Reactions discussion

[Lawpy]

I mean we haven't had a post get flagged yet, so people obviously aren't abusing it (at least so far). Not sure why you are so concerned with this. Just don't be a dick and you shouldn't have to worry about it. If you get a couple -1 reactions because someone doesn't like something you post, who cares?

Because they're not using the reaction the way it's intended? The idea is to use it specifically on posts that break TOS because people are apparently more willing to react to posts than report them. If people get involved in a flame war, they can snipe each other in a broad category of being inappropriate and have that spiral out of control.

Also some posts didn't flag yet because they didn't hit the trigger. I don't know about me when people tested the reactions on me but i don't mind. It's when people begin to weaponize reactions that things become problematic.

And yes i know the purpose and it has the value. But i'm skeptical and concerned because sometimes some people take things emotionally and personally and things can get carried away. So i'm trying to prevent that.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lawpy]

I'm ok with giving it a try since it's clear we're in a disagreement. I'll also try to keep track of them and see if they're ideally fulfilling its purpose and hopefully aren't being abused.

 

[Osminog]

The new negative reactions will only serve to tar and feather those with dissenting opinions. In an effort to avoid receiving "dislikes" or "eye-rolls," users will be more likely to hold back their true perspectives on controversial topics. The result will be that there will be a hive mind—sort of like the one on Reddit, where groupthink takes precedence over thoughtful debate and analysis.

I'd personally like SDN to remain a forum where reasonable people can have polite disagreements without receiving endless "dislikes" and "eye-rolls" from random onlookers.

 

[GoSpursGo]

The new negative reactions will only serve to tar and feather those with dissenting opinions. In an effort to avoid receiving "dislikes" or "eye-rolls," users will be more likely to hold back their true perspectives on controversial topics. The result will be that there will be a hive mind—sort of like the one on Reddit, where groupthink takes precedence over thoughtful debate and analysis.

I'd personally like SDN to remain a forum where reasonable people can have polite disagreements without receiving endless "dislikes" and "eye-rolls" from random onlookers.

Only the “inappropriate” reaction gives a negative reaction score, all others are neutral.

Is an eye roll really any worse than a sarcastic comeback? Cuz we get those all the time.

 

[DexterMorganSK]

Emoticons of ANY type will not stop a user from speaking their mind..at least not on SDN!

 

[Stroganoff]

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but the points reduction is required to trigger the automatic reporting. This was clarified by Lee to the moderator staff. There is no way to get the same functionality with a 0 score.

From a code design perspective, I'm skeptical of this statement.

(Now don't hear what I'm not saying. I'm not saying the -1 is a big deal to me. I'm simply skeptical at your statement where you say "There is NO WAY to..." (emphasis mine).)

 

[Stroganoff]

Functionally, that's not different from just reporting a post regularly, which you can still do

You ignored my post dude.

FWIW, I tested out by marking post #43 as "Inappropriate" then unmarked then repeated that twice. Let me know what you see on the back end. Either way, this would be easier to diagnose by seeing the actual code rather than guessing.

 

[GoSpursGo]

From a code design perspective, I'm skeptical of this statement.

(Now don't hear what I'm not saying. I'm not saying the -1 is a big deal to me. I'm simply skeptical at your statement where you say "There is NO WAY to..." (emphasis mine).)

Could be. I’m just passing along what Lee said, who knows a lot more about these things than I do

You ignored my post dude.

FWIW, I tested out by marking post #43 as "Inappropriate" then unmarked then repeated that twice. Let me know what you see on the back end. Either way, this would be easier to diagnose by seeing the actual code rather than guessing.

No report generated.

My point was, that would be a silly way to “game the system” when you could just as easily report it. So if someone wanted to do that for some reason (and it worked), it wouldn’t be especially problematic from my perspective.

 

[Angus Avagadro]

I am always concerned about speech limitations. I'm not sure why the negative reaction as inappropriate post is necessary. A reader can report the post to the mods, or hit the good old ignore button. The mods do an pretty good job of handling things IMO. It appears redundant and unnecessary to me.

 

[Lawpy]

I am always concerned about speech limitations. I'm not sure why the negative reaction as inappropriate post is necessary. A reader can report the post to the mods, or hit the good old ignore button. The mods do an pretty good job of handling things IMO. It appears redundant and unnecessary to me.

Additionally, there's also a potential risk of using the reaction to target someone. What stops a malicious user or a spammer from creating an account and randomly "inappropriate" reacting to every single post they find? Or selectively "inappropriate" reacting every post that expresses differing opinions because they upset them? It's a fast way to sink someone's reaction score and try to curtail transparency. And since one inappropriate doesn't trigger the autoreport, it's effectively subtle sabotage.

That's why I'm trying to keep track of them (at least if/when it happens to me) to prevent abuse.

 

[Stroganoff]

I am always concerned about speech limitations. I'm not sure why the negative reaction as inappropriate post is necessary. A reader can report the post to the mods, or hit the good old ignore button. The mods do an pretty good job of handling things IMO. It appears redundant and unnecessary to me.

I think the rationale -- as has been stated -- is that it's another mechanism for users to indicate a user is posting maliciously that violates the letter or the spirit of the ToS and the positive community that we're trying to shape SDN into. Apparently -- and I can attest to this -- people don't consistently report nasty posts and simply ignore them, letting them continue to fester and potentially drive users away from SDN. The rationale for the "Inappropriate" reaction --> report generation is that it's possibly a lower-friction way of saying a post is nasty than the formality of "Reporting" a post (and articulating a reason). It's possible users don't want to appear to be snitches/tattletales/hypersensitive so don't Report posts, whereas reacting to a post involves less friction.

Ultimately the solution is AI/machine learning that determines whether a post is abusive or nasty, and my XenForo AI add-on is in development and is only $40/year if you act now!

 

[Angus Avagadro]

I understand the rationale of wanting to keep things positive. I believe the new policy is redundant and mechanisms already exist to deal with toxic posting. Threads get closed not infrequently.
Since opinions will vary on topics I can see the potential for abuse as stated above. If someone is offended or believes a post doesnt meet TOS for SDN, then hit the report button and type "inappropriate" for the reason. The Mods will then review it and handle it. If someone cant do this little bit of typing, then I'm not sure how how much disapproval they really have. Disagreeing with someone doesnt mean the other poster is necessarily inappropriate, which is what I believe will happen.

 

[Stroganoff]

I thought of another angle that differentiates the Reaction from the Reporting functionality: Reactions are public; reports are private. Assuming the person isn't a toxic troll or something and actually is open to feedback, seeing a bunch of (or even just one) "Inappropriate" reactions might give them a double-take and self-reflect, "Hmm, maybe I said something a bit too abrasively or malignantly in my post. Let me read it over again and edit the post and apologize as needed."

This allows a community to self-correct poor behavior before it even warrants moderator or admin attention (as Reports can be a PITA and a chore it seems).

This post is maybe too rosy and idealistic. Maybe inappropriate users truly don't care and do need mod attention.

 

[Lawpy]

I thought of another angle that differentiates the Reaction from the Reporting functionality: Reactions are public; reports are private. Assuming the person isn't a toxic troll or something and actually is open to feedback, seeing a bunch of (or even just one) "Inappropriate" reactions might give them a double-take and self-reflect, "Hmm, maybe I said something a bit too abrasively or malignantly in my post. Let me read it over again and edit the post and apologize as needed."

This allows a community to self-correct poor behavior before it even warrants moderator or admin attention (as Reports can be a PITA and a chore it seems).

This post is maybe too rosy and idealistic. Maybe inappropriate users truly don't care and do need mod attention.

This assumes the people using the inappropriate reaction aren't doing so maliciously (such as targeting a user whose opinions they disagree with).

 

[RTC19]

I thought of another angle that differentiates the Reaction from the Reporting functionality: Reactions are public; reports are private. Assuming the person isn't a toxic troll or something and actually is open to feedback, seeing a bunch of (or even just one) "Inappropriate" reactions might give them a double-take and self-reflect, "Hmm, maybe I said something a bit too abrasively or malignantly in my post. Let me read it over again and edit the post and apologize as needed."

This allows a community to self-correct poor behavior before it even warrants moderator or admin attention (as Reports can be a PITA and a chore it seems).

This post is maybe too rosy and idealistic. Maybe inappropriate users truly don't care and do need mod attention.

I think this is a great point. I don't think it's too rosy or idealistic at all to believe this.

 

[Lawpy]

Suggestion for to be added as a reaction to express confusion