Vote to disagree!

[Deleted member 392097]

As well as being able to vote on a post "Like", "Agree" etc... It would be good if you could also vote "Disagree".

I would find this very useful, because you don't always want to write a comment saying that you disagree, but sometimes prefer to just vote on the post that you disagree.

Anyway, as you can vote "Agree", there should really be an option to vote the opposite of that.

 

[Krosulhah]

We had that option.
But it lead to some idiots spamming dislikes on all of a person's messages, leading to a metric crapton of notifications.

 

[Deleted member 392097]

We had that option.
But it lead to some idiots spamming dislikes on all of a person's messages, leading to a metric crapton of notifications.

Still, it would be really useful if the developers could find some way of allowing you to vote that you disagree on a post.

 

[Krosulhah]

They did, like i said, but people were stupid with it, so it got removed. simple. If you want to tell someone you dislike what they're saying, say it in word form.

 

[Glutton]

Kind of torn on the subject. Although I'd like to see it, I know it would be easy to abuse like Krosulhah mentioned

 

[Zeno9141]

I take back my statement.

 

[Azurite]

Okay then. Let's get rid of "old". People only use it on Supreme's posts anyway. Pretty useless

 

[ToyotaSupra]

We had that option.
But it lead to some idiots spamming dislikes on all of a person's messages, leading to a metric crapton of notifications.

Negative ratings only cause more negativity.

I hate this kind of reaction. No thought is put into it, it's just parroting what the mods said.

People being nasty on the internet? BAN BAD WORDS, 2 YEAR SENTENCE FOR BAD INTERNET WORDS!
Some idiot shot up a school? BAN ALL GUNS
Music you don't like? BAN THE RADIO!
...and so on.

It's a knee jerk quick and dirty 'fix' equivalent to using an atom bomb to clear a house of cockroaches. It doesn't fix anything, just damages.

Really? People just use old and the rainbow to vote down now. And it will continue. Mods have done nothing. Trolls still happily troll the community with finesse and ease. Unpopular posts are met with 'old' ratings in the tens. Nothing has changed at all in essence.

I'm being critical, so what's my suggestion? If someone uses negatives (Oh, sorry, so called 'Neutral' ratings do excuse me.) in a space of time, so that it's clear they're just voting for the epik trol lelz XDDD)))) the ratings don't register and a mod is alerted. The mod reviews, and there we go. Doesn't that make much much more sense than just banning and cutting out stuff?

 

[Krosulhah]

Or, you know, we put some thought into it, and thought that it would be a bad idea.
Y'know, people other than you DO have a brain.
Also, nobody mentioned bad words, Guns, or any of that kind of crap, so that's kinda a null argument.

 

[Azurite]

The only way I see the problem being somewhat solved is not having any "neutral" ratings at all. That way if someone has criticism of someone else s post/thread, they can make a post instead of vaguely stating that they hate it. The same could be said for "like" but that isn't the rating in question and people are more than willing to share why they like something.

Toyota is right. Trolls will spot the weakest link. The most offensive or telling rating they can find to troll you. So deny them the ability.​

 

[Snk]

I hate this kind of reaction. No thought is put into it, it's just parroting what the mods said.

People being nasty on the internet? BAN BAD WORDS, 2 YEAR SENTENCE FOR BAD INTERNET WORDS!
Some idiot shot up a school? BAN ALL GUNS
Music you don't like? BAN THE RADIO!
...and so on.

It's a knee jerk quick and dirty 'fix' equivalent to using an atom bomb to clear a house of cockroaches. It doesn't fix anything, just damages.

Really? People just use old and the rainbow to vote down now. And it will continue. Mods have done nothing. Trolls still happily troll the community with finesse and ease. Unpopular posts are met with 'old' ratings in the tens. Nothing has changed at all in essence.

I'm being critical, so what's my suggestion? If someone uses negatives (Oh, sorry, so called 'Neutral' ratings do excuse me.) in a space of time, so that it's clear they're just voting for the epik trol lelz XDDD)))) the ratings don't register and a mod is alerted. The mod reviews, and there we go. Doesn't that make much much more sense than just banning and cutting out stuff?

Nooooooooooooo! Don't start a gun argument! Stop!

 

[Azurite]

Nooooooooooooo! Don't start a gun argument! Stop!

We wouldn't want for you to be offended and damn us White CIS Male oppressors now, would we... :P

 

[Snk]

We wouldn't want for you to be offended and damn us White CIS Male oppressors now, would we... :p

Stop! You are derailing the thread? What has become of the star made forums?

 

[Planr]

Stop! You are derailing the thread? What has become of the star made forums?

yes, what are we ever going to do? we're all doomed!!!!!!

We had that option.
But it lead to some idiots spamming dislikes on all of a person's messages, leading to a metric crapton of notifications.

Keyword: some. Only a few users have actually ever done it, and every time, they've been banned, and (iirc) their negative ratings removed from other posts.
The logic behind such an argument is faulty, because by that same logic, allowing people to make posts/replies on this forum leads to "some idiots spamming" garbage all over the forum, leading to "a metric crapton" of flame wars and arguments.
This is what the mods are here for, and this is why we have a report button. Any and all features users are allowed access to on this forum can, are, and have been abused. There is nothing special about the rating system that makes it any more abusive than any of the other forum features.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, we need a disagree rating. We used to have it, but Duke removed it "because it's mean".

They can try to put diapers on us however much they want, but the fact of the matter is, we aren't babies. We can handle a few red X-marks every now and then. Anyone who can't emotionally handle others disagreeing with them on the internet need to consult a mental health counselor. We don't need basic forum functions being taken away for the sake of the emotional sensitivity of some "special" minority.

Usually the people who do complain about the disagree rating are the users who post false/controversial things on the forum, or participate in faction drama, or post bullcrap arguments or statements that they can't logically defend, and people call them out on it. A tip to such people: YOU ASKED FOR IT.

Having a disagree rating also acts as a self-motivator, as people strive to avoid bad ratings on their posts, therefore they have more incentive to post more positive and useful comments/replies/posts on the forum. This system of peer review helps unite the community and keep everyone in sync with each other.

 

[Azurite]

All my immature trolling aside, @Planr masterful post. Couldn't have said it better myself. This "diaper" mentality plagues the internet these days and I hope to defend against it in one of the only communities I belong to. People shun disagreement and have begun mistaking constructive and true criticism with trolling and harassment. Using blanket statements to falsely label posts and intentions.

I agree. Bring back the negative rating or remove all neutral ratings altogether. Let the mods do what they signed up for. If they don't want to deal with the trolls, reinstate new mods that will. Put staff in place that can tell the difference between trolls and legitimate constructive arguments. Let community members voice their opinions. Have systems in place for them to do that quickly (why the rating system is there in the first place).

The more sunshine gets blown up our behinds, the more frustrated we get. It does more harm than good.

It's funny how a troll can get us to discuss something useful. Not a very good troll, it would seem.

 

[Krosulhah]

Eh. I wasn't saying that it shouldn't exist because it's "Mean" ( I personally don't give a damn there) i was just saying stupid people are stupid.

By all means, bring it back, just make sure people aren't retarded with it. I was only providing the reason as to why it went in the first place.

 

[DaveC9000]

Clicking on a thumbs-down button and marking a statement as disagreed is not criticism, nor is it constructive. You are not critiquing the other person's point of view just by saying "I disagree". If you really want to apply your thoughts to the conversation you must explain WHY you disagree, and if you want them to take you seriously that reason must make sense. The idea being that I have an idea that won't work and you explain to me why it won't work and I then come to understand that your information is factual and adjust my idea accordingly. Look at this very conversation as an example. People quote things like:

Anyone who can't emotionally handle others disagreeing with them on the internet need to consult a mental health counselor.

...and right beneath it they put their rebuttal statement which essentially explains why they disagree:

Although this statement may be true it is everyone's duty to treat each other with empathy and compassion. People with mental health problems can't always control how they react to situations whereas we should be able to.

If I had just said "I disagree" I'm not adding anything to the conversation.

 

[ToyotaSupra]

Eh. I wasn't saying that it shouldn't exist because it's "Mean" ( I personally don't give a damn there) i was just saying stupid people are stupid.

By all means, bring it back, just make sure people aren't retarded with it. I was only providing the reason as to why it went in the first place.

People who disagree with you aren't stupid. Please, please don't have this mindset. Just because me and a few others disagree doesn't make me any bigger or smaller than you.

Nooooooooooooo! Don't start a gun argument! Stop!

FREEDOM AIN'T FREE COME AND TAKE IT.

...Yeah, didn't mean it that way. But what I meant was even though some people disagree we shouldn't have quick fixes as permanent. Carefully think it out, test it and tweak it. Like they're doing with the game!

@DaveC9000 You're asking the internet to be nice to each other. This is kinda like offering a Jewish guy a sausage and prawn sandwich with butter. I mean, I agree 100% with ya but still.

 

[Planr]

Clicking on a thumbs-down button and marking a statement as disagreed is not criticism, nor is it constructive. You are not critiquing the other person's point of view just by saying "I disagree".

Neither is a "like" or an "agree" button constructive or contributing to the conversation. This point you're making here in these two sentences is not relevant to the purpose of a rating system.

If you really want to apply your thoughts to the conversation you must explain WHY you disagree, and if you want them to take you seriously that reason must make sense. The idea being that I have an idea that won't work and you explain to me why it won't work and I then come to understand that your information is factual and adjust my idea accordingly.

Yes, but that's not relevant to the purpose of a disagree rating button. The purpose of the rating system is to let people know what others think of their post, whether they agree with it or disagree with it. A follow-up post by the rater to the rate-ee is meant to provide the "why" factor.
While replies and explanations are a valuable tool in criticism, there is no way to get a reliably measurable physical consensus as to what the community thinks of an issue/post/topic without a post rating system.
For example, you can have a forum thread on an issue with 10 different replies to the issue, with each person sharing their opinion in the form of an explanation or point of argument, but how do you tell what the prevalent opinion is on the matter? You can't tell, because the content in each post is open to a different form of interpretation to different people. A statement that looks like a form of disagreement to one person can be seen as a form of agreement to another. That's where a rating system comes in, to provide concrete, solid statistics as to what everyone generally thinks.

Look at this very conversation as an example. People quote things like:
...and right beneath it they put their rebuttal statement which essentially explains why they disagree:

See what I said above to the other segments of your post.

Although this statement may be true it is everyone's duty to treat each other with empathy and compassion. People with mental health problems can't always control how they react to situations whereas we should be able to.

Are you trying to insinuate that a disagree rating demonstrates a lack of "empathy and compassion"? You said earlier in your post that a disagree button is not a form of criticism. You're contradicting yourself.
Regardless, nobody is obligated to be all "nice and happy sunshine" to others. Some people simply are apathetic.
The matter of mental people was not a concrete statement I was making, but was meant to show how ridiculous it is that some people get upset over a tiny little red X mark on the bottom of their post.
Those who cannot control themselves do not get to dictate the rights of those who can.

 

[Krosulhah]

I never said people who disagree with me are stupid, Toyota. Now you're just assuming shite. Don't do that.
I said people who just spam dislikes on all of someone's messages, over the last 6 MONTHS, are stupid.
Oh, and to end; once again, don't assume shit, pls.