Another one for the Donald here
The Off-Topic and Random Thoughts Thread(Anything Goes!)
- Thread starter JCSteel
- Start date
I have updated the scores and tried to make things more consistent and logical. In most cases, if a post elicits a reaction it deserves a point. In some cases positive, and some negative. However we want to be very careful when giving negative points because someone might respond to the content as opposed to the person posting, and we don't want to punish someone for posting interesting content. I am open to adjusting these scores so please let me know if you agree/disagree, and why. Thank you.
cc @TruckDriver9
Just noticed yawn was negative, so I fixed that to be +1. Also, thinking is now +2 as I want to encourage content that activates the almonds.
To summarize, the following reactions are negative:
Dislike
Troll
Ban
Bait
Bot
Glowie
To summarize, the following reactions are negative:
Dislike
Troll
Ban
Bait
Bot
Last edited:
^
The list above includes emojis that were removed: "crazy", "Poland stronk", "St Paddy", "helicopter", "Jean Pierre".
The list above includes emojis that were removed: "crazy", "Poland stronk", "St Paddy", "helicopter", "Jean Pierre".
Last edited:
Yes, they are currently disabled. Easy to re-enable should the need arise. We already have so many and those are rarely used. And it looks bad having only one or two emojis on a line.
I use the glowie reaction a lot in response to news articles. Not in response to the person posting them.
Noted. I was wondering about that. We'll make it a +1 for now. It would be nice if we had a reaction dedicated for glowie posters, though. I will think on this a bit.
By taking glowie of the negative points list, I think you have it down to the ones that are clearly critical of the poster alone.
Maybe there should be an 'ad hominem' icon for whenever someone disapproves of the sinner and not the sin. Perhaps dislike takes this place already, but one should be able to differentiate between disliking the content of a poster and straight up disliking the poster they/themselves.
So trolls deserve points? People have been using the negative point reactions in the place of a dislike, because it's a more expressive dislike. I know I have been, and I doubt I'm the only one. The first that comes to mind Samseau using "Irrational" in place of dislike. I don't see why this change was necessary or even wanted. If you wanted to simplify it, so that there's no confusion, order the emoji panel in order of score from positive to negative.
You have single handedly given forabettertomorrow a positive reaction score, he now has the trophy "somebody likes you" and we all know that's not true.
My friend that's outstanding haha
Get rid of the scores altogether, it means nothing im shocked anyone actually pays attention to it. I do remember bird once complaining that his had gone slightly down after a forum update which I found hilarious that he knew what his was like that.
Got Andrew Jackson
I'm still thinking about it but it's difficult to create a system that makes everyone happy. No matter what you do some people won't like it.
Let's say you post something funny and cringeworthy, or a meme about degeneracy/clown world, etc. It's in a thread meant to laugh at or disapprove of one of those subjects (many such threads exist). Someone comes along and appropriately reacts with cringe, or angry, or soy, etc. They appreciated you posting the content and are interacting with it correctly, however you end up with negative points. How does that make sense?
Regarding your example, the user in question still has plenty of negative feedback and wouldn't have a positive score if many people weren't reacting positively to their posts (for example memes and gifs). I suggest you ignore them if you don't like their content, and if they are doing something against the rules they will be dealt with. Obviously some people do enjoy their posts (I am not one of them).
For what it's worth, it wasn't my intent to meddle with things for no reason. I was asked to add more emojis which meant I had to assign scores and while working on that I saw the existing scores were all over the map so I did my best to make sense of things. I could have left it there but I did ask for feedback and will continue to think about and refine how this works, and I'll also discuss it with the moderators.
PS - Worrying about imaginary Internet points is kind of silly, in my humble opinion. It's supposed to be just for fun. And I am not getting paid for all the time I put in trying to make things better for everyone. However I am sorry for moving your cheese.
We might need a rule against bad grammar.
That quote attributed to him actually kinda does sound like me.
Woah whoa whoa,
I'd be all for it, as I care for neither reaction score, nor trophies. I'm just using them to poke fun.
But do they, that's the problem with associating scores with emojis, because they're entirely arbitrary, is the person reacting to the content of the post which doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the poster, or towards the poster for because it accurately reflects their asinine opinions? There's no way of reliably telling. And herein lies your problem, because you (or whoever assigned scores) created the frame in which you had a sort of litmus test for fitting in with the forum. Otherwise why have a widely varied (plus 3 to minus 5) score for reactions?
PS - Worrying about imaginary Internet points is kind of silly, in my humble opinion. It's supposed to be just for fun. And I am not getting paid for all the time I put in trying to make things better for everyone. However I am sorry for moving your cheese.
Of course. I have no real complaints, I'm just a shit disturber sometimes. Don't worry, you can't move my cheese if it's grounded in God.
I'm still thinking about it but it's difficult to create a system that makes everyone happy. No matter what you do some people won't like it.
Let's say you post something funny and cringeworthy, or a meme about degeneracy/clown world, etc. It's in a thread meant to laugh at or disapprove of one of those subjects (many such threads exist). Someone comes along and appropriately reacts with cringe, or angry, or soy, etc. They appreciated you posting the content and are interacting with it correctly, however you end up with negative points. How does that make sense?
Regarding your example, the user in question still has plenty of negative feedback and wouldn't have a positive score if many people weren't reacting positively to their posts (for example memes and gifs). I suggest you ignore them if you don't like their content, and if they are doing something against the rules they will be dealt with. Obviously some people do enjoy their posts (I am not one of them).
For what it's worth, it wasn't my intent to meddle with things for no reason. I was asked to add more emojis which meant I had to assign scores and while working on that I saw the existing scores were all over the map so I did my best to make sense of things. I could have left it there but I did ask for feedback and will continue to think about and refine how this works, and I'll also discuss it with the moderators.
PS - Worrying about imaginary Internet points is kind of silly, in my humble opinion. It's supposed to be just for fun. And I am not getting paid for all the time I put in trying to make things better for everyone. However I am sorry for moving your cheese.
Great work, Sir. Your efforts are appreciated.
I was reading a thread on reddit yesterday about 'elite grads who can't read a book' and people began talking about how a lot of high school and college kids don't seem capable of comprehending text. They can read just fine, apparently, but it's like water off the back of a duck, in that none of it sticks. Then I started to think, a lot of times I would get into arguments with people online it would seem like they didn't read what I said and were arguing with me about something I didn't even say, or they didn't comprehend what I said, and then they'd talk past me. I'd read a lot of other people arguing and they would be talking past each other. Someone might take a few words of what I said and only address that, setting up a straw man, usually without any depth.
Now I realize it may not be that I was getting trolled or had a bot respond to me, but it may be some younger person who literally has abysmal reading comprehension. When I argued with people online 15-20 years ago, they would quote your text and address what you said, much like this forum, but around the time Trump started to run for office, and perhaps a few years prior to that, the level of discourse started to drop off sharply, where the fine art of internet argumentation plummeted into a quagmire of the lowest effort parroting, talking-points, and propaganda I've ever seen. No wonder people started to think bots and trolls were taking over the internet and hypothesized NPCs were everywhere, it may have been nothing more than a bunch of illiterates incapable of written communication still making effort to throw their opinions around.
Now I realize it may not be that I was getting trolled or had a bot respond to me, but it may be some younger person who literally has abysmal reading comprehension. When I argued with people online 15-20 years ago, they would quote your text and address what you said, much like this forum, but around the time Trump started to run for office, and perhaps a few years prior to that, the level of discourse started to drop off sharply, where the fine art of internet argumentation plummeted into a quagmire of the lowest effort parroting, talking-points, and propaganda I've ever seen. No wonder people started to think bots and trolls were taking over the internet and hypothesized NPCs were everywhere, it may have been nothing more than a bunch of illiterates incapable of written communication still making effort to throw their opinions around.
HANLON'S RAZOR: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Bingo.
I haven't decided to change anything yet, but I almost think the reactions should be zero points, except for like, dislike, and the crosses. Of course if we do that a bunch of people are going to get upset because lost some points. Maybe some other positive ones could be love, pray, gentleman, haha, chad, etc. Because with those you can be reasonably sure someone appreciated the content, or the user, or both. To me the positive reactions seem a lot less arbitrary somehow.
It's the ones where we can't be sure that cause some concern for me. Someone shouldn't be punished with negative points for posting something people actually liked, just because the reaction that seemed appropriate for that content has a negative score (think gay, soy, tractor, clown, etc). Though I know some folks disagree with me here.
My only motivation on this issue is to be fair and to avoid confusion as much as possible.
Last edited: