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
I really believe negative reaction points are counterproductive. I've received some recently for my views on Donald Trump. Discouraging diverse viewpoints is just going to lead to an echo chamber.
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.
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.
An endorsement of Kamala Harris from a Russian dissident.
thedispatch.com
What a fag!
@Servant of Christ
@Samseau
@scorpion
May I bring your attention to the above posts and then the following issues. Please keep in mind that your help behind the scenes at CIK is always appreciated.
1. Unintentional down-voting
Members continue to use negative reactions in response to
content uploaded by a poster (e.g., a tweet advocating war against Iran) without necessarily wanting to respond negatively to the
poster themselves. However, the poster is digitally and socially punished, because the click of unfavourable emoticons/reaction buttons on posts deducts points for the poster.
A remedy to this problem would be:
> Swap all allocations of negative scores with neutral scores, except for the ban reaction <
The 'ban' can stay negative in case of unambiguous fed-posting, trolling, or other garbage posts.
Current negative points:
- Ban = -3
- Dislike = -1
- Lie = -1
- Soy Boy! = -1
- Limp = -1
- Glowie = -1
- Bait = -1
- Bot = -1
- Troll = -1
- Irrational = -1
Suggested negative points:
2. Overuse of the 'dislike' reaction (and insulting language).
Please note: the following is intended for both members and mods/admin to think about.
Some posters seem to have become increasingly accustomed to using and/or receiving the downvote 'dislike' button and other negative reactions as a representation of disagreement. More often than not, the dislike reaction is used and no further explanation is given for the underlying reason behind the downvote (
example).
I understand that members want to be able share their disapproval, and hitting 'dislike' or another negative reaction is the easiest way to express this emotion/thought. However, what do you think is the end outcome when dislike after dislike is received, especially on matters of informational or theoretical opinion? Do you think it influences someone to change their mind, or makes them irritated, or something else?
Based on my knowledge of human behaviour and my direct observation of members' actions at CIK, it's clear that dishing out downvotes (and text-based insults) alienates members, pushes them away, and encourages them to downvote and insult others. Moreover, it can't show others how to behave or think better.
It can also create an echochamber where members avoid posting, rather than sharing a minority opinion that will lead to social punishment. If it gets to the point where members are making memes about a mod's pattern of downvoting, IMO this should be sign for everyone to consider if there is a better way to engage in disagreement. So, what's the takeaway?
> Reacting is not a necessity. If you can't disagree respectfully through text, consider moving on, without responding at all <
What's even worse is when someone gets particularly irritated and starts revenge-reacting. This is less common, but continues to occur.
Personally I recommend removing the dislike emoticon altogether until members stop using negative reactions so frequently to disagree with each other. However as that may be less palatable to the group, I'll offer the following comments to wrap up.
-> If a member disagrees with someone on a topic or doesn't like their general style, downvoting their posts won't teach anyone a lesson or improve the quality of the forum.
-> Remember what Roosh said about forum behaviour (paraphrased) - it's OK to be beta online. This means being nicer than you think is necessary, letting go of the need to 'one up' the next guy, and giving people the benefit of doubt. Above all, taking a breath and letting something go is a great way to maintain a sense of inner peace.
-> Instead of neg-reacting without explanation, consider outlining your position in a calm way once or twice... and if you feel there is no intellectual or conversational progression, this may be a reasonable sign to move on. (Unless, that is, you derive intrinsic satisfaction from getting drawn into lengthy tit-for-tats with other members who show no interest in considering your position). Or don't respond at all. One always has the choice to simply let things slide.
Conclusion
Unintentional negative scoring -- and in particular deliberate downvoting and insults -- foster a culture of unnecessary antagonism. I hope that by resolving these two issues, or at least reducing the prevalence of the second, the vibe of the forum can be enhanced, leading to greater engagement among members.
