. They will be all be eager to tell you - in my opinion more readily when you inquire yourself instead of standing by and only watching where the wind blows. Members like it when you specifically ask them for input.

 

+1 posts show that a suggestion is supported. If people would like to have slight changes, they'll say it in their post. If +1 posts are forbidden, some suggestion might look as nobody supports it when in reality nobody would like to change it.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Rally Vincent

[TJ09]

Then why would you be changing the way of obtaining them without testing the waters in the thread?

I do not outline my every plan in public for all to review, nor am I required to.

[Rally Vincent]

I do not outline my every plan in public for all to review, nor am I required to.

I never said that you are required to. But then don't be surprised that people won't like changes to what they thought a suggestion would be. Nobody can think of any possible change and preemptively post their opinion about it in a suggestion thread.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I mean, who is hurt by a +1 post? Are they any less hurt when those people go "people already said why I like this" instead?Is a +1 post disrespectful? Off-topic? Click begging? Do they contain eggs? Are these support posts insultingly unconstructive somehow? Are they porn? If not then they aren't technically breaking any rules, so...

Very well said.

 

Also, it seems rather... odd... that +1 support posts in BSA threads would be unacceptable while "oooh yes I love this" is perfectly fine as a post in general suggestions, and "wow that's so pretty!" is perfectly fine as a post in dragon requests. If the goal is to "reduce clutter" or whatever, then those posts would have to be warnable, too--and yet that would be silly. Rules are more effective when they are consistent, and since in this case they can't be consistent without being ridiculous, I say the rule against them in the BSA section has to go.*

 

*I'm pretty sure the BSA section is the only place where that rule currently applies, correct?

[TJ09]

I mean, who is hurt by a +1 post? Are they any less hurt when those people go "people already said why I like this" instead?Is a +1 post disrespectful? Off-topic? Click begging? Do they contain eggs? Are these support posts insultingly unconstructive somehow? Are they porn? If not then they aren't technically breaking any rules, so...

Under the proposed wording of the new spam rule, yes, it does break the rule.

 

It isn't directly replying to anyone, and doesn't give anyone anything to reply to.

 

And I don't think that bit of the rule can be removed without opening the gates to posts we don't want.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Under the proposed wording of the new spam rule, yes, it does break the rule.

 

It isn't directly replying to anyone, and doesn't give anyone anything to reply to.

We are, however, suggesting that that part of the new definition be removed, for all the reasons listed in the posts above.

[TJ09]

We are, however, suggesting that that part of the new definition be removed, for all the reasons listed in the posts above.

The posts above are arguing about whether or not a specific practice should be allowed; the specific bit of rule that would prohibit it was not ever directly debated.

[kerrikins]

Idk, I don't see the big reason to protest against this. I mean, I've made 'I like this' posts in the past myself, but I don't think it would take very much effort or time for me to change that to give a little detail. I think that people would get used to it pretty quickly.

 

 

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Idk, I don't see the big reason to protest against this. I mean, I've made 'I like this' posts in the past myself, but I don't think it would take very much effort or time for me to change that to give a little detail. I think that people would get used to it pretty quickly.

Because it's really sad when the mentality on a forum is "oh, we should just get accustomed to this rule rather then try to have it changed, even though it's dumb, because we know nothing we can do will get it changed." Yes, we certainly can survive the loss of the ability to post +1 in the BSA section, but that doesn't mean we should have to survive it. It's a silly rule, and shouldn't be in place to begin with, never mind that it's not a hugely important issue.

 

The posts above are arguing about whether or not a specific practice should be allowed; the specific bit of rule that would prohibit it was not ever directly debated.

 

Aren't the two essentially the same thing? I think the practice should be allowed and thus, by association, I think the rule saying it isn't allowed should be removed.

Edited March 26, 2013 by angelicdragonpuppy

[MissK.]

Sorry to pop into the discussion so suddenly, but I don't really see posts of simple support as breaking the "doesn't reply to anybody, and doesn't give anybody anything to reply to" part of the rule against spam. They are a reply to the OP or to a specific person quoted, aren't they?

[Cinnamin Draconna]

It breaks down to us saying you TJ are being too strict. You seem to want us to say something, but you're also trying to dictate what we say and that won't work.

 

If we like something, we'll tell you.. even if it's just 'I support'. If we like it and want to say why, we'll tell you.. but sometimes it's already been said a dozen times or more, so why clutter up the thread. The opposite is true as well, if we don't like something we'll tell you, and hopefully we'll include a reason. Which is much more likely than repeating what a dozen others have already said in support. Negative responses almost always want to say more just to get their point across.

 

But there's no need to constantly repeat ourselves in support of something, UNLESS we have another suggestion or change to go with it. Then we start the process over again.. and eventually, we'll return to the point where 'I support' is all that needs to be said.

 

There is a difference and there is no need to punish/warn someone for it.

[fainewebbe]

I frequent forums where the +1 rule is allowed and and some where it isn't allowed. I will say on the forums it is allowed, I do see people clearly using it just to up their post count, so I can see where it would be considered spam. If I ever use it, I always state the reason why I support a previous post, too.

 

 

 

 

 

[cfmtfm]

I frequent forums where the +1 rule is allowed and and some where it isn't allowed. I will say on the forums it is allowed, I do see people clearly using it just to up their post count, so I can see where it would be considered spam. If I ever use it, I always state the reason why I support a previous post, too.

I completely agree with this. This is mainly why I am against the "I support" messages becoming allowed.

 

edit: oh look, perfect example.

Edited March 26, 2013 by cfmtfm

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I would rather see the option open to everyone, with a few people abusing it, then have another case of "Sorry, 99% of users who are good and decent, you can't have this because the 1% might troll with it."

 

And, even if some people DO use it just to up their post count--so can people who just post "this is awesome" in dragon requests and general suggestions threads. Do you want to ban those people from doing so in those places, too, and in the process wipe out all the decent people who do the same thing without an alternative reason to their actions? I should hope you wouldn't.

Edited March 26, 2013 by angelicdragonpuppy