Change "Crazy" emoticon into "Disliked" emoticon.

[ZethaPonderer 2,196]

17 minutes ago, Manaka Hitomi said:

I think that option such as this could discourage further communication because with that reaction you've basically made your stance on the situation already and as such I don't really see how it benefits debates in particular in which I think the key is to further the communication as much as possible to help to reach an agreement.

 

Well I’m trying to maintain a realism viewpoint when it comes to Debating in general.

Judging by your post I can see that you wish to have an idealistic viewpoint when it comes to Debate based on your statement that I bolded out of convenience. However, I’ve been into hardships like these IRL where no one will agree to one another and the Debate keeps ongoing. So while I respect your viewpoint (even I wish this viewpoint is logically sound), I wouldn’t know what you said is true. I personally think debates will keep going forever even if the person maintains their stance on their disagreements.

[SharpWit 2,472]

56 minutes ago, Manaka Hitomi said:

I think that option such as this could discourage further communication because with that reaction you've basically made your stance on the situation already and as such I don't really see how it benefits debates in particular in which I think the key is to further the communication as much as possible to help to reach an agreement.

 

Accept most debates end in an agreement to disagree. The debate comments with the most reactions usually summarize one sides opinion, and people give a reaction to show either support for or against it, rather than have the exact same thing repeated over and over again becaus it serves no purpose. It would also be a good means to show where the majority of participants stand when there isn't a poll, and it can be applied to multiple comments covering different points about an issue.

Edited May 29, 2018 by SharpWit

[碇 シンジン 27,427]

3 minutes ago, ZethaPonderer said:

Well I’m trying to maintain a realism viewpoint when it comes to Debating in general.

Judging by your post I can see that you wish to have an idealistic viewpoint when it comes to Debate based on your statement that I bolded out of convenience. However, I’ve been into hardships like these IRL where no one will agree to one another and the Debate keeps ongoing. So while I respect your viewpoint (even I wish this viewpoint is logically sound), I wouldn’t know what you said is true. I personally think debates will keep going forever even if the person maintains their stance on their disagreements.

I think debates go on forever only if you are debating from your own perspective and are not willing to broaden it. I think that in a good constructive debate beforehand you've already familiarized yourself with the opposing perspectives and with that you go into the debate with something that you can build yourself on.

To reach a common ground one must find out why the opposing perspectives differ from their own perspective. And When both sides understand why their perspectives differ rom each other they don't even need to agree since they already figured it out.

I realize that all debates don't go like this and all circumstances  don't allow it to happen but I believe that with that conclusion both sides can grow from the debate which I believe is the goal of all communication

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,152]

*Sigh*

Please do not abuse the Reaction system. I understand there are varying opinions regarding the "Crazy Twi" reaction, but please; don't threaten to use it just because. That's abuse of the system and not what it's there for.

Thank you.

[Dark Qiviut 22,173]

1 hour ago, Celli said:

If you're offended by a fucking reaction you don't belong on the internet.

The MLPF doesn't work that way. The reaction system is supposed to be a fun contribution, not a tool for (extra) passive aggression. "Don't be abusive" is a site rule for a reason. Don't want people angry and offended at those gaming the reaction system? Don't contribute to the problem or pretend it doesn't exist.

[Celli 4,332]

3 minutes ago, Dark Qiviut said:

The MLPF doesn't work that way. The reaction system is supposed to be a fun contribution, not a tool for (extra) passive aggression. "Don't be abusive" is a site rule for a reason. Don't want people angry and offended at those gaming the reaction system? Don't contribute to the problem or pretend it doesn't exist.

It's a fucking emoticon. Again, grow some thicker skin, or don't pay attention to it. 

[CheeryFox 23,811]

The real problem I have with it is abuse with it. ... Guess where? .. The shitstorm section prolly. It just seems...really out of place here, tbh. 

[Dark Qiviut 22,173]

2 minutes ago, Celli said:

It's a fucking emoticon.

That doesn't make the problem go away. Many, including myself, began hating the "Crazy" reaction because too many people use it to be passive aggressive. That's abusing the system and asking the staff to create a rule penalizing those for gaming it.

5 minutes ago, Celli said:

Again, grow some thicker skin, or don't pay attention to it. 

1. Difficult to ignore it when the passive aggression is reminded both at the bottom of the posts and on your profile page.
2. "Grow thicker skin" pretends the problem doesn't exist. If it's not a problem, why do people complain about it and propose changes to improve the system?

[Megas 27,069]

20 minutes ago, Dark Qiviut said:

That doesn't make the problem go away. Many, including myself, began hating the "Crazy" reaction because too many people use it to be passive aggressive. That's abusing the system and asking the staff to create a rule penalizing those for gaming it.

1. Difficult to ignore it when the passive aggression is reminded both at the bottom of the posts and on your profile page.
2. "Grow thicker skin" pretends the problem doesn't exist. If it's not a problem, why do people complain about it and propose changes to improve the system?

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill

[Jeric 46,835]

I will say that when staff comments that we trust the members to use the reaction system maturely, and show some support for the 'crazy' reaction ... having other members use the reaction system to annoy people that also want it to stay ... kinda undermines Administration's point we were making and technically yours.  

Let's chill on making Twi work overtime and hear everyone out without poking them with a stick. This is for community feedback. I want to hear all sides on this. 

[Guest]

Giving the users more babying and reasons to not get thicker skin will result in a community that doesn’t know how to handle any negative comments whatsoever. I have seen it over and over, trying to police people not liking each other never works and usually results in disaster.

its better to just leave it alone and let people block each other.

[碇 シンジン 27,427]

23 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

Giving the users more babying and reasons to not get thicker skin will result in a community that doesn’t know how to handle any negative comments whatsoever. I have seen it over and over, trying to police people not liking each other never works and usually results in disaster.

its better to just leave it alone and let people block each other.

While i agree that too much 'babying' can be bad it is also true that not everything can be dismissed with "grow a thicker skin" sure if users did that basically all the issues relating to this kind of thing would go away but in the end, I dont think the community would feel the same if all kind of spammers and trolls would be allowed to roam free just because everyone has thick skin so no one cares about them.

I think finding the middle ground is important here as just growing a thicker skin i dont think really touches what is the issue here and in the end i think it could hurt the overall approachability of the community hurting the overall experience as well. It is important to identify problems or possible problems that give unease to the community and work a solution together with the people of the community and with them create an answer that benefits as many users as possible.

Also on negative comments, while i see that sometimes there are and will be negative comments I personally dont really see how any negative comments contribute into any kind of discussion in any kind of situation more than neutral or positive comments would. Sure you can express your negativity as an opinion but in the end it just serves as your own opinion and I dont really feel going out of your way voicing something negative about someone, based solely on your own feeling at that moment with no other context really serves much purpose at all on a constructive discussion. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Manaka Hitomi said:

While i agree that too much 'babying' can be bad it is also true that not everything can be dismissed with "grow a thicker skin" sure if users did that basically all the issues relating to this kind of thing would go away but in the end, I dont think the community would feel the same if all kind of spammers and trolls would be allowed to roam free just because everyone has thick skin so no one cares about them.

I think finding the middle ground is important here as just growing a thicker skin i dont think really touches what is the issue here and in the end i think it could hurt the overall approachability of the community hurting the overall experience as well. It is important to identify problems or possible problems that give unease to the community and work a solution together with the people of the community and with them create an answer that benefits as many users as possible.

Also on negative comments, while i see that sometimes there are and will be negative comments I personally dont really see how any negative comments contribute into any kind of discussion in any kind of situation more than neutral or positive comments would. Sure you can express your negativity as an opinion but in the end it just serves as your own opinion and I dont really feel going out of your way voicing something negative about someone, based solely on your own feeling at that moment with no other context really serves much purpose at all on a constructive discussion. 

The issue is that if the community is so frail they are upset over an emoticon then the only solution that makes logical sense is... GROW THICKER SKIN. That is not going to lead to more trolls or spammers or something.

5 hours ago, Dark Qiviut said:

That doesn't make the problem go away. Many, including myself, began hating the "Crazy" reaction because too many people use it to be passive aggressive. That's abusing the system and asking the staff to create a rule penalizing those for gaming it.

1. Difficult to ignore it when the passive aggression is reminded both at the bottom of the posts and on your profile page.
2.  "Grow thicker skin" pretends the problem doesn't exist. If it's not a problem, why do people complain about it and propose changes to improve the system?

Difficult to ignore does not make it a problem.

Also people complaining about it does not make it a problem. People complain about everything.

[碇 シンジン 27,427]

Just now, Key Sharkz said:

The issue is that if the community is so frail they are upset over an emoticon then the only solution that makes logical sense is... GROW THICKER SKIN. That is not going to lead to more trolls or spammers or something.

Yeah it doesnt lead to more trolls or spammers but if the people with the "thickest skin" get to make the calls eventually it could eventually lead to what i was saying, because i think that with the grow thicker skin mentality you are saying that something really isn't that big of a deal. and If people were to grow thicker skin every time something happens eventually they wouldn't care about trolls or spammers any more than anything else.

It can be good to grow a thicker skin sometimes but i think there is a need to draw the line somewhere. I think in this situation compared to the line i think that the forum has been going this is kinda on the edge so it could really go either way and i think it would be fine, but what i am saying is that these kind of issues or situations should be evaluated as thoroughly as possible and learn as many different perspectives as possible and that way finding how big part of the community is actually affected by it and why it affects people the way it does.

And with that in mind actions should or could be taken according to the stance that respects the site/community if it seems that the issue generates more unease than its worth.

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Manaka Hitomi said:

Yeah it doesnt lead to more trolls or spammers but if the people with the "thickest skin" get to make the calls

That is not what's being suggested at all.

I am saying if something THIS minor bothers you then you need to toughen up a little or you'll never even survive the internet.

3 minutes ago, Manaka Hitomi said:

eventually it could eventually lead to what i was saying,

Slippery slope argument.

4 minutes ago, Manaka Hitomi said:

because i think that with the grow thicker skin mentality you are saying that something really isn't that big of a deal.

In the case of being offended or upset over an emoticon... It isn't a big deal. Just move on with your life.

5 minutes ago, Manaka Hitomi said:

and If people were to grow thicker skin every time something happens eventually they wouldn't care about trolls or spammers any more than anything else.

That's not true at all.

5 minutes ago, Manaka Hitomi said:

It can be good to grow a thicker skin sometimes but i think there is a need to draw the line somewhere.

I don't think telling people to get over an emoticon is that line.

 

[碇 シンジン 27,427]

Just now, Key Sharkz said:

That is not what's being suggested at all.

I am saying if something THIS minor bothers you then you need to toughen up a little or you'll never even survive the internet.

Slippery slope argument.

In the case of being offended or upset over an emoticon... It isn't a big deal. Just move on with your life.

That's not true at all.

I don't think telling people to get over an emoticon is that line.

 

Well if they have survived this far why would this site be something that doesn't let them survive any longer? Also who gets to decide what is minor and major? There can be some common reference points but in the end it is up to the person in question to define what is minor to them and what isn't. Saying that because you think something is minor then everyone should also think that or toughen up if they dont. I dont think really is a constructive way to approach the issue but it is one way to do it.

And personally I see where this "you dont survive the internet" is coming from but I dont really see how it is relevant here as some people only use few sites when they visit the internet and never go further, to them the internet that they are accustomed in consists of those few pages they frequent. If the atmosphere on those sites is more friendly than the internet you or some other people frequent, i dont think it is really necessary to go out of your way to bring that up if they have not shown any interest in expanding their area.

Well in the bigger picture the reaction might not be such a significant factor, but i dont really think that is the issue here what i think is that the scope what the people are experiencing when reaction is used doesn't match with the intended scope of the reaction in question. And as such i think the results of this mismatch are coming off as unease in the system.

I've seen sites where they allow trolls and flaming and spamming because people dont care about it.

It might not be that line but as i am not the one who is controlling what lines and approaches the site or the community should take i cannot really say where the line is or where it should be im just offering my insight on the situation.

[Props Valroa 26,051]

Personally I don't understand the issue at all. It's just a little reaction on a screen, if you get bothered because of that get over it.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Manaka Hitomi said:

Well if they have survived this far why would this site be something that doesn't let them survive any longer? Also who gets to decide what is minor and major?

An emoticon is minor. If that much offends you or upsets you so greatly then the internet is simply too tough for you, plain and simple.

 

15 minutes ago, Manaka Hitomi said:

Saying that because you think something is minor then everyone should also think that or toughen up if they dont. I dont think really is a constructive way to approach the issue but it is one way to do it.

Because it's an emoticon! It's so insignificant to the point where if it bothers you so much that you want it either removed or punish people for using it then you are being way too soft. Plain and simple. The people speaking against it are in a minority, maybe what... 5-7 users on a site with thousands? Sorry but the majority should not have to suffer because of a few people who are too weak to handle an emoticon. THAT is how we should decide it, the majority should be the ones catered to, not the minority.

17 minutes ago, Manaka Hitomi said:

And personally I see where this "you dont survive the internet" is coming from but I dont really see how it is relevant here as some people only use few sites when they visit the internet and never go further, to them the internet that they are accustomed in consists of those few pages they frequent. If the atmosphere on those sites is more friendly than the internet you or some other people frequent, i dont think it is really necessary to go out of your way to bring that up if they have not shown any interest in expanding their area.

Here's the thing:

On the internet there are human beings. Humans are not inherently nice or pleasant all the time meaning anywhere you go, you are going to have to deal with people that don't like you. Sites ALREADY have an option for dealing with that, it's called blocking and ignoring them. If that isn't enough for you then you need to learn to get better at ignoring people you don't like. Creating extra ways to protect you from internet meanies when there are already perfectly good ways implemented teaches people to basically not take care of themselves and to be soft. If you don't like someone, block them, ignore them.

Any site you go to is going to have people who disagree with you or don't like you. It's better to learn that now in life because it works that way outside the internet too. We aren't doing them a service by teaching them to NOT utilize the block feature and instead going "don't worry, we'll just make the meanies go away and take away their toys". It's better to just let people learn to use the block feature effectively. We have a perfectly good system in place.

The more you coddle the users and remove anything that might potentially offend a minority, the more you push away the majority. I've seen it happen numerous times where the majority eventually ditch a site because the atmosphere becomes too strict. It makes it so instead of blocking people, people start growing into the mentality of reporting everything, making the mods work double time. It does not end well. The best solution is the one already in place: let the users learn to block people they don't like and ignore comments that bother them and only report if a comment is truly offensive. More policing will not help the community, it will harm it. Restrict the users too much and they will resent the site.

What we currently have in place is perfect because not only can you block people, but you can make it so you don't even see their posts. That's more than most sites have.

Removing content such as an emoticon to prevent offense is not going to benefit anyone.

 

8 hours ago, Dark Qiviut said:

The MLPF doesn't work that way. The reaction system is supposed to be a fun contribution, not a tool for (extra) passive aggression. "Don't be abusive" is a site rule for a reason. Don't want people angry and offended at those gaming the reaction system? Don't contribute to the problem or pretend it doesn't exist.

"Abusive" is a very subjective term. If you consider someone using a single emoticon on your post "abusive" then you have some seriously thin skin. Abusive is someone calls you a racial slur or makes a remark about your genitals, not using a cartoon emoticon. You are stretching the definition of "abusive" insanely to the point where you may as well just say people disagreeing with you is abusive.

People being offended doesn't make something inherently offensive. In 2018 people are offended by virtually everything.

There is no problem, you just need to learn to ignore an emoticon.

[碇 シンジン 27,427]

3 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

Because it's an emoticon! It's so insignificant to the point where if it bothers you so much that you want it either removed or punish people for using it then you are being way too soft. Plain and simple. The people speaking against it are in a minority, maybe what... 5-7 users on a site with thousands? Sorry but the majority should not have to suffer because of a few people who are too weak to handle an emoticon. THAT is how we should decide it, the majority should be the ones catered to, not the minority.

I don't think you can really assign all users who havent voiced their thoughts on the subject to one side of the argument, sure they maybe don't think it's that big of a deal and they're maybe able to at least somewhat handle it if it causes some kind of discomfort to them since they havent approached the subject but you cannot make sure of it until you hear their thoughts on it. Since that is just an assumption.

 

10 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

Here's the thing:

On the internet there are human beings. Humans are not inherently nice or pleasant all the time meaning anywhere you go, you are going to have to deal with people that don't like you. Sites ALREADY have an option for dealing with that, it's called blocking and ignoring them. If that isn't enough for you then you need to learn to get better at ignoring people you don't like. Creating extra ways to protect you from internet meanies when there are already perfectly good ways implemented teaches people to basically not take care of themselves and to be soft. If you don't like someone, block them, ignore them.

Any site you go to is going to have people who disagree with you or don't like you. It's better to learn that now in life because it works that way outside the internet too. We aren't doing them a service by teaching them to NOT utilize the block feature and instead going "don't worry, we'll just make the meanies go away and take away their toys". It's better to just let people learn to use the block feature effectively. We have a perfectly good system in place.

The more you coddle the users and remove anything that might potentially offend a minority, the more you push away the majority. I've seen it happen numerous times where the majority eventually ditch a site because the atmosphere becomes too strict. It makes it so instead of blocking people, people start growing into the mentality of reporting everything, making the mods work double time. It does not end well. The best solution is the one already in place: let the users learn to block people they don't like and ignore comments that bother them and only report if a comment is truly offensive. More policing will not help the community, it will harm it. Restrict the users too much and they will resent the site.

What we currently have in place is perfect because not only can you block people, but you can make it so you don't even see their posts. That's more than most sites have.

Removing content such as an emoticon to prevent offense is not going to benefit anyone.

Yeah blocking and ignoring are one way to handle that kind of situation, but personally i'm not really much of a fan of the system. I understand the groundwork that it is based on and how it is very useful, but in the end it is a tool with potential schism attached to it, and in meaningful conversation or discussion it doesnt really give anything constructive or anything to build on i think. It just stops it there no questions asked. I think that conflicts should be resolved as much as possible without the block or ignore when it is possible and use those features only when it is basically the last option or when the situation doesnt seem to go anywhere.

I dont think the discussion around this reaction is really focused around internet "meanies" as much as i think it is focused on what scope the reaction should/could be utilized compared to the utilization that would be in the preferred scope of that reaction and if that is something that people are willing to adapt into.

Disagreeing is important part of conversation and with that you are able to add another perspective and the information with that perspective into yourself and that way learn and grow. I personally think that "minor" issues like this that can cripple the conversation can reduce the amount of constructive communication and just telling people to block users instead destroys the communication entirely. I dont really feel that just because you feel uncomfortable of that reaction you should block people who use it.

I dont really think that the atmosphere is becoming any more strict if problems of uneasiness in the system can be progressively and constructively resolved reaching a mutual agreement. I actually think that discussing these kind of subjects enhances the atmosphere of the community when the discussion is done in good spirit.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Manaka Hitomi said:

I don't think you can really assign all users who havent voiced their thoughts on the subject to one side of the argument, sure they maybe don't think it's that big of a deal and they're maybe able to at least somewhat handle it if it causes some kind of discomfort to them since they havent approached the subject but you cannot make sure of it until you hear their thoughts on it. Since that is just an assumption.

 

Yeah blocking and ignoring are one way to handle that kind of situation, but personally i'm not really much of a fan of the system. I understand the groundwork that it is based on and how it is very useful, but in the end it is a tool with potential schism attached to it, and in meaningful conversation or discussion it doesnt really give anything constructive or anything to build on i think. It just stops it there no questions asked. I think that conflicts should be resolved as much as possible without the block or ignore when it is possible and use those features only when it is basically the last option or when the situation doesnt seem to go anywhere.

I dont think the discussion around this reaction is really focused around internet "meanies" as much as i think it is focused on what scope the reaction should/could be utilized compared to the utilization that would be in the preferred scope of that reaction and if that is something that people are willing to adapt into.

Disagreeing is important part of conversation and with that you are able to add another perspective and the information with that perspective into yourself and that way learn and grow. I personally think that "minor" issues like this that can cripple the conversation can reduce the amount of constructive communication and just telling people to block users instead destroys the communication entirely. I dont really feel that just because you feel uncomfortable of that reaction you should block people who use it.

I dont really think that the atmosphere is becoming any more strict if problems of uneasiness in the system can be progressively and constructively resolved reaching a mutual agreement. I actually think that discussing these kind of subjects enhances the atmosphere of the community when the discussion is done in good spirit.

You know what... I can't even muster the energy to continue trying to argue this. I'm just going to let you have this victory by default because the energy needed to actually debate it is outgrowing my care.

I've seen this route with so many sites before, and it always ends in the shrinking of the community because people eventually get tired of a growing hugbox. I'll just be around to say "I told you so" when it all backfires.

[PiratePony 8,473]

I have an idea: if an individual person cannot handle seeing reactions, maybe there can be an option for them not to see reactions when logged in. Not blocking it for everyone else, but you seeing reactions to your post or any post.

Surely, if you're this fragile, seeing positive reactions on posts you disagree with will probably bring about a similar reaction, so just hide from them entirely.

[Rikifive 23,500]

I just have one question...

Don't you think, that in this situation that one is mean as well? Passive ignorance, that's what it is for me. I have mixed feelings about teacup though.

Should be these removed too?

Edited May 29, 2018 by Rikifive

[Goat-kun 2,499]

Alright, I wasn't clear yesterday so this is round two.

 

Site rules aside, nothing should ever be removed on the grounds of hurt feelings. As it stands one can set notifications to disregard the spam of "brohoofs" (I assume it works for all reactions) and the rest falls on the user. You can choose to ignore it. Nobody is entitled to be sheltered from butthurt.

 

P.S: But seriously, we need that Spike reaction.

[DonMaguz 1,023]

7 hours ago, Rikifive said:

I just have one question...

Don't you think, that in this situation that one is mean as well? Passive ignorance, that's what it is for me. I have mixed feelings about teacup though.

Should be these removed too?

The way I look at that status, the three reactions can be taken as aggresions. It is a very serious and rare status update, you cannot take an anomaly as the sample to change something.

[ZethaPonderer 2,196]

I think the focus is too broad when it comes to the 'Crazy' Reaction and the focus instead should be on specific posts and topics where the 'Crazy' Reaction should be deemed unacceptable.

I only have issues with the 'Crazy' reaction on Debate Pit since that forum is meant to be taken seriously. If a user uses it without any explanation on their end to back up why they gave me such a disrespectful reaction it makes them look utterly foolish and narrow-minded who not only expressed their hatred for his enemy, but also has zero respect for what he says to contribute something meaningful which comes across pretty disrespectful.

At least with the 'Respectfully Disagree' reaction I can understand that and it doesn't undermine the person's argument.

In other topics I don't mind it so much, but if a particular comment is meant to be taken seriously and somebody deems you crazy it undermines and diminishes whatever value the person tried to contribute within his comment. That and people giving off serious status updates like the one just mentioned here.

While I can see your line of reasoning @Whomps any mole hill can become a mountain if given enough chances.