Withdrawn from sale on MR

[Analog Kid]

Why are you bringing that up? This is about the use of the thumbs down not Unicode compliance. Beside your argument is flawed. I'm pro-emoji and I'm not against apple Unicode compliance.

I brought it up as a joke because I thought it was a humorous juxtaposition.

I now find it humorous that when I said "the forums are" of two minds and proceeded with "they", you said my argument is flawed because you aren't of two minds about it. I take note that you believe you are the forums and consider yourself legion.

I'm all for improving but its clear that there are members who want to ban a form of communication. That's not improvement but rather an impairment. Why impede member'ss ability to communicate?

"Ban a form of communication". That's a bit melodramatic, isn't it? Yes, @Scepticalscribe used the word "ban" in response to a humorous post using the word and both acknowledged they were being particularly grumpy. I'll let the Scribe speak for themself, but I think that comment was meant to be in good humor.

I do think the tendency to misread humor and to intentionally overstate and exaggerate what others are saying suggests a weirdly emotional and aggressive response from the side that's clearly winning in the poll...

Personally I think "ban" is a strong word for removing a button that hasn't always been there, isn't even always there today, and with functionality that can easily be reinstated with the button next to it.

As you say:

I mean I could possibly just post "No I disagree" it's within the rules, it provides no details, causes bloat, it does not add to the conversation and its not helpful.

So the means to communicate that empty message is still there, with the added benefit that I can click on that response and ask why-- it's both easier for me to interact with the user via their post than via their reaction-tag, and it gives the rest of the forum the benefit of being able to traceback the thread for context.

What communication is being impeded in that case? Conversely, using the disagree reaction impedes communication because it opens possibilities but discourages discussing them.

What nobody has explained in a way I understand yet is what the benefit is of disagreeing with someone without indicating why. I get that some people see it as voting, but isn't that the groupthink and pack behavior that people want to avoid?

You may need to look up the definition of heckle, the disagree button is not interrupting, rude comments or shouting. They're conveying their disagreement pure and simple

Ah, Webster's... The first refuge of pedants...

I have to ask-- do you really not understand what I meant in the context of a typed asynchronous forum?

There are plenty of times where using the disagree button is sufficient to convey your thoughts without needlessly creating word soup

When? Give me an example of a time clicking "disagree" alone is sufficient to convey thoughts in the absence of explaining why. I've given an example of where I use it and I'm still willing to see it go-- can you think of another?

If the goal is simply to disagree without offering any actual information and while avoiding engagement what does it really offer to the community?

you and others stated that banning people ought happen

Now it's escalating to banning people?! I'm starting to wonder if I'm seeing a filtered view of this thread..

Yet I think its evident that the majority of people value the very action you're calling heckling.

For conversation sake, and to prove I'm paying attention, let's say we have a membership of 1,103,292 people and 59 have voted 'no' in this poll. That's 0.005%-- half of minuscule and 4 orders of magnitude short of a majority. I'm not sure it's really evident.

 

[Analog Kid]

Well to be fair I extrapolated the post advocating "banning" everything as wanting everyone to agree. Why else would you want to ban forms of expression?

Here we are again with the "ban forms of expression". What exactly is being banned that isn't better done some other way? Why is the banned method better? I feel I've given my point of view on this clearly multiple times, including in the post you quote, and yet people either don't understand what I'm saying or choose to ignore it.

It might help if you tell me which it is-- do you not understand this or are you ignoring it:

The debate about the "disagree" button isn't that we want less disagreement, it's that we want more robust disagreement. [...] If you disagree, say why and open your own opinions up for debate-- that's how you open minds to new thoughts.

I have honestly been a part of numerous conversations over the years here with multiple people on multiple topics. I have frequently found that people don't want an educated discourse, they just want to be "right." They have no interest in opening their minds. Frankly there is some of that on this thread. Those of us who don't mind the current emoji system, and perhaps believe the addition of another would be beneficial, seek only to expand the ability to express an opinion. Believe it or not, opinions do not have to be diatribes. No is a complete sentence, and similarly a Like or Dislike reaction can be all that is needed. And alternatively, if people do want to flesh out their opinion, there is an entire reply box with which they may do so - and they can at the same time avoid using an emoji reaction if it goes against their principles. Removing, or "banning" as as been advocated, removes an option to convey an opinion.

Am I correct that your view here is that you and those you agree with only want to make things better, but I and the people I agree with "only want to be right"?

What in the things that I've said would drive that opinion. I find very few of the points I make are being substantively disagreed with, only that the argument keeps getting reset back to "but I want a button and you're trying to curb my ability to express myself."

No is a complete sentence

I might have to grudgingly agree with that on a purely grammatical level, but how does that sentence advance your goal of opening minds to new thoughts?

 

[mollyc]

Here we are again with the "ban forms of expression". What exactly is being banned that isn't better done some other way? Why is the banned method better? I feel I've given my point of view on this clearly multiple times, including in the post you quote, and yet people either don't understand what I'm saying or choose to ignore it.

It might help if you tell me which it is-- do you not understand this or are you ignoring it:






Am I correct that your view here is that you and those you agree with only want to make things better, but I and the people I agree with "only want to be right"?

What in the things that I've said would drive that opinion. I find very few of the points I make are being substantively disagreed with, only that the argument keeps getting reset back to "but I want a button and you're trying to curb my ability to express myself."



I might have to grudgingly agree with that on a purely grammatical level, but how does that sentence advance your goal of opening minds to new thoughts?

As I have explained previously in this thread...many times, this desire to "discuss" disagreement only serves to fuel more anger. It is clear that, for instance, you and I are not going to agree on this thread topic. We can go around and around and around in circles, each saying, "but! but! but!" but it isn't going to change either of our opinions. I would like to acknowledge that I have heard your points, I disagree with them, but I am tired of arguing.

I am not choosing to ignore anything. More often than not "more robust disagreement" leads to accusations of trolling, posts removed, and yes, occasionally people are suspended or banned for disagreeing robustly.

I never said that you only want to be right or that I only want to be right. I have encountered that in other threads. This thread has been quite civil overall.

"Ban a form of communication". That's a bit melodramatic, isn't it? Yes, @Scepticalscribe used the word "ban" in response to a humorous post using the word and both acknowledged they were being particularly grumpy. I'll let the Scribe speak for themself, but I think that comment was meant to be in good humor.

I did not take @Scepticalscribe's post to be in good humor. In fact she has said multiple times throughout MR that humor is subjective and does not often translate well online, so I take all her posts at face value. However, I welcome being corrected on that point, if she was, in fact making a joke about banning communication options.

 

[splifingate]

I made time to read-through this facinating-to-me thread this morning (mostly in appreciation of elder wisdom), but I did not have (take) time to reply.

In reflection, I did not spend much time--today--in such (I work with my hands, and all eight were quite occupied).

I was just reading the IP15 Dynamic Sensor (re-positioning) thread, and a comment brought me back on-point:

Professional Fan reacted in a quizzical manner to a laugh-react on hir comment:

"EDIT: (@ emotical respondent) You laugh-reacted at this reply and I am curious what amused you about it and if you have any way to dispute what I said."

I--personally--favour the status-quo; but I can appreciate the subjective uncertainty inherent in potentially wielding a handful of emotical responses that imply, rather than elucidate.

I do try to be a conscious participant, and it is always obvious--to me--the implications of my direct participation.

It strikes me as obvious that there are those who do not share this appreciation.

 

[Analog Kid]

It is clear that, for instance, you and I are not going to agree on this thread topic. We can go around and around and around in circles, each saying, "but! but! but!" but it isn't going to change either of our opinions. I would like to acknowledge that I have heard your points, I disagree with them, but I am tired of arguing.

Fair enough. That's exactly the use case I gave for wanting to keep a disagree button.

I avoid thumb down when I initially disagree and try to explain why in a response. If the back and forth appears never ending, I'll end with a disagree to indicate that I'm still not convinced but not taking it further.

To that end, I'd keep "agree" and "disagree" options.

I don't expect you to respond further to what I have to say, and appreciate you acknowledging that you understand my points even if you disagree.

As I have explained previously in this thread...many times, this desire to "discuss" disagreement only serves to fuel more anger.

I don't see where you've said this before, and I can't say I agree with it. What I see you say a few times is that explaining leads to being banned for trolling:

More often than not "more robust disagreement" leads to accusations of trolling, posts removed, and yes, occasionally people are suspended or banned for disagreeing robustly.

This sounds a bit like "I'm clicking an emoji because my words will get me banned", which is hard to reconcile with a belief that people shouldn't take offense to unexplained reactions-- it sounds like it means the reaction is unexplained because the explanation would be offensive.

Reaction emoji or not, it doesn't really absolve us of our responsibility to civil discourse. Debate ideas, not people. Stay apolitical.

 

[FreakinEurekan]

Oh, yes.

Ban all emojis, ban all memes, and remove the tallies for "likes" and "dislikes".

Actually, - bearing in mind that old saying that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" - I suspect that I may be more than a little grumpy, today, too.

You forgot, “Get off my lawn!”

 

[Scepticalscribe]

You forgot, “Get off my lawn!”

Actually, that was my father's line (to cats, and dogs, chiefly).

However, I have chosen not to perpetuate this family tradition.

 

[FreakinEurekan]

One reaction we could maybe use is something like "Cool story, bro" - for people who reply to a thread only to say they don't use (whatever it is being discussed). Examples: specific apps, specific features, iCloud, AppleCare, etc.

 

[millerj123]

One reaction we could maybe use is something like "Cool story, bro" - for people who reply to a thread only to say they don't use (whatever it is being discussed). Examples: specific apps, specific features, iCloud, AppleCare, etc.

I’d like a “**************************” emoji

I got filtered. “Perhaps you can use a web browser and popular search engine owned by Meta”

 

[FreakinEurekan]

I’d like a “**************************” emoji

I got filtered. “Perhaps you can use a web browser and popular search engine owned by Meta”

A "L M G T F Y" emoji - good idea 🤣

 

[KaliYoni]

I’d like a “**************************” emoji

I got filtered. “Perhaps you can use a web browser and popular search engine owned by Meta”

Meta ≠ Alphabet

 

[millerj123]

Meta ≠ Alphabet

Bummer. I swear I’ll try harder next time.

 

[Populus]

I’d like to use this thread (because I didn’t find the new forum design feedback thread), to propose a different color for the love and disagree reactions, as their color is currently too similar.

At first glance, whenever you see a red reaction, you think instantly it is a damn downvote/disagree. And sometimes it’s not a negative reaction, sometimes it’s the oposite, a love reaction. But all you see on those first milliseconds of the bloody red reaction.

So I have two alternatives I’d like @arn , admins and mods to consider:

1) Turning into pink the color of the love icon 💗 and reaction. I’m pretty sure @Theyayarealiving 🎗 would love this.

2) Keeping a dark red for the love reaction, maybe making it a tad deeper, and turning the disagree reaction more towards the orange-red color.

 

[ProfessionalFan]

I made time to read-through this facinating-to-me thread this morning (mostly in appreciation of elder wisdom), but I did not have (take) time to reply.

In reflection, I did not spend much time--today--in such (I work with my hands, and all eight were quite occupied).

I was just reading the IP15 Dynamic Sensor (re-positioning) thread, and a comment brought me back on-point:

Professional Fan reacted in a quizzical manner to a laugh-react on hir comment:

"EDIT: (@ emotical respondent) You laugh-reacted at this reply and I am curious what amused you about it and if you have any way to dispute what I said."

I--personally--favour the status-quo; but I can appreciate the subjective uncertainty inherent in potentially wielding a handful of emotical responses that imply, rather than elucidate.

I do try to be a conscious participant, and it is always obvious--to me--the implications of my direct participation.

It strikes me as obvious that there are those who do not share this appreciation.

I missed this, but I figured I should reply as my post was referenced here.

I've noticed a tendency where users will use the laugh-react when they run of downvotes for the day. It is ironic since a laugh-react is actually an upvote, but I believe that's what the user was doing.

 

[splifingate]

I missed this, but I figured I should reply as my post was referenced here.

I've noticed a tendency where users will use the laugh-react when they run of downvotes for the day. It is ironic since a laugh-react is actually an upvote, but I believe that's what the user was doing.

I appreciated your calm, rational & stoic response

There is a limit to down-voting?

 

[ProfessionalFan]

I appreciated your calm, rational & stoic response

There is a limit to down-voting?

Yeah, I am not sure what the number is. A user can only use the dislike button a certain amount of times a day.

 

[icanhazmac]

There is a limit to down-voting?

Yeah, I am not sure what the number is. A user can only use the dislike button a certain amount of times a day.

Sadly, yes, I think the limit is 10.

 

[Populus]

I’d say fortunately. In my opinion, it is not a constructive reaction and does not contribute to a healthy discussion.

 

[splifingate]

Yeah, I am not sure what the number is. A user can only use the dislike button a certain amount of times a day.

Thank you.

 

[MYZ]

Since it seems an outright removal is unpopular, judging by the poll results, a more middle-of-the-ground approach might be to add a reputation cost for doing it too many times in a day.

The same could also apply for farming comments, if an account posts >X number of comments in a forum in a day then they have to pay some sort of reputation points to keep on posting.

The site might even charge for the privilege of posting hundreds of comments/reactions a day so it could be a win-win and cover the cost of implementation.

 

[Big Apple Tim]

I've got to say I can't believe the ban hammer didn't come down after discussion about enthusiastic posters 👀😂