When you change the rankings for the individual reactions, can you give people special bonus points (or negative points for certain unpopular posters) so the totals remain the same as before?
The Off-Topic and Random Thoughts Thread(Anything Goes!)
- Thread starter JCSteel
- Start date
I appreciate your question, but I'm not going to put myself in the position of judge by assigning scores to people. Besides, I'm fairly certain the scores are calculated dynamically so even if I changed them they would probably get reset the next time the code ran. I would be more comfortable assigning a special badge to a user, if it came to that, but honestly if someone is that much of a problem they probably will have gotten multiple warnings and will end up in timeout (or worse).
I'm in favor of keeping most emojis neutral.
I think that negative points should be given to: "dislike", "lie", "troll" and "ban".
Positive points: "Cross", "like", "prey", "gentleman", "haha", "love", "chad", "thinking", "toast", "red pill" and "seal".
What's the point of having them if they have no value/neutral? I use the points to assess the member's contributions. For some (Scorpion, Truckdriver, etc) it's easy because they post a lot and I know their contributions. But I can't keep track of every one and the reaction points help me value other members and their posts. Not necessarily the most points is the best (but it does help assessing), but moreso the ratio of points to posts. Are their posts adding value to the forum, or mostly spamming?
As a side note, It'd be nice if there was an easy way to see which emojis are which points - perhaps sorted by value and maybe a divider to separate point value changes (from 2 to 1 for example) to make it easier to choose.
I know δούλος του Χριστού has a difficult job to balance everyone's completely different views on this, so thank you for your contributions.
I am going to try a variation of this. I think positive reactions are much more clear cut. Negative can be tricky because of the user vs the content conundrum. So I think we should try to limit the number of negative reactions to ones that are very clear and straightforward.
Also just for everyone's general info, these reaction scores are applied dynamically and the user score is re-calculated when I change the values. So nothing is being permanently lost or broken as we try different things. And if we as a community decide to go back to how it was before that is always an option, and the user scores will be the same as they were.
If people were getting mad because they were losing points because of certain reaction scores, the cause of it was that it wasn't clear what score one was giving another, the only real solution would to be to order the emojis so that it's clear as to what score someone was giving another. Because if you just reassign scores, then you're just doing exactly what you say that you don't want to do. Because by changing the scores, you are in the position of judge
I have listened to everyone's feedback, both positive and negative, and have attempted to come up with a solution that makes sense while pleasing the most people. I have checked many profiles and the scores seem appropriate relative to "good" vs "bad" users. Please remember we can always make further changes and tweaks if there is a need so let's just see how this works for a little while. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Attachments
Fair point.
And i can also see how a default neutral value may discourage from using some emojis, but still there is a number of emojis that doesn't relly warrant any point reaction, like let's say: "yawn"
- regardless wheter I find the posted content, or the poster himself to be boring, it shouldn't really award any points. Same can be said about "sad" / "angry", etc.Now, I see that δούλος του Χριστού already divided emojis into 3 groups: positive, neutral, negative - and I genarally agree with it (with some exceptions).
Still, if You think that some emojis should be moved from the neutral group to the positive one, notify the management.
Last edited:
I genarally agree with Your clasification, but I don't think that "limp" should have a negative value - as it can be used to describe the posted content, not the poster himself.
Example:
Last edited:
I think the previous iteration was better: https://christisking.cc/threads/the...s-thread-anything-goes.560/page-28#post-60089
I know it's impossible to please everyone. That said, I'll explain an alternative approach in clear terms that I think will make sense to most members.
Some challenges with the latest iteration:
Now "glowie" gets a negative score again, so now every time sometime posts about undercover feds, a patsy, etc, they are going to be down voted. Also, "sodom" is negative, so every post about homos will be down voted. Etc. This may not reflect the intended reaction of the poster.
Most content online, including on CIK, is negative. This is the nature of the medium. By allocating negative scores to posts that elicit negative emotional and cognitive reactions to the content, but not the poster, this may reduce engagement as a few posters will not feel motivated to keep getting down voted.
Further, most reactions are now neutral. This reduces the effect of positive reinforcement for posting content.
Above all, given the large number of reactions, this latest system is too complex for anyone to comprehend, which means that posters will not be communicating as they intended.
I suggest that we revert to the previous change, with some small adjustments, which approximates this:
Make the clearly positive reactions (haha, love, smile, seal, cross, toast), a highly positive score +2 or +3. Encourage people for posting content that gives others faith, hope, joy, humour, praise, useful knowledge, etc.
Make only a very few reactions negative (dislike, ban, troll) that are most clearly about the poster. It's important to limit the negative reactions for the clear minority of posters who post garbage content based on trolling, resentment, spite, etc. If possible, it is better to explain why we disagree with something rather than to simply downvote it. Perhaps we can save the down votes for stuff we really don't like, not just for opinions that we disagree with.
Keep the neutral reactions for negative emotions about the content (anger, concerned, disgust, sad, sodom, yawn). Sometimes people post revolting content, which makes me want to respond with the "disgust" emoji. I don’t want to see explicit images of homos, gore, etc. (And I'm glad the rules have been updated to include the instruction to add a spoiler to hide the content while giving posters an opt-in choice to see it). But I don't want to down vote the poster, as it isnt fed-posting, trolling, or other behaviour that clearly deserves to be punished. So, a neutral response that demonstrates a negative emotion but doesn't make the poster feel attacked, is good to keep on board.
Members can also ignore things they don't like. Imagine someone posts a new thread, which is a lame one liner. Nobody comments or reacts. This means 0 replies, 0 reactions. The OP will hopefully get the message that his post was not adding value.
Make everything else mildly positive +1. This simply means, you get a +1 for creating content. The only risk of this approach is that members will give a +1 to someone when they actually want to downvote then. The solution is to pin a simple explanation of this system to the top of the forum, along with the forum rules, to explain this in simple terms. This should be easy to remember.
Guide to the like button and reactions/emoticons
If you want to give a simple "thanks for posting" reaction, hit the like button. This encourages members to keep posting content. There are no daily limits to liking or reacting to posts.
If you want to express something more nuanced, consider the following.
For posts that offer faith, hope, joy, humour, praise, useful knowledge, etc, you can react with a love, haha, cross, toast, smile, or seal of approval which gives the poster a highly positive score.
Most reactions give a positive score to the poster, except:
- reactions that reflect poor posting behaviour: dislike, ban, and troll, which gives them a negative score, and
- negative emotions: anger, concerned, disgust, sad, yawn, and sodom, which give a neutral score.
If you don’t agree with another poster's opinion, but don't want to down vote them or explain why, you can also choose to simply ignore the post and scroll on.
I hope the above illustrates how this system could reduce confusion and conflict, improve precision in communication, and enhance positive forum engagement.
@δούλος του Χριστού
I appreciate your efforts and time. As always, thanks for your consideration and work here.
Last edited:
New scoring list is very good, will help separate the wheat from the chaff.
Yes sometimes good posters will get a negative value from time to time, won't matter because it will all average out. Also the fed emoji is for calling someone a fed, and for describing fed activity there is the alien or tractor emoji.
Personally I don't mind gay content only having negative value, it's good to discourage it from being posted.
Yes sometimes good posters will get a negative value from time to time, won't matter because it will all average out. Also the fed emoji is for calling someone a fed, and for describing fed activity there is the alien or tractor emoji.
Personally I don't mind gay content only having negative value, it's good to discourage it from being posted.
But people might react with "Sodom" if, for example, someone posts an article saying "the percentage of gays in Alabama is increasing". That shouldn't give the poster negative points.
Or it might not have anything to do with gay stuff. I've used "Sodom" to react to stories posted about things like abortion, or anything contrary to God's law.
So Zuckerberg just became the world's 3rd richest person. What does this even mean? Apparently he's worth 73 billion dollars. All from an adolescent, Satan-derived jew "idea" about incel hate towards hot white women on college campus's. Talk about a jew putting pussy up on a pedestal? The preoccupation with female hotness and sex gave "birth" to this jew clown that lives on Kawaii on a compound of beauty and safety only worthy of Our Lord Jesus Christ, yet this jew over-steps his talmudic bounds by living in a privatized-paradise while allocating us gentiles to a life of un-private hell.
KGB, Mi6, CIA, and/or Iran... if you're listening?
KGB, Mi6, CIA, and/or Iran... if you're listening?
Good catch, didn't notice that - Sodom used to be +1.
δούλος του Χριστού: Sodom should be used as a +1 or 0 since it is calling for God's judgement, no?
I agree that the sodom reaction (which I've used myself with postings about anti God stuff) should be neutral instead of negative.
Then why react at all? It does nothing. If you don't want to award points, just move on from the post. If a post warrants a reaction, I'll take the time and reward the user, otherwise move on.
Now we need to remember ~50 icons' value.
I'm not going to use icons anymore because I don't know if it adds points - or even worse subtracts from the user. I've used the Sodom reaction to describe some terrible content that I saw value in being informed on, now i see it's really just penalizing a user bigly. And means I'm not going to post such material even if I think the forum would benefit from knowing the information.
Then why react at all? It does nothing. If you don't want to award points, just move on from the post. If a post warrants a reaction, I'll take the time and reward the user, otherwise move on.
Now we need to remember ~50 icons' value.
I'm not going to use icons anymore because I don't know if it adds points - or even worse subtracts from the user. I've used the Sodom reaction to describe some terrible content that I saw value in being informed on, now i see it's really just penalizing a user bigly. And means I'm not going to post such material even if I think the forum would benefit from knowing the information.
Brother you're not going to post things for the forum because you won't get reaction points out of it?
Last edited:
Mods, can we move all this talk about reaction scores to their proper thread: https://christisking.cc/threads/forum-rules-discussion-thread.851/
The consensus seems to be that the sodom reaction should be neutral, so I will change it.
All future discussion on this topic should go here instead, please.
I have posted a list of all negative reactions and what the scores are in this thread. You are welcome to respond if you have any more questions or feedback. I'll ask @Samseau to please write something up about this topic and post the scores so that people can know if they want to. I hope this satisfies your concerns.
All future discussion on this topic should go here instead, please.
Last edited:
