Enable "Reaction" feature on forums

[tjekan]

10 hours ago, TJ09 said:

 

I can't tell if your post is meant to be for or against reactions, but a post (even one that just says "Like!") takes up a significant chunk of real estate while a reaction is a little icon with a number, so the two cannot really be compared.

 

That post was meant to be neither pro nor con, merely pointing out that enabling emoji-only responses would mark a significant shift in forum culture towards accepting generic responses. The amount of space on the page that the reaction takes up isn't the issue, it's the fact that right now, a post that isn't specific and fully explicated is strongly discouraged, to the point that it's dismissed as 'spam.' If people start to be encouraged to react to things with simple unexplained like emojis, they're probably going to start saying more things like "I agree" without explaining why, too, or "Great post, Bob!" without saying why.

 

I'm not sure whether this would be a good change or a bad change, but it would be a change. Maybe it would improve the forum by making it more relaxed and welcoming. Maybe it would damage it by making it less intelligent and focused. Maybe both, I really don't know.

Edited November 19, 2019 by tjekan

[Fuzzbucket]

7 hours ago, dragonico said:

I suppose as with a lot of social media, people can crave validation or some form of acknowledgement, and reacts can offer that. If no-one were to reply to one of my posts as an example, that can be perhaps a bit dejecting, but a reaction maybe would be less of an ask? As I'm typing, I do feel that there's probably no more chance of someone liking my post versus just replying though. I'm just imagining this very thread with posts having reactions, and I think it may perhaps feel more clique-y or divisive? I think having this measure of popularity in some form ultimately is making me think I'd prefer no reactions, but I'm still open to the idea of a trial. Like @Sazandora has mentioned, that feeling is one of the reasons I don't really post much on social media. And as someone who already doesn't post much on the forums, it would probably make me want to post less.

 

This exactly. One does not post to get acknowledgement, but this might result in exactly that.

 

7 hours ago, tjekan said:

I think it's worth stressing that for better or for worse, we have a forum culture here that discourages non-substantive comments as useless, annoying, even spammy. How can one permit the posting of nothing but a like emoji in response to a post while continuing to hold the line against an "I agree with this so much" post? If anything the "I agree with this" post carries a little more meaning, since it's usually clearer what they're agreeing with (it being quoted) and since you can at least feel certain the like emoji is meant to show agreement rather than, for example, sympathy.

 

Do we want to keep the discouragement of one-sentence posts and posts that do nothing but agree with other posters? Because if so, we should really not allow responses with only an emoji on them either. It's quite inconsistent otherwise.

 

This too.

 

5 hours ago, sorenna said:

Don't want it, and wouldn't use it.

 

Forums aren't Facebook, and I don't see any reason why people would need to "like" a Forum post.  It's not as though you gain points or your post will move to the top of the thread if it's more popular, so what point does it serve that replying with " " doesn't?  

 

This is key - a "reaction" is not a reply.

 

3 hours ago, RealWilliamShakespeare said:

 

I think that post was just saying that Admins can disable the reactions - just like this forum is now, with no reactions. As TJ just said, I don't think it's possible for individuals to opt out?

 

If we cannot opt out completely and if this happens., I will be very very little in discussion threads. Whether this is a good thing or not is up to others to react to :lol:. I do not want to receive reactions,  I would never give them,, and I do not want to see them AT ALL.

 

ETA just looked at the first post - "You can disable all of them except Like."

 

@TJ09 - for heaven's sake you can fix that , can you not ? I don't want ANY of them, EVER. Or does that mean that even the forum owner can't disable like if the feature kicks in ?

Edited November 19, 2019 by Fuzzbucket

[TJ09]

27 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

@TJ09 - for heaven's sake you can fix that , can you not ? I don't want ANY of them, EVER. Or does that mean that even the forum owner can't disable like if the feature kicks in ?

 

I can't delete the one currently named "Like," but I can change literally every property of it (the name, the icon, etc).

[Confused Cat]

3 hours ago, RealWilliamShakespeare said:

 

That being said, I still opt for a trial run. I think it's the only way to know for sure how this forum as a whole would... Heh, react to them.

 

A trial run would very likely mean that it would stay forever, as long as nothing big and undisputably terrible happens.

 

The changes that some people are worried about would not look big and terrible. Would we even notice "hey, user A has posted a lot less recently" or "hmm, user B seems to be gone" or "huh, why do fewer people agree/disagree with user C these days?" Would I think about possible reactions before posting? (And would I read other people's posts wondering if they wrote something just to get those reactions?) How would the inevitable "I know nobody will like this, but..." and "just give me your dislikes, I don't care, lol" affect the forum's "culture"?

 

I'm afraid the reasons for disabling the feature again would never be "good enough" once it has been enabled, even if it really has negative consequences. So what I'm trying to say is, a trial run will probably not be a trial run, and even though there are good arguments for the feature, the idea "we can just disable it again if it doesn't work" should not be used as a reason to enable it.

 

I still sometimes think "where is the little heart I can click below this post?", but I'd rather not have that than risk people feeling bad or stressed out about reactions.

 

[Dohaerys]

8 hours ago, tjekan said:

I think it's worth stressing that for better or for worse, we have a forum culture here that discourages non-substantive comments as useless, annoying, even spammy. How can one permit the posting of nothing but a like emoji in response to a post while continuing to hold the line against an "I agree with this so much" post? If anything the "I agree with this" post carries a little more meaning, since it's usually clearer what they're agreeing with (it being quoted) and since you can at least feel certain the like emoji is meant to show agreement rather than, for example, sympathy.

The reason short, vague posts are banned is because they are spam- because they take up space in the thread without contributing to it,  and thus make the thread cluttered and make quality posts harder to find

Adding reactions will not invalidate this rule: reactions do not take up space, usually they will appear at the bottom corner of the post - if a 100 people reply with 'I agree's, that's a 100 replies in the thread that take up a large amount of space which is not desireable. If a 100 'I agree' reactions are put on a post, they would all (I assume) just appear as the 'I agree' icon with a 100 next to it, Not taking up any significant space. 

Short vague posts are banned not because they are short and vague, but because they are space wasters, which reactions are not.

 

I am all for the implementation of reactions , they are a very useful way to gauge the reactions of lurkers like me who would not want to post a reply in a suggestion thread for whatever reason they have , without the OP having to go through making a poll

(I pretty much only post in DR, and this is a good way for my opinion , for example, to be seen)

 

 

 

 

[RealWilliamShakespeare]

43 minutes ago, Confused Cat said:

A trial run would very likely mean that it would stay forever, as long as nothing big and undisputably terrible happens.

 

You really don't know that. Especially not in a situation where many people are asking for a trial run with a clear start and end date. Assuming things isn't helpful in these situations. And if the trial run were to go on forever and the results are as bad as you think they'll be, there can always be a suggestion thread created saying "get rid of the reactions" that I would happily contribute to.

[Confused Cat]

43 minutes ago, RealWilliamShakespeare said:

 

You really don't know that. Especially not in a situation where many people are asking for a trial run with a clear start and end date. Assuming things isn't helpful in these situations. And if the trial run were to go on forever and the results are as bad as you think they'll be, there can always be a suggestion thread created saying "get rid of the reactions" that I would happily contribute to.

 

You are right, I don't know it. I guess I'm sort of inferring it from my everyday experiences, where temporary solutions always end up permanent even when I insist that "I'll fix it one day". 

I'm not even 100% against the feature, but I do think that enabling it as an experiment will make it more likely that it will stay enabled because (among other reasons) disabling it again would require more justification than just not enabling it would have required.

(I'm sure there is a better way to explain what I'm trying to say... )

 

 

Edit:

Oh no! I have 3333 posts, but now I can't post about it because then it would be 3334! 

Goodbye forum, I can never post again, because I like numbers.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Confused Cat

[RealWilliamShakespeare]

1 minute ago, Confused Cat said:

 

You are right, I don't know it. I guess I'm sort of inferring it from my everyday experiences, where temporary solutions always end up permanent even when I insist that "I'll fix it one day". 

I'm not even 100% against the feature, but I do think that enabling it as an experiment will make it more likely that it will stay enabled because (among other reasons) disabling it again would require more justification than just not enabling it would have required.

(I'm sure there is a better way to explain what I'm trying to say... )

 

No, that makes sense This is why I am for an end date to the trial, so that afterwards opinions can be gathered on whether to fully impliment or leave it be.

[Fuzzbucket]

1 hour ago, TJ09 said:

 

I can't delete the one currently named "Like," but I can change literally every property of it (the name, the icon, etc).

 

But can we as individual users opt out of this whole thing - not allow people to "like" us and not see the stuff at all ? If not this place will become TOTALLY unappealing to a lot of people who've been posting happily here for years. I can PROBABLY manage to hide the stuff through my browser settings, but I don't want people to be able to react to my posts - I think it's rather sick.

[Dohaerys]

1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

But can we as individual users opt out of this whole thing - not allow people to "like" us and not see the stuff at all ? 

Not allowing people to react to your posts would defeat the whole purpose of the reactions function, as it is meant to allow people to easily give their general opinion on something without having to post a reply in the thread which takes time and mainly space  in the thread.

If you make it so that other users can't react to your posts, then you'll have threads with certain posts where people can and have reacted to, to show their support, while there shall be other posts which, in reality could have potentially even more support, but because reactions are disabled on these posts, you won't know just how many people would be in support of the argument put forth in that post.

Thus, I do not think people should be able to prevent other users from reacting to their posts on suggestions forums , as that is where reactions would be important. However, as for opting to not see reactions, if you want that then go ahead , I have nothing against that and you have every right to disable seeing something that makes you uncomfortable.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Dohaerys

[Fuzzbucket]

49 minutes ago, Dohaerys said:

Not allowing people to react to your posts would defeat the whole purpose of the reactions function, as it is meant to allow people to easily give their general opinion on something without having to post a reply in the thread which takes time and mainly space  in the thread.

If you make it so that other users can't react to your posts, then you'll have threads with certain posts where people can and have reacted to, to show their support, while there shall be other posts which, in reality could have potentially even more support, but because reactions are disabled on these posts, you won't know just how many people would be in support of the argument put forth in that post.

Thus, I do not think people should be able to prevent other users from reacting to their posts on suggestions forums , as that is where reactions would be important. However, as for opting to not see reactions, if you want that then go ahead , I have nothing against that and you have every right to disable seeing something that makes you uncomfortable.

 

 Allowing them would destroy any pleasure I have in this place. That's my POINT and that of many others in this thread. If you want to react to my posts, post. If you can't be bothered - your choice. Don't panic - if reactions to my posts have to be allowed, there will be virtually no discussion posts from me for you to react to. Discussion will be meaningless and I would only post if I were actually desperate. Which - with a  pixel game - is not very likely.

[RealWilliamShakespeare]

19 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Allowing them would destroy any pleasure I have in this place. That's my POINT and that of many others in this thread. If you want to react to my posts, post. If you can't be bothered - your choice. Don't panic - if reactions to my posts have to be allowed, there will be virtually no discussion posts from me for you to react to. Discussion will be meaningless and I would only post if I were actually desperate. Which - with a  pixel game - is not very likely.

 

I'm not trying to sound snarky, I promise, but I'm just wondering why exactly would it destroy the pleasure for you?

[Fuzzbucket]

I know you aren't, sweety

 

It would remove so much from discussion. Here, at the moment, we have  actual discussions where people actually state their point of view. With reactions, many wouldn't bother (a lot have already said this, that they would click rather than post) and also you WOULD get people clicking "like" on their friends' posts without reading them. You'd have no idea what they liked, you'd have no idea why they "liked" it; you'd have no idea if they have any ideas of their own, or if it's just a reflex action because "hey Grey posted; I LIKE Grey", click. They mean nothing, and they would take away a lot. And like it or not, it WOULD become a popularity contest. (I don't THINK it would go as far as olympe suggested with people PMing, offering eggs for likes - but you never know !)

 

Tell you what - try it out in General Discussion - an area which at least doesn't affect the actual game. See how it goes there. See how it changes discussion style.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Fuzzbucket
typos. Many.

[RealWilliamShakespeare]

38 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

I know you aren't, sweety

 

It would remove so much from discussion. Here, at the moment, we have  actual discussions where people actually state their point of view. With reactions, many wouldn't bother (a lot have already said this, that they would click rather than post) and also you WOULD get people clicking "like" on their friends' posts without reading them. You'd have no idea what they liked, you'd have no idea why they "liked" it; you'd have no idea if they have any ideas of their own, or if it's just a reflex action because "hey Grey posted; I LIKE Grey", click. They mean nothing, and they would take away a lot. And like it or not, it WOULD become a popularity contest. (I don't THINK it would go as far as olympe suggested with people PMing, offering eggs for likes - but you never know !)

 

Tell you what - try it out in General Discussion - an area which at least doesn't affect the actual game. See how it goes there. See how it changes discussion style.

 

Thank you for explaining - I do see your point of view Trying it out in General Discussion sounds good to me!

[JavaTigress]

1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

I know you aren't, sweety

 

It would remove so much from discussion. Here, at the moment, we have  actual discussions where people actually state their point of view. With reactions, many wouldn't bother (a lot have already said this, that they would click rather than post) and also you WOULD get people clicking "like" on their friends' posts without reading them. You'd have no idea what they liked, you'd have no idea why they "liked" it; you'd have no idea if they have any ideas of their own, or if it's just a reflex action because "hey Grey posted; I LIKE Grey", click. They mean nothing, and they would take away a lot. And like it or not, it WOULD become a popularity contest. (I don't THINK it would go as far as olympe suggested with people PMing, offering eggs for likes - but you never know !)

 

Tell you what - try it out in General Discussion - an area which at least doesn't affect the actual game. See how it goes there. See how it changes discussion style.

The thing is, tho... IF I feel the desire to post, it is because I have something to say that a mere 'reaction' would NOT capture?

While contrarywise... a reaction might work in cases like Dragon requests where a full blown post to a thread might be unwelcome and spammy?

 

I dunno... personally I can see myself using them for two different things.

 

AT said... I can understand that not everyone would view it that way. I sort of see the concerns with them... and DON'T get me wrong, I DO see the potential for abuse. BUT do keep in mind that this ISN'T Facebook. Maybe it wouldn't pan out the way people are thinking... and, honestly , the forum works well as is. Maybe we don't even need them. If we DO get them, however... it'd probably be best if they were entirely optional. like.. we have the ability to ignore signatures, yes? So why not be able to ignore such a thing, too? All told, I can live without them... but if they were added I wouldn't go so far as to say that it would necessarily drive me away, either.

Edited November 19, 2019 by JavaTigress

[Fuzzbucket]

46 minutes ago, JavaTigress said:

and, honestly , the forum works well as is. Maybe we don't even need them. If we DO get them, however... it'd probably be best if they were entirely optional. like.. we have the ability to ignore signatures, yes? So why not be able to ignore such a thing, too? 

 

This, precisely.

[Uther_Pendragon]

5 hours ago, Confused Cat said:

Would I think about possible reactions before posting? 

 

I still sometimes think "where is the little heart I can click below this post?", but I'd rather not have that than risk people feeling bad or stressed out about reactions.

 

Well, I just cherry picked your comments, Confused Cat, 😆 (Though: I fully read and do see your points!) I chose these little specific sections to explain that this happens to me *right now*.

    I get nervous over the sometimes vehement reactions, and really dither over whether or not having my pov flat out dismissed, or having to argue it, is worth the hassle.

 Or having my pov dissected, and having to spend hours/days framing a reply(s) that won't get pounced on -and possibly taken out of context because text- and also hoping that someone understands where I'm coming from, and can flesh out what I meant in a way that is more universally understood. WHEW!

  It's a lot to think about dealing with sometimes, which is why I've mostly stayed quiet.
This is why having the option to agree to a post, and then adding my 2c to support or clarify, would relieve a chunk of that stress-for me at least.

 

 

[JavaTigress]

And actually... @Fuzzbucket , I think that IF we have such a  thing... handling it like the sigs, where I have the option to see all, ignore a certain individual or individuals, or ignore the lot, would be the best way to go.

[olympe]

23 minutes ago, Uther_Pendragon said:

This is why having the option to agree to a post, and then adding my 2c to support or clarify, would relieve a chunk of that stress-for me at least.

Wait, WUT? Now you also want to "add your 2c to clarify" with a reaction? Where does this differ from a legitimate post?

 

5 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

But can we as individual users opt out of this whole thing - not allow people to "like" us and not see the stuff at all ? If not this place will become TOTALLY unappealing to a lot of people who've been posting happily here for years. I can PROBABLY manage to hide the stuff through my browser settings, but I don't want people to be able to react to my posts - I think it's rather sick.

Unfortunately, even if you opt out - expect someone else to just quote your post to gather reactions for it... Sure, mods will likely delete these things, but it probably will take a while. Especially if you're not in the US time zones and active during times they aren't.

[JavaTigress]

5 minutes ago, olympe said:

Unfortunately, even if you opt out - expect someone else to just quote your post to gather reactions for it... Sure, mods will likely delete these things, but it probably will take a while. Especially if you're not in the US time zones and active during times they aren't.

 

To what purpose?

 

I can't imagine WHY someone would care enough about SOMEONE ELSE gaining reactions to quote it JUST for that reason. Seems silly to me, but what do I know. 

Besides... wouldn't a "Quote... here give this person reactions!" type post be considered spam and removed as such?

 

And ANYWAY... if I have it set so I can't SEE whether or not I have reactions, how would it effect me?

Edited November 19, 2019 by JavaTigress

[olympe]

20 minutes ago, JavaTigress said:

 

To what purpose?

 

I can't imagine WHY someone would care enough about SOMEONE ELSE gaining reactions to quote it JUST for that reason. Seems silly to me, but what do I know. 

Besides... wouldn't a "Quote... here give this person reactions!" type post be considered spam and removed as such?

 

And ANYWAY... if I have it set so I can't SEE whether or not I have reactions, how would it effect me?

Why would someone care? Bullying. 

 

But I guess I might have misunderstood the way fuzzbucket explained the "opt out" feature - I thought it was meant so that you cannot *get* reactions nor *give* them. I didn't understand it as just being unable to *see* them.

[JavaTigress]

11 minutes ago, olympe said:

But I guess I might have misunderstood the way fuzzbucket explained the "opt out" feature - I thought it was meant so that you cannot *get* reactions nor *give* them. I didn't understand it as just being unable to *see* them.

Well, and I may have misunderstood what they meant, too. BUT I DO know that we have the ability to see or not see signatures. I guess I was assuming that that was sort of how that would work. Again... I may have misunderstood.Fair point about bullies and petty people, of course, BUT that sort of bullying wouldn't be possible if , when I opt out, reactions become completely invisible. It simply wouldn't effect me.

 

We can ALSO set it to ignore posts and activity from particular users entirely if I understand correctly. ( Correct me if I am in error...)

 

If that is used, my understanding is, the 'muted' individual's stuff just ... poofs.

It becomes invisible to you.

 

Not a thing I have ever needed to use, mind you, but SORT of nice to know it is there if I DO ever need it.

Edited November 19, 2019 by JavaTigress

[Fuzzbucket]

42 minutes ago, JavaTigress said:

And actually... @Fuzzbucket , I think that IF we have such a  thing... handling it like the sigs, where I have the option to see all, ignore a certain individual or individuals, or ignore the lot, would be the best way to go.

 

I want people not to be able to give me reactions. I do not want them. Post your thoughts or refrain kind of thing. I don't care that you liked or didn't like my post, I only want to know why.

 

38 minutes ago, olympe said:

Wait, WUT? Now you also want to "add your 2c to clarify" with a reaction? Where does this differ from a legitimate post?

 

Unfortunately, even if you opt out - expect someone else to just quote your post to gather reactions for it... Sure, mods will likely delete these things, but it probably will take a while. Especially if you're not in the US time zones and active during times they aren't.

 

That would be rather silly of them - but I can't prevent it. It wouldn't be attached to MY post though

 

12 minutes ago, olympe said:

Why would someone care? Bullying. 

 

But I guess I might have misunderstood the way fuzzbucket explained the "opt out" feature - I thought it was meant so that you cannot *get* reactions nor *give* them. I didn't understand it as just being unable to *see* them.

 

You got it right first time. I want out completely.

 

And yes we can ignore users. I have a couple I already ignore. That has nothing to do with this. (and before someone asks: two for harassment to breed by PM, two for their views on abortion which became tedious and the other I would rather not discuss... Suffice it to say that I know she has me on ignore too  )

[JavaTigress]

5 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

I want people not to be able to give me reactions. I do not want them. Post your thoughts or refrain kind of thing. I don't care that you liked or didn't like my post, I only want to know why.

 

 

That would be rather silly of them - but I can't prevent it. It wouldn't be attached to MY post though

 

 

You got it right first time. I want out completely.

 

And yes we can ignore users. I have a couple I already ignore. That has nothing to do with this. (and before someone asks: two for harassment to breed by PM, two for their views on abortion which became tedious and the other I would rather not discuss... Suffice it to say that I know she has me on ignore too  )

Then perhaps an opt out could do both things?

 

Make it so you personally can't get or give reactions... AND make everyone else's reactions invisible to you in order to prevent  the sort of circumvention of it that @olympe described.

An opt out would mean that, in effect, they don't exist for you.

Edited November 19, 2019 by JavaTigress

[Fuzzbucket]

If someone is dotty enough to quite a post of mine to get reactions,. the reactions will be to them, not to me. And as I will be hiding reactions whether or not that is allowed (I can do that with my browser settings) I will never know. But I still say - if someone wants to react to me, I want to know WHY. Otherwise it means nothing.