Three words The Killing Joke Also evil circles aren't a thing
Yeah, and the cartoon one could laugh circles around the movie one Your point
"rodeo clown" ~ Terry McFuckingGinnis
...Welp, we done. Pack it up, kids. TUNE IN NEXT TIME FOR THE "LET'S JUST GET RID OF ALL THAT S██T AND CALL IT A DAY" THREAD :L sry 4 teh spam
Dude You & me? We got a thing. We're like on the same wavelength & s██t. Some day, man. Some day. Ehh y'know what, fair enough. I'd rather somebody fill out the opposing side than pile on a one-sided fight.
...Arch... All of what you just said has been debated at length. All of it. I mean, did it just not change your mind, or...? You should ask questions of some of the people against it, then. That would give a greater appearance of neutrality. So we fix it. No system is perfect from the start. But likes are a downgrade; fixing them would take more time and effort. Not really. They can be made to look the same, and their flaws may resemble each other, but they ultimately serve different purposes by the nature of their mechanics. People don't like when they would rep, and they don't rep when they would like. So? Do we want to follow vB's lead? I thought that's why we switched. No, that's why likes are simpler. That doesn't make them better. In fact, it makes them worse. This isn't Facebook. A lot of sites that use Facebook-like systems aren't Facebook. They use it because it's popular, not because it's good. Being popular doesn't automatically make it good. And besides, if you don't enjoy Facebook, why are you defending a system that resembles Facebook? I just don't know if that would be enough. And it's still a matter of being too easy, too hands-off. I mean I could make the "Let's just get rid of likes and rep" thread but I didn't think anyone would be down for that :L Honestly, if there were problems with the old system, they're worse with this one. They're just much quieter, if anything. And I think they're partially exemplified in me. Why do I have 700 likes? I'm three months old!
"Makes lurkers useful for something and gives them a means of interaction" ...Why is that put forth as a positive lol I dunno, I'm wary of that one. It still seems too simplistic and hands-off. Plus those images seem to imply that it's not a "rating" of a post so much as it is a "reaction" to it. I'm not saying it would be no good. I'm saying it would be pointless. If, on the off chance we managed to achieve a perfect reproduction of the rep system via likes, I firmly believe staff would look back on their work and say, "Ahhh. Welp, we've done it. We've made likes into a perfect reproduction of rep. ...Probably would've been easier to just switch back to rep." And anything less than a perfect replica of the rep system would also be pointless, because it would not satisfy. For one, the rep of a particular post is invisible; so that would be the most immediate change. There'd be no feeling of a majority against a single user, at least from that venue. Second, those of a different mind could voice their disagreements without having to go through more effort than others, so all things being equal, it would more likely be an even spread. I've already explained what I perceive to be the difference between rep comments and PMs/VMs; the former is a little less personal, while not being totally detached. Some take the use of PMs/VMs to be a matter of great privacy and prefer only to receive them in special cases, even if they're being used in a positive way. I'm saying we should have options. We've got a medium and a large, but after that it just kinda skips to this weird unsatisfying super-small. Not to mention, that point is mostly moot because the real issue isn't that it's too hard for users to voice negative opinions; it's that it's too easy for them to voice positive ones. Too easy, and too televised. It creates an imbalance, like I said. Unfortunately, that cannot be discretely eliminated from the system, and that is unfortunate. But the flaws with the current system are still worse to me. It should be on us as a community to try and prevent the abuse of any rating system, through open lines of communication and a sense of siblinghood. But we never had to do that before, so why would we now? It never got so bad as to prompt a change of the system before, so why would it now? In fact, I'd say the forum as a whole is better behaved than ever, and thus better equipped to handle the re-introduction of the rep system.
Then I answer that question with another question: Regardless of how I answer, what's the point of the question or the answer?
"Explaining humor is a lot like dissecting a frog: You learn a lot in the process, but in the end you kill it." ~Mark Twain
Then that falls under the second point I made. The occasions under which I would give out derep were months apart, but I consider them to be as important as any other occasion - and I acknowledge that I personally prefer to give positive criticism rather than negative, so mine is easily less than the average. Anyway, if I ever gave derep, it would be for a negative attitude someone took to a thread, or something crude and inane they said to someone. And I'd always explain myself. The opportunity to express oneself verbally means more to me personally than a majority vote, and I have on occasion seen posts by people who clearly meant nothing but to be hurtful, spiteful, or insulting to someone else, with half a dozen likes on them. And there was nothing I could do about it. As far as the victim knew, six people agreed with their attacker and nobody disagreed. That's a painful experience. Whether you're on a forum for a kids' game or at an international political assembly. And as I've previously said, the ability to post really doesn't solve that, because it isn't as far-reaching or versatile; many people are, sadly, less likely to take you seriously if your post has less likes than the person you're confronting, and as I said before, there are situations where to post with what would normally be in a rep comment would be a spam violation. Basically, the ability for users to post allows for balanced positive and negative feedback... and then likes tip the scale. They cause an imbalance. I'd rather have either a system with upvotes and downvotes, or no system at all. I doubt anyone would want the like system to be form-fitted in the first place. Likes are never going to be the same as rep, I'm laying that on the table right now. Something is always going to distinguish them, be it the flat rate across all users, variances in flood limits... Something will be there to differentiate. The only case in which that is not true is if we completely restructure likes to function like rep, at which point people will ask, why didn't we just switch? If the benefits are clear, if the vote does remain in favor, and if there would be next to nothing lost in the transition... Why not transition? Would it really be easier to reskin the current system to an exact, perfect replica of the desired system, rather than just adopt the desired system? I know I'm not that versed in web design, but this is really at the limit of my belief.
Agreed. Not much to add, really. Basically this. The systems should remain distinct, because each serves its purpose well enough; but in this case, our purposes would be better served by rep. Adding a dislike function opens the door too wide for abuse, while adding comments essentially makes it the same thing as we're asking for, but for more work.
Ok, even though I'm 100% in support of this: Guys, cool it a little. The idea has been live for less than twelve hours. Yes, support in the poll is nigh unanimous thus far, but that's been live for less than two hours. We could easily be observing a bottleneck. Let's at least let a few day and night cycles go 'round before we hammer the "Everyone wants it" argument again. If you have some other way to defend the proposition, exhaust that first. That said let's not wait until the 54,000th member has weighed in because that guy's username is something like AkuRokuSlash2002 and he probably hasn't signed on in several years
Uh... I'm not trying to twist anything, bro. :v I was just pointing out that the statement favors the side of restoring rep, since you were presenting it as a neutral statement.
Then what say we switch to the one that gives us some options, hm? That argument doesn't defeat the proposition, it just makes the benefit more obvious. Given the spread so far, it seems more are in favor. If those against won't speak, it's their loss. I agree that it needs time, but that doesn't mean those interested can't fill the time by hashing it out. Something that would be acceptable and substantial for a rep comment might be considered spam for the relevant thread. All of the other options carry degrees of personal privacy that many users would prefer not be abused, even for the purposes of praise, particularly praise at that frequency. Rep slots neatly into place between all these other methods of communication in a way that is both simple and noteworthy, without being overbearing or taking up space. I never called any of that into question. I'm just saying that, if all runs smoothly, the trade of likes for rep wouldn't affect the stability of the site that much. Anyone who was going to bicker inanely over stupid s██t will probably still find a way, and anyone who was going to be peaceable and friendly will likely stay the course. Fiascos will still occur over the abuse of forum features, and at roughly the same volume, I'd wager. My only aim was to rebut the point on the table. My experience trumps your speculation. Roughly 80% of my reps had comments attached. But I also got rep a lot less often. The reason, I imagine, is because lazy people don't give rep with no comment; they just plain don't give rep. Whereas a lazy person will gladly offer a like. I've been here for what, half my probation? and I've already accrued 700 likes. I'm not so arrogant as to believe I've earned every single one with the grace and thoughtfulness (or lack thereof :L) that earned me my rep back in the day. Maybe it seems silly to suggest that two clicks is notably more strenuous than one, but the evidence is there. If others would care to disprove it, that's up to them. And yet Facebook continues to allow comments. Must be doing something for them.
You can't deny that rep comments are more convenient than what you describe. Besides, the downside to likes is essentially the same as the upside: They're simple. They're easy. In other words, they have no lasting effect. Instead of taking it too seriously, it's so mindless it may as well not exist. Besides, people will argue over anything. Isn't it up to the staff to corral that behavior in the first place? If they're doing a good job of it, things should be at least as peaceful in the future as they are now. It's not supposed to inflate the person's ego, it's supposed to be wholesome, genuine praise for admirable behavior - one that's in the users' hands, not arbitrarily doled out by a specific entity or a virtual process. It carries weight. This weight can be thrown around, true enough, but the push and pull generally balances out. Likes are just too... stale. Too static. They don't mean anything. In fact, sometimes I just get irritated at my likes, when I think the blip in my notifications is actually someone responding to my post and generating content. That and it's also impossible to downvote people who are acting like idiots, which puts a bad taste in my mouth. Of course, negarep has been abused in the past, but to a negligible degree in my experience. And I felt at least half my negarep was undeserved, to put it in perspective. In the end you're trading a set of pros and cons, and I know which I'd rather have.
This prompts me to ask: This XenForo version of rep does have a flood buffer, correct? Because that's how it used to be, and that's how stuff like the above was prevented.
I dunno, if the maximum amount of rep you can give is equivalent to the flat rate vB would've used, then I don't see much potential for abuse. Rather, I think it could be useful for differentiating between posts you just got a chuckle from and ones that really earn your respect and admiration. It also means that members with oodles of rep power could choose to scale it back a bit.
Signed. And for the record, I for one wouldn't mind starting from square one if we had to. And that's about all from me :x
Fall 30 do it be the Pumpkin King
