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!
