Enable "Reaction" feature on forums

[Uther_Pendragon]

28 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?

 Lol, yes because I'm a wordy thing! 

I wouldn't need to, or probably always do, but would if I agreed w/a post but wanted to add something.

It's a reaction. I read something someone wrote that strikes me as really expressing what I feel, and click ❤️ Or 👍 (Whatever the icons are) 

It's probably just me that doesn't enjoy debates, 😆 so it would be nice to show support to an idea without having to personally hash out the details.

 

BUT: I did not even dream that these could/would be used to abuse posters, and other abuses you talked about earlier. If this space can be that contentious and nasty, then adding reactions aren't the thing to do.

 

[JavaTigress]

19 minutes ago, Uther_Pendragon said:

BUT: I did not even dream that these could/would be used to abuse posters, and other abuses you talked about earlier. If this space can be that contentious and nasty, then adding reactions aren't the thing to do.

 

Well, it isn't even that they DEFINITELY would be REGULARLY used in those ways here... the problem is that they COULD be.

And, I'll be honest. Quite likely WOULD be next time things on here got heated.

 

Therein lies the problem with this, for me personally.

 

Don't get me wrong. It isn't USUALLY that contentious and nasty on here. Not USUALLY.

Just that some people feel very, VERY strongly about certain things and... heated 'discussions' have happened on here in the past. *Sweetlings, anyone?*

 

THAT being the case... I CAN understand the caution towards something like this.

 

Edited November 19, 2019 by JavaTigress

[Uther_Pendragon]

Ah! Here's a perfect example. Right now, I'd love to add a 👍 to your post, Java! 

To acknowledge I understand and hear you and totally vibe with what you said. A simple reaction like that wouldn't take up all this thread space, like it does when I type it all out.

That is the angle I've been coming from. 
 As I said, I've not experienced what you're describing, in places I frequent, so didn't view them as doing harm.

[olympe]

38 minutes ago, Uther_Pendragon said:

Ah! Here's a perfect example. Right now, I'd love to add a 👍 to your post, Java! 

To acknowledge I understand and hear you and totally vibe with what you said. A simple reaction like that wouldn't take up all this thread space, like it does when I type it all out.

That is the angle I've been coming from. 

And someone else would like to add a 👍 because they like Java. Or tigers. Or the poster. Someone else will want to add 👍 because they agree with part of the statement - like that things tend to get heated here. Which is totally true, btw. 

[HeatherMarie]

Okay, didn't want to post here again but after seeing TJ's responses I'm going to because it's just become very very clear what 'reactions' will actually do.

 

I'm going to be totally honest here, I am getting major anxiety just *reading* the last two pages, especially TJ's posts explaining that he can't turn off the 'like' reaction. Changing 'properties' of it, like what it's called or whatever, does *not* help the situation. Either the option to *completely* block *any* 'reaction' is available, or I can no longer participate in this forum. And based on some of the other posts in this thread, I won't be the only one. 

 

It scares me, thinking about a feature being implemented that would cause so much anxiety that I simply couldn't be a part of this community anymore. But it scares me more to think about trying to *stay* on this forum with 'reactions' enabled and popping up all over. (And despite what some people may want to believe, it is *not* as simple as 'just ignore them' or whatever.)

This is a screenshot from the official announcement link in the first post. Those ridiculous faces are *not* something that can be ignored, especially if they end up being on the majority of posts. Having only the 'like' reaction would cut down on how stupid and frustrating it looks, but it wouldn't be enough to stop the major anxiety, and I'm pretty darn sure (based purely on experience in *this forum*) that even having only 'like' would still lead to anger/frustration/jealousy/etc among users. 

 

[Fuzzbucket]

TJ did say he could change their appearance, but still - I'm with you 1000%.

[JavaTigress]

46 minutes ago, olympe said:

And someone else would like to add a 👍 because they like Java. Or tigers. Or the poster. Someone else will want to add 👍 because they agree with part of the statement - like that things tend to get heated here. Which is totally true, btw. 

And... while I can see where you are coming from @Uther_Pendragon , I can sort of agree with olympe in that there are a NUMBER of reasons someone might use a response and that actually stopping to think about WHY you like/agree ( Or NOT) with a post in order to effectively reply can actually be a good thing.

 

And @HeatherMarie...  I guess the problem is that those of us that don't suffer from that kind of anxiety have a hard time understanding how difficult it must be for those that do.

Edited November 19, 2019 by JavaTigress

[purplehaze]

 

18 minutes ago, HeatherMarie said:

It scares me, thinking about a feature being implemented that would cause so much anxiety that I simply couldn't be a part of this community anymore. But it scares me more to think about trying to *stay* on this forum with 'reactions' enabled and popping up all over. (And despite what some people may want to believe, it is *not* as simple as 'just ignore them' or whatever.)

This is a screenshot from the official announcement link in the first post. Those ridiculous faces are *not* something that can be ignored, especially if they end up being on the majority of posts. Having only the 'like' reaction would cut down on how stupid and frustrating it looks, but it wouldn't be enough to stop the major anxiety, and I'm pretty darn sure (based purely on experience in *this forum*) that even having only 'like' would still lead to anger/frustration/jealousy/etc among users. 

I'm with you. I don't like the way they look and it seems they would change the whole tone of the forum. You can't just ignore them. I may be able to find a way in my browser to hide them, but why should that be necessary? And even if I can hide the image itself, could I hide the "5 reactions" part? The forum is functional the way it is. To me, this option is disfunctional -- ugly, cluttered, and causing more anxiety than it will relieve.

 

17 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

TJ did say he could change their appearance, but still - I'm with you 1000%.

No matter what he changes them to, they will still be intrusive unless he makes them so tiny that you can't see them at all and then what is the point!

I am really upset to think that this is a change that might come. I have tried pretty much to reserve judgement and listen to all the opinions here, but I am just not convinced this is a good thing,

Edited November 19, 2019 by purplehaze

[JavaTigress]

The more I follow this thread and read about this the more I conclude that it is one of those ideas that might prove to be more trouble than it is worth.

 

HOWEVER AFAIK, TJ can choose NOT to use them, so we don't know for a fact that he will. He was merely gauging interest, as far as I can tell.

Edited November 19, 2019 by JavaTigress

[RealWilliamShakespeare]

I actually do have to agree - those emoji-style faces are rather hideous. I can get behind the non-face ones, such as the Like and Thanks, but if the other reactions were to be incorporated I would like their visuals to be changed from those dopey faces

 

It brings me sadness that reactions would deter so many core people in the Suggestions/Requests section. I personally still support the idea of them being implemented for many reasons and like Java said, I find it hard to relate to the negatives, but still  

[Sextonator]

Honestly I absolutely hate the dopey faces we have for emotes... I’d hope for the simple colored icons that are also shown, the trophy specifically. Sleek and modern.

[tjekan]

So what would be needed to make the feature tolerable to those who find it anxiety-inducing and/or unbearably corny? Would adding the ability to bar them from being attached to your own posts be sufficient?

 

I don't care much about this proposal either way, I'm just concerned about possible negative repercussions if it's implemented, and losing forum members over it is definitely a negative repercussion. Since people can use outside blockers to avoid having to see the things, would keeping them off your own posts be the only other feature needed to keep it from bothering anyone in and of itself?

[Uther_Pendragon]

  I *do* now understand the anxiety of what might possibly occur with reactions. I get it. I'm willing to let go. (especially if they can be used to abuse someone. That's not a use I anticipated, and as I said, I didn't realize it could get that ugly here, even if it's sporadic.)

  I *am* not understanding the divide between anxieties of what might happen by adding reactions, to a few of us in this thread sharing that we have the same anxieties within the current system getting dismissed with 'If you can't be bothered to post, then your opinion doesn't matter' responses. It would be great if both concerns were validated.

(disclaimer: since that tone and text thing may apply here: I'm not mad, not upset, not accusatory. Just puzzled)

   As I said previously, I'm always hoping to find ways to make things more inclusive, but I *definitely* don't want to do so if it can indeed harm others.

 

[HeatherMarie]

21 minutes ago, Uther_Pendragon said:

  I *do* now understand the anxiety of what might possibly occur with reactions. I get it. I'm willing to let go. (especially if they can be used to abuse someone. That's not a use I anticipated, and as I said, I didn't realize it could get that ugly here, even if it's sporadic.)

  I *am* not understanding the divide between anxieties of what might happen by adding reactions, to a few of us in this thread sharing that we have the same anxieties within the current system getting dismissed with 'If you can't be bothered to post, then your opinion doesn't matter' responses. It would be great if both concerns were validated.

(disclaimer: since that tone and text thing may apply here: I'm not mad, not upset, not accusatory. Just puzzled)

   As I said previously, I'm always hoping to find ways to make things more inclusive, but I *definitely* don't want to do so if it can indeed harm others.

 

 

Hello, I can't speak for everyone but I can give my view at least: This is a forum. A forum is, by definition, a place of posts. Multiple definitions in multiple online dictionaries:

-a place or opportunity for discussing a subject

-a public meeting place for open discussion

-A gathering for the purpose of discussion

 

So, forums are for discussions. I certainly would never want to downplay the anxiety that can come from attempting to post (I get that too!), but that's basically what a forum *is*. Discussions. Posts. Conversations. That's what this place is supposed to be for. 'Likes' and 'Haha' and 'Confused' emojis/reactions... Not so much. A forum can, and often does, get along just fine without 'reactions'. A forum cannot get along without posts. 

 

(Honestly, I'd be willing to attempt a compromise because I really do get the anxiety around posting, and if we-as-users could *choose* to not see any reactions at all, then those users who do feel more comfortable using them instead of posting could do so without upsetting the others.... But it sounds like that's not possible, from TJ's posts.)

[Fuzzbucket]

3 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

Hello, I can't speak for everyone but I can give my view at least: This is a forum. A forum is, by definition, a place of posts. Multiple definitions in multiple online dictionaries:

-a place or opportunity for discussing a subject

-a public meeting place for open discussion

-A gathering for the purpose of discussion

 

So, forums are for discussions. I certainly would never want to downplay the anxiety that can come from attempting to post (I get that too!), but that's basically what a forum *is*. Discussions. Posts. Conversations. That's what this place is supposed to be for. 'Likes' and 'Haha' and 'Confused' emojis/reactions... Not so much. A forum can, and often does, get along just fine without 'reactions'. A forum cannot get along without posts. 

 

(Honestly, I'd be willing to attempt a compromise because I really do get the anxiety around posting, and if we-as-users could *choose* to not see any reactions at all, then those users who do feel more comfortable using them instead of posting could do so without upsetting the others.... But it sounds like that's not possible, from TJ's posts.)

 

I want my posts not to be capable of receiving them; if anyone wishing to react has nothing to actually SAY, I do not want their "reaction", which is virtually meaningless.

 

 tells me ***-all.

 

I also NEVER wish to see them on anyone's posts. If 17,946 people   HeatherMarie's post, which I mostly agree with, I don't care. I care about what she said, not that all those people passed by and clicked a button for whatever reason, which could simply be that she has a pretty avvie or that they like heather. I'm not kidding; I had someone say once that they watched for my posts because I have (on that forum) a very pretty cat as my avvie... Not for what I say, you note.

[purplehaze]

I do understand the anxiety that people have about posting. I feel it sometimes, too, and often start writing something, find I can't express myself the way I want to and so delete without posting. But I would not use a "reaction" instead. Why? Because it would add nothing to the discussion, no one could be sure exactly what I was reacting to or what I meant by it.

 

I agree very much with Heather's post about what a forum is. It is for discussion. This is not social media where reactions may have more of a place, although personally I dislike them there, too.

[Sextonator]

Well, forums are a form of social media. We’re being social by posting our worded thoughts.

 

but still, if I open a topic in site discussion about what people’s favorite dragon is, and someone posts about one I don’t like, but they bring a nee light to it, and make me think about that breed differently, then having a “nonverbal“ way of liking that post, along with actually replying and telling them that they’ve changed my view of them, would be nice. And maybe someone posts about a breed I already kind of like, and I like what they said, but I don’t have anything more to say than “I like that.” a simple agree button would be a great way to acknowledge the post without actually creating spam in the form of a short little “I agree.” And then, that poster knows that their post has been acknowledged by that like, instead of thinking it might have been over looked because no one responded.

 

Or even in dr, if I had a topic where I got a lot of critique on my art, if even for the small ones, a button that would show I acknowledged it would be plenty helpful, in case the person who gave the crit assumes it was over looked by the volume of posts.

[RealWilliamShakespeare]

4 minutes ago, Sextonator said:

Well, forums are a form of social media. We’re being social by posting our worded thoughts.

 

but still, if I open a topic in site discussion about what people’s favorite dragon is, and someone posts about one I don’t like, but they bring a nee light to it, and make me think about that breed differently, then having a “nonverbal“ way of liking that post, along with actually replying and telling them that they’ve changed my view of them, would be nice. And maybe someone posts about a breed I already kind of like, and I like what they said, but I don’t have anything more to say than “I like that.” a simple agree button would be a great way to acknowledge the post without actually creating spam in the form of a short little “I agree.” And then, that poster knows that their post has been acknowledged by that like, instead of thinking it might have been over looked because no one responded.

 

Or even in dr, if I had a topic where I got a lot of critique on my art, if even for the small ones, a button that would show I acknowledged it would be plenty helpful, in case the person who gave the crit assumes it was over looked by the volume of posts.

 

I agree with all of this. Especially with the last part, liking a comment about crit is a good way of showing that you've seen and acknowledged it without having to post "got it", as those sorts of things can clog a thread if you don't have time to elaborate and don't want to make the crit-giver think you're ignoring it. Idk, I can just see so many positive aspects to it that I think it'd be really helpful to have around.

[Dohaerys]

5 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

 

I want my posts not to be capable of receiving them; if anyone wishing to react has nothing to actually SAY, I do not want their "reaction", which is virtually meaningless.

 

 tells me ***-all.

 

When a person reacts, they do not 'have nothing to SAY and their reaction is not meaningless':

They react because they agree with everything put in the post, and do not want to rephrase or reiterate the same point that has been posted before (if they do so then it's not very useful as it does show that they agree but doesnt introduce any new points, while taking up space). This is why I don't post often in the suggestions thread - I usually have nothing meaningful to add to the conversation-but this does NOT mean that my opinion doesn't matter- it matters as much as anyone else's , as I may not have much to add to the conversation but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion of the suggestion at hand, and as a dc player I have the right to have my opinion heard. And it's not like if I want my opinion to be heard so badly I should post- people may not speak English well, people may not have the time to write a post , and people may just be anxious to post on the forums - I know I am anxious when I post on threads like these. And my anxiety about posting is as valid as your dislike for reactions.

Their reaction shows that the person shows their support in general for the proposed argument.

If people blindly react to people's posts, it's their loss, not the forum's- they are forsaking their opportunity to truly show their opinion and instead wasting it on mindlessly reacting to something. Their reaction will appear as agreement with the post, and will be perceived as such.

Furthermore, I do not think we will have many players like that- DC has a fairly mature userbase. Even if there are 1 or 2 it will not skew data and affect overall reactions much, and personally it doesn't annoy me.

 

2 hours ago, purplehaze said:

I do understand the anxiety that people have about posting. I feel it sometimes, too, and often start writing something, find I can't express myself the way I want to and so delete without posting. But I would not use a "reaction" instead. Why? Because it would add nothing to the discussion, no one could be sure exactly what I was reacting to or what I meant by it.

 

I agree very much with Heather's post about what a forum is. It is for discussion. This is not social media where reactions may have more of a place, although personally I dislike them there, too.

People use reactions not because they add 'nothing' to the discussion (which I disagree with, someone's opinion on something is not 'nothing')

But because they have nothing to add to the discussion and so instead of making a post they express their opinion in a shorter and more concise manner.

And as for vagueness of reactions, that's not your problem, that's the problem of the reactor: by reacting to a post with an 'I agree' , you are automatically implying to everyone else that you agree with everything in the post. If you don't agree with a certain point, its your responsibility to somehow express that, in the form of a post. If you don't want to post , and instead react anyways, then the chance to elaborate your opinion is the opportunity cost that you forsake by choice. And this system still offers more freedom to the people who don't wish to post : right now if I am anxious to post, I have NO way of showing my support without posting. With reactions I can still show my support for an argument by reacting. If there's something you disagree with , you a.)still willingly react and agree that people will take it as a full agreement b.) Choose not to react and accept that you won't show your opinion on this post c.) Choose not to react and post an elaboration on your opinion .

This is still better than our current system where it's either a.) Post and show your opinion and b.) Choose not to post and accept that your opinion won't be heard.

[tjekan]

3 minutes ago, Dohaerys said:

They react because they agree with everything put in the post

 

That's a bad assumption. As has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, people heart or thumbs up for MANY different reasons, of which yours is only one. They thumbs up everyone who makes a good point, whether they agree with all of it or not. They heart a post they dont care about because they like the person's avatar, or because they feel sorry the post doesnt have any likes. They like everything their friend posts, and dislike everything posted by someone they are mad at. They leave a yuck face on a post because it had a bad pun that made them groan, not because they hate all of it. They click Agree on a post that supports animal adoption in the sig because they do too.

 

It's a social media tool. People WILL use it as one. You can't stop them from doing any of those things, in fact, it's not even any less valid than your use of "I agree with everything in this post" is.

 

My biggest concern about implementing this at all is that people are going to start meta-arguing about why they think people must have left likes on a post and what that means they believe everyone else needs to do because of it!

 

[Dohaerys]

30 minutes ago, tjekan said:

 

That's a bad assumption. As has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, people heart or thumbs up for MANY different reasons, of which yours is only one. They thumbs up everyone who makes a good point, whether they agree with all of it or not. They heart a post they dont care about because they like the person's avatar, or because they feel sorry the post doesnt have any likes. They like everything their friend posts, and dislike everything posted by someone they are mad at. They leave a yuck face on a post because it had a bad pun that made them groan, not because they hate all of it. They click Agree on a post that supports animal adoption in the sig because they do too.

My post was made under the example of there being an 'I agree reaction', which I do admit I should have mentioned earlier in the post.

 

People will have MANY reasons for clicking the 'I agree' reaction , make no mistake I agree fully. However, when you use an 'I agree ' reaction, you are telling the world that you agree with what you have reacted to. It doesn't matter whether you used it because you liked their avatar or agreed with their sig, by using the I agree reaction you are broadcasting that you agree with the post, as that is what everyone else will see your reaction as.

Thus the onus of using it responsibly is on you- it's not the readers responsibility to infer why you used the reaction. 

So what if they used the 'I agree' reaction because they liked the poster's avatar ? The only person being negatively affected is them- it is only their opinion that is not being heard now, due to their mindless usage of the reaction that may not reflect their opinion. Probably, if they used the 'I agree' reaction they do not have any major disagreements (this DOESNT mean no disagreements) with the argument put forth- otherwise they would think more before using it. And even if they did have major disagreements, it's only them that is being disadvantaged by reacting anyways. Their true opinion is not being heard because they CHOSE not to voice their disagreements and instead actually voice agreement. 

If many people mindlessly reacted , it would skew the opinions towards one argument- however it would skew the opinions against the mindless reacters, as if they do not agree with what they reacted, they are just decreasing tangible support for their *own* argument and showing apparent support for the argument that they are against. 

And as for the reactions themselves, I think we only need an 'I agree' reaction. We don't need an 'I disagree' reaction as there will always be posts against the suggestion in these forums. And you can show you disagree by agreeing with an against post, and if you disagree with aspects of that post you can choose to post your own post, or wait until a more appealing argument is posted . Furthermore, agreeing doesn't require elaboration- but disagreeing does, as you don't need to give reasons why you agree as that is just reiterating points, but you do usually need to give reasons why you disagree with what has been put forward to make the discussion productive and meaningful. If someone says just 'I agree', their reasoning is not as desired by others when compared to a person who just says 'I disagree' - in that case you'd like to find out more

[Fuzzbucket]

1 hour ago, Dohaerys said:

When a person reacts, they do not 'have nothing to SAY and their reaction is not meaningless':

They react because they agree with everything put in the post, and do not want to rephrase or reiterate the same point that has been posted before (if they do so then it's not very useful as it does show that they agree but doesnt introduce any new points, while taking up space). This is why I don't post often in the suggestions thread - I usually have nothing meaningful to add to the conversation-but this does NOT mean that my opinion doesn't matter- it matters as much as anyone else's , as I may not have much to add to the conversation but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion of the suggestion at hand, and as a dc player I have the right to have my opinion heard. And it's not like if I want my opinion to be heard so badly I should post- people may not speak English well, people may not have the time to write a post , and people may just be anxious to post on the forums - I know I am anxious when I post on threads like these. And my anxiety about posting is as valid as your dislike for reactions.

Their reaction shows that the person shows their support in general for the proposed argument.

If people blindly react to people's posts, it's their loss, not the forum's- they are forsaking their opportunity to truly show their opinion and instead wasting it on mindlessly reacting to something. Their reaction will appear as agreement with the post, and will be perceived as such.

Furthermore, I do not think we will have many players like that- DC has a fairly mature userbase. Even if there are 1 or 2 it will not skew data and affect overall reactions much, and personally it doesn't annoy me.

 

People use reactions not because they add 'nothing' to the discussion (which I disagree with, someone's opinion on something is not 'nothing')

But because they have nothing to add to the discussion and so instead of making a post they express their opinion in a shorter and more concise manner.

And as for vagueness of reactions, that's not your problem, that's the problem of the reactor: by reacting to a post with an 'I agree' , you are automatically implying to everyone else that you agree with everything in the post. If you don't agree with a certain point, its your responsibility to somehow express that, in the form of a post. If you don't want to post , and instead react anyways, then the chance to elaborate your opinion is the opportunity cost that you forsake by choice. And this system still offers more freedom to the people who don't wish to post : right now if I am anxious to post, I have NO way of showing my support without posting. With reactions I can still show my support for an argument by reacting. If there's something you disagree with , you a.)still willingly react and agree that people will take it as a full agreement b.) Choose not to react and accept that you won't show your opinion on this post c.) Choose not to react and post an elaboration on your opinion .

This is still better than our current system where it's either a.) Post and show your opinion and b.) Choose not to post and accept that your opinion won't be heard.

 

Not true. You can see all the time when people put "I agree with some, but not with this bit" in an actual POST. And sorry - but we do NOT have an entirely mature player base. If we did there would be no viewboming, no mods needing to step in when a thread gets nasty and the rest.

 

1 hour ago, tjekan said:

 

That's a bad assumption. As has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, people heart or thumbs up for MANY different reasons, of which yours is only one. They thumbs up everyone who makes a good point, whether they agree with all of it or not. They heart a post they dont care about because they like the person's avatar, or because they feel sorry the post doesnt have any likes. They like everything their friend posts, and dislike everything posted by someone they are mad at. They leave a yuck face on a post because it had a bad pun that made them groan, not because they hate all of it. They click Agree on a post that supports animal adoption in the sig because they do too.

 

It's a social media tool. People WILL use it as one. You can't stop them from doing any of those things, in fact, it's not even any less valid than your use of "I agree with everything in this post" is.

 

My biggest concern about implementing this at all is that people are going to start meta-arguing about why they think people must have left likes on a post and what that means they believe everyone else needs to do because of it!

 

 

Exactly this. You have no way of knowing why someone put "like". As I said of a nasty experience on FB - people like their friends' posts as a knee jerk, without reading them. And ages ago when we had polls and people carried on reading and suddenly said oh I voted wrong, I didn't read the suggestion, I just voted for what I thought it meant.... It happens all the time.

 

But fine - I can butt out of discussions. Clearly no great loss, if button clicking is as good.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Fuzzbucket

[Sextonator]

Yeah but how many people are going to misuse the function?

 

If the forum has, and this is all example numbers because I’m on mobile, 100,00 active people, but only 50,000 people actually use the feature, and then of those 50,000 people, only 1,000 people incorrectly use the feature, is it really that fair to deny those 49,000 people of a fun little feature? I know I’ve been all “oh this’ll be useful” but like, it’s not more important than a post. If someone really wanted to be heard or really wanted to say something, they’re going to say it. Nothing would be stopping them, not even the fact that they may have liked a post. They’d still be able to quote it and elaborate if they were so inclined.

[purplehaze]

40 minutes ago, Dohaerys said:

My post was made under the example of there being an 'I agree reaction', which I do admit I should have mentioned earlier in the post.

 

People will have MANY reasons for clicking the 'I agree' reaction , make no mistake I agree fully. However, when you use an 'I agree ' reaction, you are telling the world that you agree with what you have reacted to. It doesn't matter whether you used it because you liked their avatar or agreed with their sig, by using the I agree reaction you are broadcasting that you agree with the post, as that is what everyone else will see your reaction as.

Thus the onus of using it responsibly is on you- it's not the readers responsibility to infer why you used the reaction. 

So what if they used the 'I agree' reaction because they liked the poster's avatar ? The only person being negatively affected is them- it is only their opinion that is not being heard now, due to their mindless usage of the reaction that may not reflect their opinion. Probably, if they used the 'I agree' reaction they do not have any major disagreements (this DOESNT mean no disagreements) with the argument put forth- otherwise they would think more before using it. And even if they did have major disagreements, it's only them that is being disadvantaged by reacting anyways. Their true opinion is not being heard because they CHOSE not to voice their disagreements and instead actually voice agreement. 

If many people mindlessly reacted , it would skew the opinions towards one argument- however it would skew the opinions against the mindless reacters, as if they do not agree with what they reacted, they are just decreasing tangible support for their *own* argument and showing apparent support for the argument that they are against. 

And as for the reactions themselves, I think we only need an 'I agree' reaction. We don't need an 'I disagree' reaction as there will always be posts against the suggestion in these forums. And you can show you disagree by agreeing with an against post, and if you disagree with aspects of that post you can choose to post your own post, or wait until a more appealing argument is posted . Furthermore, agreeing doesn't require elaboration- but disagreeing does, as you don't need to give reasons why you agree as that is just reiterating points, but you do usually need to give reasons why you disagree with what has been put forward to make the discussion productive and meaningful. If someone says just 'I agree', their reasoning is not as desired by others when compared to a person who just says 'I disagree' - in that case you'd like to find out more

All of which to me simply proves that the reactions really mean nothing. But people will assume that they do therefore making an idea seem more popular than it really is. That does NOT just hurt the person who reacted. As you say it skews the opinions toward more support than the idea actually has and gives it more weight than it deserves.

[Dohaerys]

1 minute ago, purplehaze said:

All of which to me simply proves that the reactions really mean nothing. But people will assume that they do therefore making an idea seem more popular than it really is. That does NOT just hurt the person who reacted. As you say it skews the opinions toward more support than the idea actually has and gives it more weight than it deserves.

How is an indicator general agreement with a post 'nothing'? It's a useful indicator of how many people agree with what you've said, and provides a medium for the unheard majority of forum users to easily voice their opinions, without having to go through the sometime stressful and often tedious process of posting. 

 

 

Furthermore, if I assume that all 25 people who have reacted to a post with 'I agree' actually do agree to the post how am I in the error?  If they did not actually mean it that's not my problem, it's their's so I don't see how that makes an idea seem more popular than it really is. Yes there is the case of mindless reacters , who can create some inflation of support, but there won't be enough to actually create a significant disruption, and so won't hurt people on the other side of the argument.