They know.
Forum rules discussion thread
- Thread starter Bird
- Start date
The sodom reaction is now neutral.
The remaining negative reactions are as follows:
Dislike -1
Lie -1
Irrational -1
Troll -1
Bait -1
Bot -1
Glowie -1
Limp -1
Soy -1
If you disagree with any of these, or have any feedback or requests, please let me know.
The remaining negative reactions are as follows:
Dislike -1
Lie -1
Irrational -1
Troll -1
Bait -1
Bot -1
Glowie -1
Limp -1
Soy -1
If you disagree with any of these, or have any feedback or requests, please let me know.
You missed, or forgot to write down, the "ban" emoji.
For most readers, I imagine that they either don't know or can't remember or don't care about all the different reaction scores.
For instance, many posters will continue to be digitally punished for posting content about leftist soyboys, despite being far from soy themselves.
My suggestion is to simplify this list to reduce confusion about reacting to the content vs the poster. So, I would recommend associating all the above reactions with a neutral score, except for the following, which would result in a negative score:
Dislike -1
Ban -5
That said, I believe these negative reactions should only be used sparingly. I don't think that disagreeing with someone means that they deserve a thumbs down, as this can exacerbate tension and unnecessarily lead to resentment. I would save it for really poor takes or blatant trolling.
As always @δούλος του Χριστού - thanks for your time and efforts
Last edited:
Exactly. We should be encouraging good posts. And we should reward good posts with positive points (not neutral). They should all be positive points or negative. Otherwise why have them?
I haven't been using the newer ones becuase I don't know if it helps the poster or not. And if not, why use it? I want to encourage good posts and posters.
I look at @Bizet and I sort of remember his handle. Then I hover over his name and see 1100 points and think "Oh, he's a good contributer, so I'll value his posts more." Then I see it's on ~200 posts so he doesn't post often but when he does, each of his posts are being well rec'd and contributing to the forum so I'll know to value him more. He's not just spamming the board. He's selective about posting quality content.
The neutral points don't account for this so it's not a true representation of his contributions. We should be using the scoring system to reward good posts and contributions.
I didn't even realize there were "negative points" due to reactions. What is the purpose of this? I get some of these reactions due to sharing news here, and I agree with the reactions. I don't post the news because I agree with it, I post it so men here know what the approved talking points are, and if they give a response that is a "negative value" I often agree with their assessment. This is very counter-productive to the forum in sharing information.
Thank you for your kind words! Although I must admit, most of the men on this forum have far greater intellect and more significant contributions than me. My high post-to-like ratio largely comes from my enjoyment of sharing funny memes
From my own testing, now the results are as follows:
POSITIVE POINTS
Orthodox Cross = 3
Latin Cross = 3
Prayer = 2
Red Pill = 2
Seal (of Approval) = 2
Love = 2
Like = 1
Distinction = 1
Gentleman = 1
Haha = 1
Wow = 1
Chad = 1
Salute = 1
Smile = 1
Thinking = 1
Toast = 1
Wink = 1
NEGATIVE POINTS
Ban = -3
Dislike = -1
Lie = -1
Soy Boy! = -1
Limp = -1
Glowie = -1
Bait = -1
Bot = -1
Troll = -1
Irrational = -1
Any reactions other than these are neutral.
But again the reactions miscommunication strikes again, for example in this post many member give the limp reactions which reduced the poster's points.
Chess legend Gary Kasparov endorsed Kamala Harris.
thedispatch.com
What a fag!
The United States Cannot Descend Into Authoritarianism
An endorsement of Kamala Harris from a Russian dissident.
thedispatch.com
What a fag!
Since the last forum scoring adjustments, a picture has started to emerge.
Another thing to keep in mind is to be careful when giving reactions to other posters, as it can motivate or demotivate them, and it might be assumed that you are picking sides in an argument.
- Users who have very low or even negative reaction scores can be concluded as trolls or low-quality posters.
- Users whose posts-to-reactions ratio is around 1:1-2 (meaning for every 100 posts, they receive 100 to 200 reactions) usually have some controversies in their posting histories. Examples include Perseus66 for his arguments regarding prostitution and baldness, magoo who once got temporarily banned (IIRC) for language issues and a meltdown in the Trump thread, and Australia Sucks for his datasheets.
- Most users typically have a reaction ratio of 1:2-4 (for every 100 posts, they receive 200 to 400 reactions).
- Users with a reactions ratio of 1:>4 (for every 100 posts, they receive more than 400 reactions, usually 500-700 and even more) are considered quality posters and heavy hitters.
Another thing to keep in mind is to be careful when giving reactions to other posters, as it can motivate or demotivate them, and it might be assumed that you are picking sides in an argument.
- Giving positive reactions can serve as a gesture that a post is good and appreciated.
- Giving negative reactions can indicate that someone's post is bad and there are strong disagreements. For example, Valentin Pearson regretted starting the Andrew Tate thread due to the negative reactions he received.
- Some users will dislike the reactions they receive and react back. For example, I once gave FrancisK the "cope" and "fedora" reactions consecutively; not long after that, he gave me the "Soy Boy!" and "Kumar Reddy" reactions in return.
- When someone is in an argument, giving reactions to a participant can be inferred as picking sides. For example, during the debates between Cooper and LaAguilaNegra, or MusicForThePiano and Samseau, one could see who was siding with whom by the reactions given.
Since you mentioned mister Magoo. Heres my take. Nobody should give a shit about points. And only write whatever they think is worthy. Regardless of the reaction. We are not in a popularity contest. This idea is childish and will funnel the quality of posts to same subjects. Creating an eco chamber. And limiting discussion.
The first version of RVF nobody had points. Or any other metric. And it worked fine. We are not walking in egg shells.
Sometimes when I read good stuff i dont even react to it.
That must have taken a while to figure out!From my own testing, now the results are as follows:
POSITIVE POINTS
Orthodox Cross = 3
Latin Cross = 3
Prayer = 2
Red Pill = 2
Seal (of Approval) = 2
Love = 2
Like = 1
Distinction = 1
Gentleman = 1
Haha = 1
Wow = 1
Chad = 1
Salute = 1
Smile = 1
Thinking = 1
Toast = 1
Wink = 1
NEGATIVE POINTS
Ban = -3
Dislike = -1
Lie = -1
Soy Boy! = -1
Limp = -1
Glowie = -1
Bait = -1
Bot = -1
Troll = -1
Irrational = -1
Any reactions other than these are neutral.
But again the reactions miscommunication strikes again, for example in this post many member give the limp reactions which reduced the poster's points.
Chess legend Gary Kasparov endorsed Kamala Harris.
The United States Cannot Descend Into Authoritarianism
An endorsement of Kamala Harris from a Russian dissident.
What a fag!
I had no idea the troll emoji was negative points! Sometimes I use it or clownworld if a shared link or twitter post is of something particularly ridiculous, but it's not to give the poster negative points...guess I'll need to be more careful in the future. Thanks for sharing this one brother
I've noticed that you're not one to use the reactions much. I figured it was an AMOG thing, which I get. Myself, I use positive reactions pretty generously because I figure it encourages guys who do good posts to post more good things like that. I see a "like" as the online equivalent of nodding in approval when someone is talking. A cross is "amen, brother," and so on.
Actually, I agree with this. It's just that thoughts about reaction points crossed my mind yesterday, and I decided to make a post about it.
The first time I became curious about reaction points was when I gave someone a reaction, but their points didn't change. For example, I gave the "helicopter" reaction to get2choppaaa's post, but his points didn't change. So, I tested each reaction one by one manually.
I didn't realize you can knock 3 big points off someone's score with a ban react. On RVF 2.0 I once really pissed an insolent guy off with a clever comeback and he went through the thread and downvoted all my comments. I guess the "ban" react could have been devastating in his hands!From my own testing, now the results are as follows:
POSITIVE POINTS
Orthodox Cross = 3
Latin Cross = 3
Prayer = 2
Red Pill = 2
Seal (of Approval) = 2
Love = 2
Like = 1
Distinction = 1
Gentleman = 1
Haha = 1
Wow = 1
Chad = 1
Salute = 1
Smile = 1
Thinking = 1
Toast = 1
Wink = 1
NEGATIVE POINTS
Ban = -3
Dislike = -1
Lie = -1
Soy Boy! = -1
Limp = -1
Glowie = -1
Bait = -1
Bot = -1
Troll = -1
Irrational = -1
Any reactions other than these are neutral.
But again the reactions miscommunication strikes again, for example in this post many member give the limp reactions which reduced the poster's points.
Chess legend Gary Kasparov endorsed Kamala Harris.
The United States Cannot Descend Into Authoritarianism
An endorsement of Kamala Harris from a Russian dissident.
What a fag!
Not that points matter much, but I feel like Clown should get you +1 because I usually use it to say that whatever the post is talking about is clowny, not that the poster himself is a clown.
In the previous forum there was a reputation score that you could assign to the user himself rather than to his posts. It was also a way for people to indicate this user was an actual real world person since it was considered a courtesy to give someone a point if you had met that person in real life and had a positive interaction with him.
Yeah it was introduced after a while. But in beginning it was about the quality of posts. Normally given when you wrote great datasheets. I think I was the most repped for a brief moment until Gmanifesto took my spot. I cried.