-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Quick questions: How would that in any way help and are OT bans permanent?
- 3
It wouldn't, but punishing someone for something someone else did is one of my "triggers"
especially when that person is me.
I support both these notions.
When it comes to disagreeing, IMO the presence of a disagree button and the mark they leave on one's profile discourage dissent and thus harm healthy debates when a person might not want to oppose the consensus in fear of getting slammed with dozens of disagrees. This is already evident in Reddit where the popularity contest style of communication makes discussion one-sided.
I've already incurred 62 disagrees, mostly from my opposition to the rating system, and to someone who might not know me from these discussions it might seem like I'm a troll who shouldn't be listened just because I happened to disagree(heh) with the consensus on the rating system one time.
- 5
- 4
I have received 187 disagrees and the amount of mental trauma this gives to me is closer to zero figs given.
You don't even know how many disagrees a person has unless you actually go visit their profile, if I just click your username here it gives the positive agrees, no mention of disagrees.
Also there is no consensus in any parts of Paradox forums, especially on OT where everyone has their own ideological point of view. Please try finding two OT users with identical political views.
- 10
I am mostly referring to the game forums, not OT. I feel that it is detrimental to user feedback when folks that might disagree with certain game mechanics or otherwise want to give their ideas are drowned in disagrees which makes a deterrent for people that do care about their reputation in the forum - particularly new users.
- 3
- 2
- 1
I agree that it is rather opinionating and would personally see it gone too. Though it should be gone for everybody then, since otherwise it would still opinionate.
Removing the total amount of rating---including the most positive ratings under members---would be a good idea. Removing disagree and not agree would be bad though. Because posts can be frased in many ways; including in a negative way where pressing agree actually means disagree to something and disagree means agree. And then you would still end up with lots and lots of posts just stating 'I disagree'... And having a post with lots of agrees can potentially intimidate people from posting disagreements---a reason the whole system would be better scrapped. Alternatively hide the agrees/disagrees from us normal forumites, but let you guys on the staff see them. That way you get rid of the negative things and keep one of the things you wanted.
No it wouldn't. And adding dumb would be really really bad as it will just be abused. And who decides what is dumb anyway? Having more buttons would just give more clutter.
That would be a good point in favour of an agree system, since I have seen threads where the yes/no essentially cluttered up the real discussion. E.g. the threads on the removal of the supply/demand system and the terrain in EU4. At the end of those it got hard to find previous arguments due to all that clutter and there actually were people going around doctoring up statistics to make it appear that more people agreed with the removal than what actually was the case...
Agreements can be just as harmful as somebody seeing an OP with 2000 agrees will be wary of posting a disagreeing argument. And if people go around only upvoting arguments of a certain side of the discussion it is essentially downvoting.
Indeed it is.
Exactly.
Just my point.
That would be rather bad, because you can quickly read more than 5--10 posts you agree with.
I don't like that. Banned people can have raised genuine concerns or made valuable posts. Also don't forget that some people--- e.g. the phoenix---were banned because they wanted to in order to avoid using the forum too much. Shouldn't it be possible to agree with them?
Petrarch indeed had many serious posts; just because he made that troll thread in the CKII forum doesn't mean that his serious views suddenly becomes void.
Having agree also effectively reduces all threads to a poll... And depending on how the OP is frased agree and disagree can be different beasts. Lets take the removed supply demand system from EU4.I agree with getting rid of disagree.
My rational is that this is a discussion forum, if someone disagrees with a point I've made, they should have to state it publically, along with their rational, so that people can, ya know, discuss the point. Having disagree effectually reduces every thread to a poll.
The OP of the thread trying to get it back could be giving arguments for why this removal is absolutely horrible; or it could give arguments for why it is good. See: Agree and disagree switched place in those two different OPs. Or a thread on Crusader Mings. 'We absolutely need Crusader MIngs' versus 'we absolutely don't need Crusader MIngs'. Here you cannot claim that agree is better than disagree.
Agree that disagree is trickier. But still shouldn't be removed.
If you want to have an idea about where people stand then just seeing something like 10 agree and 1 disagree means nothing since most people haven't seen the thread... If you want to use something like agree/disagree to make decisions based on what people think then you need to have thousands of agrees/disagrees.
Couldn't agree more.
Also this shows the flaw of the agree/disagree system. While I liked two of the three parts of the post the last third of the post simply was the most important and I disagreed there. Now it looks like I disagreed with the entire post...
Only for the staff. Furthermore it is detrimental to have too many polls since people will then just vote in that poll and not explain in the thread; plus unless the poll is on a rather narrow subject with only a few possible options you will always run into people not being able to vote what they actually think. Think like 'Should we have Crusader MIngs: Yes, No, Don't care' are fine. Polls polling more elaborate discussions aren't since there won't be such clear cut options.
This is very well said. And in addition to +1 and 'I agree' coming back you now also have people just posting 'helpful' and 'disagree'... And I agree that it isn't really possible to cheat.
That doesn't only happen in Sweden. I would think it happens in most of the world, but I could be mistaken. At least it also happens here in Denmark. On the other hand Sweden is the arch enemy and should be ridiculed if possible; so lets just blame the Swedes.
That is a very good point and a reason I think the agree/disagree system ought to be scrapped. Take for instance the debates on the new terrain in EU4 of the scrapping of the supply/demand system in EU4; the people in favour of it were very vocal and those of us who opposed it would have been downvoted to hell if this system had existed. And if only agree had existed all the posts in favour of the change would have massive agreements thereby essentially giving massive disagreements to the posts against the change...
And yes that could keep people from speaking against what they think is the majority, if they care about upvotes/downvotes.
I misunderstood you then. Though even for such simple cases I don't like having polls as it can make people not post arguments for their yes or no. Also how on Earth would you handle a system which allowed polls on things like Crusader Mings, but not on more complex issues?
I don't think it would be necessary to moderate that, actually. That said, you could always allow OPs to create custom responses for their polls, which would remove a lot of the fluff and more routine responses. Plus the regular stuff like restricting it to users in good standing, etc
But the OP will never be able to come up with all possible answers. So the poll will make people have to go with the best fit which might be far from their actual opinion. And it might make people not post and explain their position if they feel their side is losing or isn't even represented. Plus you cannot change your vote in a poll so after the first couple days people might find it pointless to come up with new arguments as people cannot change their vote anyway.
I think that the voting system can be kept in the OT, but not count towards reputation like posts in that forum do not count towards post count. In the rest of the forum however, it makes sense to keep it (for the reasons already outlined by others).
- 4
I like the voting system, but I wouldn't mind if the "disagree" option was removed. It's easier to detect and measure support for suggested features, and the extent of issues, with voting. Also, it's easier to give other posters a token of gratitude when they've helped you, and a separate post thanking them would be redundant. This is especially true for "quick questions and quick answers"-threads, where the threshold for responding to responses is high. It's nice for a helpful poster to simply know that their message got through, and that they didn't write the message in vain.
- 2
- 1
But then you can easily see how many are in favour of some proposal, but not how many are against...
- 1
Then the opposition would be persuaded to make a new post, which could then accrue agrees.
- 4
- 2
And that post might very well not be on the first page---or at least far down it. And we all know how many people don't read more than the first few posts and the first page at most before posting; so people might very well not see it. And then you will get the disagreeing people vote disagree on many different posts thereby making it even more muddy.
- 3
Fair point. If it boils down to that, the "disagree" can remain for all I care. I would just rather avoid having dissidents suffice with the click of a button while not elaborate on their reasons for disagreeing.
- 1
That's a lot of 'mights'. I think you're assuming a bit too much on behalf of other people. Forums like civfanatics or nationstates have userpolls, and they don't experience any of the problems you're describing.