Please get rid of the disagree button

[Wagonlitz]

Further we have people that both more lurk than anything, and with a simple click they get to express an opinion,

But that opinion is worth zilsch if they don't expand on it.

and? so what?

The point of the forum is intellectual discussion---and some fun from time to time; not having a popularity contest.

If you agree then there is already an opinion which you subscribe to but if you disagree then there isn't any opinion which could be countered eventually.

A post might well hold multiple opinions; how do you differentiate between which opinions are being agreed with?

Often I find that the agree and disagree button is used in combination with eachother. Generally if a post is made somebody else is going to make a counter post. Here you could for example agree with the post and disagree with the counterpost, instead of having to make a counter post to the counterpost.

And as I have mentioned many times since the buttons were introduced, then many people only read the OP before skipping to the last page and posting; perhaps reading the first page if you are lucky. So many people won't see the counter arguments making your argument for the buttons void.
Also you cannot at a glanse see whether or not the person who disagreed with you agreed with the counter arguments. For that you need to press the spidery writing and then go through the list of agreers; which might well be long.

If you disagree with something either state why, or agree with someone who has already stated why they disagreed.

And how can you easily see they agreed with somebody who already explained a disagree?

∃ and ∀ respectively

Not necessarily. ∀ needn't cover agree. If the post only contains one opinion then sure, but if not then both agree and disagree use ∃.

Simply not true. I have experienced it that people disagreed with one of my post and not a single one bothered replying. Like I made a post that only said that project Augustus wasn't Rome 2 or Vicky 3 because Paradox told us numerous times that it was a new IP but they just kept disagreeing even after Stellaris was announced. It is simply ridiculous and that is also not the only time I have seen it happen both to me and others as well.

I have expected similar situations where people have disagreed with similar blatantly obvious posts long after said post was made and long after Stellaris was announced.

Back in the old days there was one that unleashed hardcore pornography on an old abandoned game subforum, which had gone unnoticed for a while.

That porn bot posted in the EU3 forum back then too. Together with that ugg boots bot. To this day I still associate ugg boots with spam.

 

[Had a dad]

That porn bot posted in the EU3 forum back then too. Together with that ugg boots bot. To this day I still associate ugg boots with spam.

ugg porn

But that opinion is worth zilsch if they don't expand on it.

only in your opinion. Obviously others see it differently, and I expand on why I do further down.

The point of the forum is intellectual discussion

ummmm..... I think goal is a better word. That said I've seen plenty of discussions that would make Socrates cry (not tears of joy). Discussion will or won't happen no matter if the buttons are there, and at probably the same rate. What this does is allow others the option of taking part without having to post. Some have made it clear that they have the opinion that it doesn't offer much if anything.
I find this position to be rather callous as they want to shut off a form of expression just because they find it lacking, basically insinuating it brings nothing forth, where I have found it at times to be very illuminating, on how people feel about a particular post.

If I see this on an OP, I'm fairly certain how people seem to feel without having to read the thread

< this is from an actual OP post on the forum, that isn't even as long as this thread is.

now me as a moderator I'll have to check it out as, chances are it might not be going well. And or if I have free time, I'll get some popcorn as I tend to see that as an indication, if nothing else, that the thread should be entertaining.

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

Not necessarily. ∀ needn't cover agree. If the post only contains one opinion then sure, but if not then both agree and disagree use ∃.

If someone writes an essay that includes one thing you disagree with, then at best you have to give a qualified agreement. A qualified agreement with an exception is a disagreement.

And the agree button is not qualified in any way. As some people here have been so eager to point out, you can't tell people's intent, which is exactly the problem. If they want to be unambiguous they can only agree with something if they do so totally, otherwise people will assume they agree on the point they differ on. As long as people are aware that, like sarcasm, intent doesn't travel through this format, then agree is going to be fine. Either they back the message in full or not. But disagree doesn't stand for anything at all. Unless the post is extremely simple there's no way of telling what was disagreed with. It's not an opinion in anyway; it's a rejection of a very particular opinion in favour of one of an infinity of alternatives.

You can say that having it lets people who skim the thread respond, but what does it accomplish? Nothing, except for the most simple of binary positions. It's a self serving button for personal satisfaction's sake, not one that assists others in any way.

 

[Had a dad]

You can say that having it lets people who skim the thread respond, but what does it accomplish? Nothing, except for the most simple of binary positions. It's a self serving button for personal satisfaction's sake, not one that assists others in any way.

yet I have already shown it assists me.

I have shown that it can be useful, you cannot show that it can't be

EDIT
And before you sight examples of where it has been abused or used in a seemingly wrong way, that does not prove that it cannot be useful

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

yet I have already shown it assists me.

I have shown that it can be useful, you cannot show that it can't be

EDIT
And before you sight examples of where it has been abused or used in a seemingly wrong way, that does not prove that it cannot be useful

I apologise, but I don't remember anyone ever giving an example for it being useful for anything other than a sentence long post. If you could point me to your example again?

 

[Had a dad]

post 122 (the one above your previous one) in my reply to Wagonlitz, that is accompanied by a small picture showing disagrees

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

I'd trust you to then look at what was actually happening, as the mods here are generally fair. The problem is when people stop looking at the actual content, or start enforcing a certain way of thinking by pressure and/or refusal to actually engage. And I don't trust the average internet dweller to do that. That's how you get reddit.

In theory the report button should do the job, though obviously there can be a code of silence about not calling in the mods so the flaming can continue, in which case a tell like that might hint where there's trouble. Useful not so much for what it says about ideas, but for what it says about the people involved.

 

[Had a dad]

I'd trust you to then look at what was actually happening,

oh yes. No matter what if I am called in via report or some post catches my attention I always try to source where whatever started. My favorite is when someone reports a post and 15 post later they are doing the same thing they reported.

The problem is when people stop looking at the actual content

with or without the buttons this will happen. Some people only read a line, paragraph, whatever. Elimination of the buttons will not change this and the benefits of the buttons outweigh the limitations / misuse.

not calling in the mods so the flaming can continue, in which case a tell like that might hint where there's trouble.

I doubt there is a code of thieves on flaming, those that do don't get to live here long. Sometimes the tell is that there is trouble, but typically it informs me that I might find some amusement with posts to follow

The problem is when people stop looking at the actual content, or start enforcing a certain way of thinking by pressure and/or refusal to actually engage

Except this is hypocritical to your stance that the button (respect disagree) should be removed. You and the OP said it should be removed, and the OP said if it was to stay they should have to explain why. This is the same thing as you are pressuring them to conform to what you want. While you might not find it contextually engaging, it still is a user engaging in a thread and I've already pointed out a few reason for using it.


Further specifically in regard to people looking at actual content, what has happened here is we have had 7 pages of discussion and the reality is there has been minimal new content for a while (other than some OT), just reiteration that some people don't like the "disagree" button / some rebuttal, and people have stopped reading the posts (you completely missed all the content on one just above your post).

And I don't trust the average internet dweller to do that. That's how you get reddit.

I refer to your above statement about forcing a certain way... OT, While I'm not a reddit user per se, I'll take reddit over 4chan? any day. Someone sent me a link to where a user was complaining about me first on reddit then on the other, and I spent 20 minutes on the site, OMG. I helped a few people with tech support questions on reddit while I was there (first time poster that day) but the other, I will never visit again.

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

Except this is hypocritical to your stance that the button (respect disagree) should be removed. You and the OP said it should be removed, and the OP said if it was to stay they should have to explain why. This is the same thing as you are pressuring them to conform to what you want. While you might not find it contextually engaging, it still is a user engaging in a thread and I've already pointed out a few reason for using it.

I don't mind what they say, as long as they say it or not of their own accord. In a few cases I don't like how something is said, but that's not something to agree or disagree about. I do mind people thinking they've said something, when it's communicated nothing to anyone else. Not through blame necessarily, but because of the lost opportunity to hear them.

Further specifically in regard to people looking at actual content, what has happened here is we have had 7 pages of discussion and the reality is there has been minimal new content for a while (other than some OT), just reiteration that some people don't like the "disagree" button / some rebuttal, and people have stopped reading the posts (you completely missed all the content on one just above your post).

The debate is far more valuable to me than leaving it be because if anyone could come remotely close to showing agree is the same as disagree I'd take their idea, and become a millionaire and Fields Medal winner Internet banking and almost all online security measures being utterly destroyed might be a downside of course.

Because mostly I'm looking for ideas that either work on their own, or can be adapted to other situations. I must have spent 100 pages in the infinite nature of the circular god debate thread arguing about whether you could look at a tree, close your eyes, and claim the tree was still there; no one ever changed position, but all sorts of interesting ideas and framings came up - the coherence theory of truth for example. In this thread it's mostly been the idea of seeing agree/disagree as irrelevant to content, but useful for manipulating user posting habits and for judging the users involved.

Which is why I brought up reddit, too. I enjoy that threads here can have ancaps, syndicalists and partenal cultural zoo keepers going at it without anything to judge how they're doing but the strength of their arguments. Assuming rules and moderation are going as intended, which is what separates the style here from 4chan. Fortunately OT has no agree or disagree to see certain users get booed out when they're not actually violating rules.

I refer to your above statement about forcing a certain way... OT, While I'm not a reddit user per se, I'll take reddit over 4chan? any day. Someone sent me a link to where a user was complaining about me first on reddit then on the other, and I spent 20 minutes on the site, OMG. I helped a few people with tech support questions on reddit while I was there (first time poster that day) but the other, I will never visit again.

 

[Pigeoncount]

I REALLY want to start a thread proposing the removal of the agree button, but keep the helpful and disagree button. Ideally, it would lead to entrenched fighting between an "Agreerer" faction and "Disagreerer" faction, which would simply be delightful to me.

I'm not going to do that, but I was quite tempted to.

 

[Had a dad]

I do mind people thinking they've said something, when it's communicated nothing to anyone else. Not through blame necessarily, but because of the lost opportunity to hear them.

except, as I've already said, it does, to me and others based on some of the feed back I've received. You and others might not see it as true empirical information, but some do. I could... crap lost my train of thought after reading post 130

Something about you are choosing not to hear what is said because you believe it isn't enough of a statement...
or that I can write a program that shows the logic of agree and not agree are the same in programming logic when comparing a statement....

I REALLY want to start a thread proposing the removal of the agree button, but keep the helpful and disagree button. Ideally, it would lead to entrenched fighting between an "Agreerer" faction and "Disagreerer" faction, which would simply be delightful to me.

I'm not going to do that, but I was quite tempted to.

(post 130 btw)

 

[nerd]

My 2 cents................

I have occasionally used a agree/disagree button, as well as +1 -1 posts, usually when a rebuttal to an argument pleases/displeases me, but generally prefer an actual comment.

I would suggest that both buttons remain, on all fora, but a provision to reduce the likelyhood of abuse could be to limit their use to some arbitrary number of uses per hour, or per day. Say, 10 per day? enough not to restrict use.

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

Meh. Naturally it's just going to get frustrating when something so key to what I've studied has its gory details too esoteric and irrelevant to go into, but which has the cliff notes version dismissed as if it were opinion. Not helped when I went into a few other issues, that of course would get conflated with it.

I REALLY want to start a thread proposing the removal of the agree button, but keep the helpful and disagree button. Ideally, it would lead to entrenched fighting between an "Agreerer" faction and "Disagreerer" faction, which would simply be delightful to me.

I'm not going to do that, but I was quite tempted to.

I would consider it as a victory on my part if you tried to argue that agree deserved different treatment

 

[Castellon]

I am currently removing the ability to see who left what, as I hope this will alleviate post stocking concerns some have expressed.

 

[FOARP]

Hmmm . . . now the list of who's agreed/disagreed is gone, I predict a number of things may happen:

1) People will start wrongly accusing other people of agreeing/disagreeing with their posts.

2) Other people, believing that they are essentially immune, will mass-disagree based on dislike of individuals or topics.

3) Flaming, cats living with dogs, everything Bill Murray et al. said in that speech in Ghostbusters.

I hope this doesn't seem an overly cynical view of the likely response of some of my fellow forumites, though.

 

[Capt. Kiwi]

You can still tell who's agreed/disagreed through alerts. Which kind of defeats the purpose of removing it from public, but hey.

 

[FOARP]

You can still tell who's agreed/disagreed through alerts. Which kind of defeats the purpose of removing it from public, but hey.

Yeah, I guess the people who are most bothered by disagreeing are the disagree-ees, not the disagree-ers, and they'll still know who's disagreeing (sorry, "respectfully disagreeing", which I guess is still a small improvement) with them.

 

[Had a dad]

2) Other people, believing that they are essentially immune, will mass-disagree based on dislike of individuals or topics.

they would be massively mistaken

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

2) Other people, believing that they are essentially immune, will mass-disagree based on dislike of individuals or topics.

they would be massively mistaken

Yup, users should report anyone who is spamming them with disagrees (or agrees, if you feel it has crossed a line).

 

[slornie]

The problem is when people stop looking at the actual content, or start enforcing a certain way of thinking by pressure and/or refusal to actually engage. And I don't trust the average internet dweller to do that. That's how you get reddit.

Except here the post rating buttons are beneath the post rather than along side it, so it's harder to skip over a post just to see the ratings (except where posts are really short). I almost don't even notice the existing ratings on posts unless I'm looking to add a rating of my own. The posts here also aren't sorted by ratings in any way by default whereas from my limited understanding of Reddit it seems to move posts up and down depending on how they've been interacted with (up and down votes, comments and their ratings)?

My 2 cents................
I would suggest that both buttons remain, on all fora, but a provision to reduce the likelyhood of abuse could be to limit their use to some arbitrary number of uses per hour, or per day. Say, 10 per day? enough not to restrict use.

The problem with this is exactly that's arbitrary, and there's no guarantee that anyone will use it with any more care or deference.

For someone who is only interested in one game which doesn't have a lot of discussions going on 10 per day might be overkill. But once you're involved in or reading threads across more than one game, and especially in the run up to or immediately after an update (e.g. DLC release, dev diary or patch) then a 10 rating cap is liable to be reached quite quickly - and then just leave us with a mixed economy where people have to resort to +1 posts because they happen to have run out of ratings on that particularly busy day. On the other hand if you have a high cap then few people would ever be affected by it.