Enable "Reaction" feature on forums

[purplehaze]

5 minutes ago, Dohaerys said:

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.

 

But we have no way of knowing how many of the agrees are actual valid agreement.

I see I will not convince you, though.

[RealWilliamShakespeare]

2 hours 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.

 

I fully agree with all of this. I would have reacted to it with an "I agree" reaction, because I concur with everything it says  These are all of my reasons to support the feature as well.

 

2 hours ago, Dohaerys said:

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.

 

This in particular. I see this being used as a common argument against the feature - that sometimes people may "agree" to a post without agreeing with everything it says. And frankly... So what? It's their choice to agree to it - they may agree with so much of it that they react anyway, or can simply not react to it and (or decide not to) post their reasons why. I completely agree with Dohaerys - DC's userbase isn't the most petty, and I'm sure if people somehow misuse the reactions, they will receive consequences.

[Fuzzbucket]

Meanwhile those of us who hate the idea look like getting stuck with it with no option to opt out. Nice.

 

Quote

DC's userbase isn't the most petty,

 

Don't know about that; parts of it certainly are. I refer you to viewbombing.... Often pursuant on a post someone disagrees with. As you know,. And especially attacking people on the unofficial discord..

[RealWilliamShakespeare]

7 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Don't know about that; parts of it certainly are. I refer you to viewbombing.... Often pursuant on a post someone disagrees with. As you know,. And especially attacking people on the unofficial discord..

 

........ *runs to go and check my scroll*   For real though, those people tend to be silent. They know if they're known to do those nasty things, they'll get consequences. And these reactions have names attached to them (not in plain view, but as a click action that takes you to a separate pop-up, fear not!), so I feel if their names were in plain view, that would be a huge deterrent for doing those things. Luckily!

[tjekan]

2 hours ago, Dohaerys said:

So what if they used the 'I agree' reaction because they liked the poster's avatar ? The only person being negatively affected is them- 

 

If that were true, then I would have no problem with it. Social media tool, social media rules. People click it for any reason they want to, and it's left alone.

 

What I'm hearing a lot of, though, is that likes need to be treated as if they were a stated opinion; that the number of likes needs to be treated as if it were indicative of the level of support, like a vote or poll; that the intent behind a like needs to be narrowly defined as a certain kind of vote in favor of something whether that's how people use it or not.

 

It's almost the worst metric of anything imaginable. One post can get 50 likes while another gets 25; does that mean twice as many people agree with it? Definitely not! Four times as many people may have seen the first post, meaning it actually got half as many likes per view. With disliking disabled, 400 people may disagree with the first post, making its popularity far in the negative, but that is masked. 40 of the people who liked the first post may have been solicited to do so by the author, meaning it has less real likes than the second one. Half the likes may have been for reasons other than complete agreement with the two posts,  making lumping them together for a tally meaningless. And then there's the fact that a difference of 25 clicks in the context of thousands of forum members is statistically insignificant. It's more likely to be sheer random noise than evidence one point of view is more popular than the other.

 

As long as the likes don't become used as a bludgeoning weapon to falsely claim one person is objectively right or popular when no such thing is true, I have no problem with it. I have a really bad feeling about that panning out, though. I think it's going to take no more than 24 hours before the first "check the likes, I'm right and you're wrong!" post pops up.

Edited November 20, 2019 by tjekan

[olympe]

1 hour ago, Dohaerys said:

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.

 

Well, you seem to assume that reactions equal opinions. Considering that TJ doesn't even consider poll results to represent opinions, I think there's good reason to assume your assumption is wrong.

When I just joined, there were even site-wide polls we could participate in. (I think I was just in time for the last of them...)

 

Plus, there's the potential for abuse where some petty player inflates their own "support" stats with extra accounts / trading power / whatever in order to make their own opinion seem better liked and more important.

[purplehaze]

I'm not even terribly concerned with the potential for abuse in the way Olympe suggests (although that may happen I think it would be rare), but I am worried about abuse in terms of what Dohaerys is speaking of -- the assumption that all "likes" or "agrees" or whatever should be counted as agreement with the post and can be used to gauge an idea's popularity and if they weren't meant that way, well too bad. I agree with tjekan that nothing is that simple and should not be assumed to be. I still think that these reactions actually tell us NOTHING!

Edited November 20, 2019 by purplehaze

[Fuzzbucket]

1 hour ago, tjekan said:

What I'm hearing a lot of, though, is that likes need to be treated as if they were a stated opinion; that the number of likes needs to be treated as if it were indicative of the level of support, like a vote or poll; that the intent behind a like needs to be narrowly defined as a certain kind of vote in favor of something whether that's how people use it or not.

 

It's almost the worst metric of anything imaginable. One post can get 50 likes while another gets 25; does that mean twice as many people agree with it? Definitely not! Four times as many people may have seen the first post, meaning it actually got half as many likes per view. With disliking disabled, 400 people may disagree with the first post, making its popularity far in the negative, but that is masked. 40 of the people who liked the first post may have been solicited to do so by the author, meaning it has less real likes than the second one. Half the likes may have been for reasons other than complete agreement with the two posts,  making lumping them together for a tally meaningless. And then there's the fact that a difference of 25 clicks in the context of thousands of forum members is statistically insignificant. It's more likely to be sheer random noise than evidence one point of view is more popular than the other.

 

As long as the likes don't become used as a bludgeoning weapon to falsely claim one person is objectively right or popular when no such thing is true, I have no problem with it. I have a really bad feeling about that panning out, though. I think it's going to take no more than 24 hours before the first "check the likes, I'm right and you're wrong!" post pops up.

 

Precisely. It's like those snap polls after a TV show - totally unrepresentative and self-selecting. You get all your mates to come in and like your post and then turn round and  trh round and say see, I'm right. Nope, your friends just posted to support you.

 

25 minutes ago, olympe said:

Well, you seem to assume that reactions equal opinions. Considering that TJ doesn't even consider poll results to represent opinions, I think there's good reason to assume your assumption is wrong.

When I just joined, there were even site-wide polls we could participate in. (I think I was just in time for the last of them...)

 

Plus, there's the potential for abuse where some petty player inflates their own "support" stats with extra accounts / trading power / whatever in order to make their own opinion seem better liked and more important.

 

If reactions are opinions - post your opinion. 

 

6 minutes ago, purplehaze said:

I'm not even terribly concerned with the potential for abuse in the way Olympe suggests (although that may happen I think it would be rare), but I am worried about abuse in terms of what Dohaerys is speaking of -- the assumption that all "likes" or "agrees" or whatever should be counted as agreement with the post and can be used to gauge an idea's popularity. I agree with tejekan that nothing is that simple and should not be assumed to be. I still think that these reactions actually tell us NOTHING!

 

As so often, I am 1000% behind purplehaze. But I would never "like" her post. That wouldn't say a single solitary thing. Just clicking "agree" is not a valid metric. It's more likely to be an indicator of how many people who like you passed by.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Fuzzbucket

[tjekan]

1 hour ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Meanwhile those of us who hate the idea look like getting stuck with it with no option to opt out. Nice.

 

 

This isn't a done deal yet. It's not clear the reaction emojis are going to be added at all, and if they are, it's not clear that it would be impossible for TJ to find a way to block them from accounts that don't want them. If we can configure our notifications not to bother us every time we get a like--which I certainly HOPE we can, we can do it for everything else--then it ought to be at least conceivably possible that we can configure our posts to block receiving and displaying likes.

[Fuzzbucket]

I don't want to be able to receive them - whether I see them or not. Almost all notifications are blocked in my profile anyway . I'd like discussion to be discussion. And for it to be impossible for someone to say look I got 14,720 likes, so my view must take precedence over yours. Is all.

 

If there are likes - that is exactly what will happen in no time flat. Just as when there were polls people would say well, look most of the player base supports this so.... When there were maybe 150 votes in total, and people posting in the thread would later say they had changed their mind (or voted wrong by accident).

[Sextonator]

Yeah but you’d be able to change or remove a like here on the forum, and I doubt there’d be 14k people liking one post. It’d probably be the same amount as people who would vote, just a couple hundred.

 

And if my opinion is already stated, and I have nothing I can add, the ability to like a post would be very nice, as I can show support for something while avoiding a spammy “i agree” post that would add nothing to the discussion.

 

And furthermore, I still think other subforums would benefit more from the feature than suggestions itself would. I’d probably participate a little more in other areas if I had another way of contributing than making a post that could end up over looked.

[RealWilliamShakespeare]

5 minutes ago, Sextonator said:

And if my opinion is already stated, and I have nothing I can add, the ability to like a post would be very nice, as I can show support for something while avoiding a spammy “i agree” post that would add nothing to the discussion.

 

Definitely! I don't think every feature of this site needs to be a total dead-set "everything needs an explanation or it's not valid" at all. It would be nice to show support. It would be nice to thank people for their kind words. It would be nice to congratulate someone on a good catch, without having to write out something huge. It's still a valid opinion. It's a way to show a sentiment without being spammy.

 

ETA: Also, regarding forums being discussion-based, I'm pretty sure Invision knows that. But their post said that reactions were in high demand, so many forums must see a need for them and enjoy the sentiment. And regardless of whether they're "meant to be" discussion-based, I see no harm in adding something like this. Forum boards have evolved. The super old ones probably didn't have emoticons, or options for polls, or anything that we now take for granted. But times have changed and new features are added for reasons, and I support reactions xD

Edited November 20, 2019 by RealWilliamShakespeare

[LadyLyzar]

Forum =/= social media.

 

I have a FB account and yesterday I posted a picture of my sons in their new Scout uniforms.  It got a lot of reactions and a few comments.  The comments are far more meaningful and I can engage with them.

 

I have a few family members and friends that "like" EVERYTHING I post - even if it isn't something that isn't as cheerful. What's that supposed to mean?  Did you even read it?  Thanks for reacting... I think?

 

In my homeschool group, it's also common for people to go through a topic and "like" EVERY comment - even when they contradict each other.  What does that mean?  Thank you for commenting?

 

I'm not saying reactions don't have their place.  However, social media and forums are different animals. A forum is meant for discussion and it's typically around a central theme, while social media is just that - social lives online.

 

I really don't want to see the forums degenerate into reactions being a means of communication, much less a primary one.  I don't want people to be afraid to post because they may not get many "likes".

 

Agree with what someone posted?  Tell them so!  Why do you agree?  What points of their post are the most meaningful?  A "like" or "+1" doesn't say much of anything.

 

As far as reactions go, just please no.  If it's what users want, I'll go with it.  However I still feel it will be detrimental to the forum as it is.

[tjekan]

50 minutes ago, Fuzzbucket said:

I don't want to be able to receive them - whether I see them or not.

 

Sorry if I was unclear, I was specifically referring to blocking an account from displaying likes on their posts AT ALL, not just hiding them from view of the users themselves. In other words, a way of ensuring that someone who opted out would not display any emojis or like counts on their posts at all.

It seems to me that if the technology exists to associate likes on a person's post with their user account (enabling or disabling notifications, for example,) then that same technology ought to be able to not show the emoji business on a person's posts based on the preferences in their user account. The data connections must already exist.

[Fuzzbucket]

43 minutes ago, LadyLyzar said:

Forum =/= social media.

 

I have a FB account and yesterday I posted a picture of my sons in their new Scout uniforms.  It got a lot of reactions and a few comments.  The comments are far more meaningful and I can engage with them.

 

I have a few family members and friends that "like" EVERYTHING I post - even if it isn't something that isn't as cheerful. What's that supposed to mean?  Did you even read it?  Thanks for reacting... I think?

 

In my homeschool group, it's also common for people to go through a topic and "like" EVERY comment - even when they contradict each other.  What does that mean?  Thank you for commenting?

 

I'm not saying reactions don't have their place.  However, social media and forums are different animals. A forum is meant for discussion and it's typically around a central theme, while social media is just that - social lives online.

 

I really don't want to see the forums degenerate into reactions being a means of communication, much less a primary one.  I don't want people to be afraid to post because they may not get many "likes".

 

Agree with what someone posted?  Tell them so!  Why do you agree?  What points of their post are the most meaningful?  A "like" or "+1" doesn't say much of anything.

 

As far as reactions go, just please no.  If it's what users want, I'll go with it.  However I still feel it will be detrimental to the forum as it is.

 

Thank you Lady L - my POV precisely. Every last word. And no I do not LIKE your post at all - I agree with it 100%. It says what I mean.

28 minutes ago, tjekan said:

 

Sorry if I was unclear, I was specifically referring to blocking an account from displaying likes on their posts AT ALL, not just hiding them from view of the users themselves. In other words, a way of ensuring that someone who opted out would not display any emojis or like counts on their posts at all.

It seems to me that if the technology exists to associate likes on a person's post with their user account (enabling or disabling notifications, for example,) then that same technology ought to be able to not show the emoji business on a person's posts based on the preferences in their user account. The data connections must already exist.

 

 

Not "not display them". Not be able to receive them.  As in others cannot leave them for my posts.There is a HUGE difference.

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Fuzzbucket

[Dracaena]

I think LadyLyzar hit the nail on the head.  I am against reaction feature.  I'm not on facebook or any social media and you couldn't pay me to open an account.  I don't post much these days on new release/event threads for the viewbombers that often reward your post.  Last stubborn bomber I had persisted for almost two months and that's not something I'd like to repeat.  If we had these reaction things it would be a gold mine for viewbomber targets.  They not only would have the post they didn't like and wanted to punish but everyone who liked that post.  Think about it.

[MissK.]

2 hours ago, LadyLyzar said:

I don't want people to be afraid to post because they may not get many "likes".

 

People are already afraid to post though, maybe because they aren't confident about their English skills, or because they will then have to argue their point further and they don't have the time/energy to, or because of social anxiety, or because this community can get so intense about certain things that it's frankly more than a little intimidating. 

 

As I've said before this thread was revived I don't feel too strongly either way, as in I don't think reactions are necessary but I don't think they're evil either. I would say existing problems outweigh potential problems though. We know for a fact from several examples in this thread that people would use reacts to say "I agree" or "thanks" or "congrats!" while right now they wouldn't post those things at all, yet we don't know that any of the negative consequences discussed would actually come to pass. For someone like me who is mostly a lurker I can definitely say reactions would make me contribute more instead of less. Still in favour of a trial run with set dates, and it would be great if it's possible for people to opt out of seeing reacts of course.

[HeatherMarie]

5 hours ago, tjekan said:

 

If that were true, then I would have no problem with it. Social media tool, social media rules. People click it for any reason they want to, and it's left alone.

 

What I'm hearing a lot of, though, is that likes need to be treated as if they were a stated opinion; that the number of likes needs to be treated as if it were indicative of the level of support, like a vote or poll; that the intent behind a like needs to be narrowly defined as a certain kind of vote in favor of something whether that's how people use it or not.

 

It's almost the worst metric of anything imaginable. One post can get 50 likes while another gets 25; does that mean twice as many people agree with it? Definitely not! Four times as many people may have seen the first post, meaning it actually got half as many likes per view. With disliking disabled, 400 people may disagree with the first post, making its popularity far in the negative, but that is masked. 40 of the people who liked the first post may have been solicited to do so by the author, meaning it has less real likes than the second one. Half the likes may have been for reasons other than complete agreement with the two posts,  making lumping them together for a tally meaningless. And then there's the fact that a difference of 25 clicks in the context of thousands of forum members is statistically insignificant. It's more likely to be sheer random noise than evidence one point of view is more popular than the other.

 

As long as the likes don't become used as a bludgeoning weapon to falsely claim one person is objectively right or popular when no such thing is true, I have no problem with it. I have a really bad feeling about that panning out, though. I think it's going to take no more than 24 hours before the first "check the likes, I'm right and you're wrong!" post pops up.

 

*ahem* YES. 

 

It seems strange to me that the same people are both saying reactions are not meaningless, while also saying they have broad meaning, while *also* saying reactions should be viewed as support/agreement. You can't have all of those at once! 

 

Multiple people in this very thread have detailed the *many* different 'opinions' a reaction could actually have. It's honestly a *really* bad judgement-call to assume that all 'I agree' reactions mean 'I agree with this whole post!'. And it's really worrying to see people talking about reactions in suggestions and dragon requests, places that actually have a direct effect on the actual game, because there is no way to know what someone is thinking when they use a reaction! And it's actually very confusing to me to see people saying stuff like 'who does that hurt, who does that effect', because if reactions are taken to mean specific things then yes it effects *everyone* in the game! 

 

Of course that's worst-case scenario, I would very much hope that TJ/mods/etc would know better than to put too much weight onto vague 'reactions', but the situation is the same no matter what the topic is. There are already people in this thread saying that reactions are opinions, reactions should be taken to mean certain things, etc, and that's just Not Good. It's simply not a good habit to get into, *assuming* that you know what a person means when they click a react-button. Those assumptions can change the entire tone and atmosphere of a forum, it really can. 

 

[tjekan]

3 hours ago, Fuzzbucket said:

Not "not display them". Not be able to receive them.  As in others cannot leave them for my posts.There is a HUGE difference.

 

 

Could you explain the huge difference? I'm not really clear on it. If my posts are set never to display emoji reactions, there would never be any emoji reactions on my posts. No one including myself could ever use them there. I would have no like count. I may not be correctly assessing how this would work, but it seems to me that my posts never displaying any emojis would come to exactly the same thing as no one ever being able to leave them there. What am I missing?

[Sextonator]

HeatherMarie, I feel there are multiple reasons to desire the reactions, for multiple people. It just kind of depends.

 

Reasons:

- Acknowledge a post in site discussion, in the way of congratulating someone for something successful, or impressive, or liking a project they worked hard on, etc.

- Showing support for a post that gets across points better than you could, can be followed up with a post if there’s more than just an “I agree” to be said, or showing that you like an idea, also can be followed up with a post detailing why you like/support it.

- Acknowledging critique in dr as you see it, but maybe aren’t ready to respond as you want to implement that and other crit before you post again, and are showing that you’re not ignoring or overlooking it. Also as a way to show support for an idea, can be followed up with a post.

 

Imo each application can have different levels of weight, like if I thank a post giving crit, I can convey that I appreciate the crit and it’s something I plan to work on. Maybe I like an idea  so I love it to show my support, because it might be an idea I really like, and while I reacted, I’ll post to put words to that reaction and give it more weight.

 

And yeah, sometimes there’ll be weird situations like “oh I had something bad happen to me” and someone likes it, but humans are awkward, and sometimes don’t know what to say, but give an acknowledgement because they don’t wanna be rude and ignore that, but have not the proper words to express sentiment. I mean, they can say “aww I’m sorry.” or “oh that sucks,” but then feel awkward and bad. Or maybe something gets read wrong, like I recently posted a status on facebook about crying because I didn’t grab an electric cart at the store, and on the outside, it appears as me being lazy, and I had a friend use a “haha” reaction, but in reality I actually cried because I was in a lot of pain and could have saved myself the suffering by using one, but then that’s sort of on me because I haven’t really talked about it to anyone. Stuff like that happens, and it’s not a big deal.

 

I hope I’m not rambling, I’m kind of tired, but hopefully I conveyed what I meant properly. 

[Jazeki]

2 hours ago, Sextonator said:

 

Stuff like that happens, and it’s not a big deal.

I think the crux of the issue with this whole suggestion is right here. Everyone interprets reactions differently. In your situation, you were able to shrug the miscommunication off. Other people would treat this as a huge deal.

 

There are people who need reactions to feel validated or because they need to be able to contribute. There are people who get overwhelmed by the sudden influx interaction that reactions bring. There are people--like me--who wouldn't be bothered either way.

 

But everyone minimizing each other's experiences and opinions in discussion to "well, see..." back-and-forth responses does nothing but highlight how polarizing the addition of reactions would be for this forum.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fuzzbucket]

10 hours ago, tjekan said:

 

Could you explain the huge difference? I'm not really clear on it. If my posts are set never to display emoji reactions, there would never be any emoji reactions on my posts. No one including myself could ever use them there. I would have no like count. I may not be correctly assessing how this would work, but it seems to me that my posts never displaying any emojis would come to exactly the same thing as no one ever being able to leave them there. What am I missing?

 

If someone cannot be bothered to say what they see as valid in my posts, I don't want them to be able to just click. Their "liking" means nothing and so should not be there.

 

And I suppose as long as NO-ONE can see what clicks my posts got, that wouldn't be AS bad. But what has been suggested this far is that those who don't want to see reactions won't have to, and those who do will be able to - so what I am hearing is that I wouldn't see the reactions to my posts but others could. I do not want that. I want to see exactly what people thought of what I posted, and for no other reactions to them to be permitted.

 

6 hours ago, Jazeki said:

I think the crux of the issue with this whole suggestion is right here. Everyone interprets reactions differently. In your situation, you were able to shrug the miscommunication off. Other people would treat this as a huge deal.

 

There are people who need reactions to feel validated or because they need to be able to contribute. There are people who get overwhelmed by the sudden influx interaction that reactions bring. There are people--like me--who wouldn't be bothered either way.

 

But everyone minimizing each other's experiences and opinions in discussion to "well, see..." back-and-forth responses does nothing but highlight how polarizing the addition of reactions would be for this forum

 

 

Exactly this. There are so many people with such strong feelings that, while until this came up again, the forum was working fine,  if this happened you would have a lot of people very unhappy, where before this discussion was revived, there were a few (and I do believe it's a few) were sitting there wishing for an easy FB style button..

 

Quote

Or maybe something gets read wrong, like I recently posted a status on facebook about crying because I didn’t grab an electric cart at the store, and on the outside, it appears as me being lazy, and I had a friend use a “haha” reaction, but in reality I actually cried because I was in a lot of pain and could have saved myself the suffering by using one, but then that’s sort of on me because I haven’t really talked about it to anyone. Stuff like that happens, and it’s not a big deal.

 

But it IS a big deal. And it will happen. And that's not OK.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Fuzzbucket

[Sextonator]

Why is it a big deal?

[Fuzzbucket]

What - reducing someone to tears isn't a big deal to you ?

 

I - think that says EXACTLY why these "reactions" are not OK. If they had been actually posting that would not have happened.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Fuzzbucket

[Sextonator]

But how many people would be crying over this? How many people would care that much to actually cry over this? I won’t deny feelings will get hurt, but that happens with everything. Preventing one feature because someone might cry is silly.