Changes to Reactions

2

Comments

  • I think it's important to remember that flagging is a tool, and cannot replace good moderation, without which even this current simpler system can be abused. Maybe what slips through the cracks is that flagging is used by some for retaliation or intimidation. For example recently I flagged somebody off-topic, and they immediately flagged five of my posts off-topic. I tell you, it was tempting to escalate that unhealthy behavior. But I prefer to keep conflicts above-board.

    When unhealthy behavior happens in an actual post, it's in the open and easy to flag, and moderate. But you can't flag a flag!* So the person flagging destructively creates discord with no consequences. It becomes a way to unduly control the discourse. I guess what I'm saying is that no matter what system is used, please moderate the flagging too.

    * See the Oct. 26 post here: http://typedrawers.com/discussion/comment/23860/#Comment_23860
  • @Hrant H. Papazian  Flags that are in retaliation and intimidation should not be tolerated or it will perpetuate such behavior as a norm. A lack of escalation serves as a disservice to others, you may not be the only one who feels that way. True malice is rare; misunderstanding and difference of opinion is common.

    @James Todd @Tiffany Wardle
    An offer of thanks and appreciation for your ongoing moderation, maintenance and improvement of TypeDrawers. It does not seem an easy task. Thank you.
  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 1,992
    edited November 2016
    Indeed, the TypeDrawers moderators as a group seem to care about the right things, in spite of being often conflicted. Not easy at all.

    > A lack of escalation serves as a disservice to others

    I'm not exactly known for avoiding conflict :-) but especially with the original anti–yours-truly history of TypeDrawers I'm inclined to tread lightly. But most of all making hissy posts in the threads where one has been unfairly flagged would probably only lead to more retaliation-flagging, with one's only sad option being retaliatory flagging... Like people persistently throwing rocks at you from behind a wall. But I'm not going to build a wall and start throwing rocks back. Problems are indeed solved only by addressing them.

    That said, my post above is exactly because I found a good place to highlight this problem. But I still harbor a tinge of fear that it will be down-voted into oblivion.
  • Ben BlomBen Blom Posts: 250
    I never understood why a post should get buried, if a few smart cookies strongly disagree with it. My suggestion would be to return to the more granular old reaction system, and then remove the possibility for a post to get buried. We don’t need such a “punishment system” in a forum for grown-ups.
  • @Ben Blom unfortunately the former "more granular" flags also had a punishment system. That is why we are currently trying to find a balance. Being able to flag a post as "troll" or "dislike" is sort of a punishment as well. No one wants to be called a "troll". We will be adding a bit more granularity and will leave "vote-up/vote-down" more as a tool of moderation.
  • Ben BlomBen Blom Posts: 250

    It’s one thing to give people with negative opinions about a post, the power to vent their opinion with a flag. It’s another thing to give such people the additional power to bury a post (if enough “negative flags” have been awarded). I would suggest to remove this additional power. Whatever system of flags is being used, I would suggest to get rid of the possibility for a post to get buried.

    People who contribute here, should not harbor a tinge of fear that their contribution will be “down-voted into oblivion”.

  • I'm having a hard time seeing how posts that are insightful, snarkless, and well-considered would ever be down voted to the point of being buried. So far the majority of posts that I've seen buried fail at one of the points and are usually lacking in substantive content in addition.
  • If this experiment fails, I motion to remove reactions, leaving only a "flag" button that silently flags a post that may violate a set of clearly stated guidelines (including or in addition to the ones already posted) to the moderators for review.

    I fully accept that benevolent dictatorship of the moderation team may in the end be acceptable for how much ink is being wasted trying to make this system work.
  • So we moderators/administrators have decided to make a small change to this test by adding the agree/disagree reactions. 

    Ideally, agree/disagree would work in the general flow of conversation and up/downvote would work to help keep the conversation on track.

    “Disagree”ing has no real effect on the poster’s rating (unlike disliking); it’s simply a way to voice your opinion without hurting anyone else’s ratings.
    Can you clarify the purpose that the "Vote Up" button now serves? Sounds like you intend it to signify "on topic." Assuming we're not to press it for every post that is on topic, it is supposed to be for countering "Vote Downs" if we disagree that a post is off topic? If so, is burying a post triggered by a count of "Vote Downs" minus "Vote Ups"?
  • Chris LozosChris Lozos Posts: 1,338
    This vote up/vote down thing looks a bit Neroesque to me. The old system was more descriptive.  I also miss "insightful".
  • Maybe "Vote Up" can be the new "Insightful" and "Vote Down" can be "Off-Topic".
  • Maybe "Vote Up" can be the new "Insightful" and "Vote Down" can be "Off-Topic".
    Or we can just go back to the old system that everybody liked better...? Is there an upside to the new system at all?
  • I am against going back to the entirety of the old system. 

    If we consider adding "insightful", what else would be missing?
  • Can you explain what is wrong with the old system. Were there some functionality attached to some of the buttons (like with the down vote now)?

    is there actually a problem with many off topic posts other than spam?

    I don't like the automatic removing of messages. I think there should be a query in the moderator backend that shows a list of users that get negativ flags and an option to send them a warning or ban the user if it becomes a problem. 
  • The problem with the old system is that it was too easy to be malicious. 

    Vote Up was added as a way to balance the vote down; a way to add a bit of balance to the negativity.

    I think adding insightful would be fine.

    Georg, I’m not sure what you mean by the “automatic removing of messages.” It would be nice if there was an option for the moderators to have a list of all the negative flags, unfortunately Vanilla does not offer such a service on the backend.
  • Ben BlomBen Blom Posts: 250
    edited November 2016
    The problem with the old system is that it was too easy to be malicious.

    Indeed, because with the old system, if some people dislike a contribution, they just vote such a contribution down until it gets buried—which can be done quite quickly.

    Vote Up was added as a way to balance the vote down; a way to add a bit of balance to the negativity.

    Why not “balance the negativity”, “balance the vote down”, by removing its power to automatically bury a contribution?

    “Voting down” and “voting up” as a means to get a contribution buried or unburied, is like a silent invitation for people to behave malicious or childish. There is no necessary relationship between the quality of a contribution, and its popularity.

  • One strength of the old system was that it was pretty clear.

    If the "new system" is to survive, perhaps it should rename the "vote down" and "vote up" functions to something that indicates, or at least suggests, their intended use. I'm still not clear in the revised-new-system what they are *exactly* for.
  • It’s not great UI design. At a glance you only see the last item in the line: Vote Up. And it seems to make sense, as an alternative to the terms Like and Fave. It makes even more sense if you glance at the first item in the line, Quote, which has nothing to do with rating comments. Facebook gets this: the first decision is to “express a non-textual reaction” (default Like), then you refine it if you care to.
  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 1,992
    edited November 2016
    One strength of the old system was that it was pretty clear.
    ....
    I'm still not clear in the revised-new-system what they are *exactly* for.

    The thing is, people won't agree what "Troll" means either... Plus people were abusing it even if they had a firm meaning in mind. This is a bit like real language versus emoji: the abstraction of the former actually makes it more powerful than the specificity of the latter.
  • Ramiro EspinozaRamiro Espinoza Posts: 787
    edited November 2016
    I think there are many more attitudes that deserve 'vote down' beside of being 'off topic'. I am thinking of, i.g. misogynistic, racist or aggressive rhetoric. I am not in favor of renaming 'vote down'.
  • @Ramiro Espinoza
    I agree with you, these attitudes exist. It is not always easy to recognize them.
  • It seems to me that there are five basic kinds of feedback most of us want to be able to give.
    1. I agree with this post.
    2. I think this post is insightful.
    3. I disagree with this post.
    4. I think this post is off topic.
    5. I think this post is offensive.
    Any chance we could simply have buttons marked Agree, Insightful, Disagree, Off Topic, and Offensive?

    I definitely don't think we should use a single button to respond to both trolls and people who have wandered a bit from the main point.

  • Katy MawhoodKaty Mawhood Posts: 211
    edited November 2016
    Thanks @James Todd ! B)

    –––
    I think there are many more attitudes that deserve 'vote down' beside of being 'off topic'. I am thinking of, i.g. misogynistic, racist or aggressive rhetoric. I am not in favor of renaming 'vote down'.
    @Hrant H. Papazian
    In the spirit of your earlier posts, why do you disagree? Please explain. :)
  • @Katy Mawhood It's that I'm against a granularity that allows people to use flags as no-consequence moral judgments. We should communicate with accountability.
  • Hrant H. PapazianHrant H. Papazian Posts: 1,992
    edited November 2016
    @Ray Larabie I don't believe this analysis holds up to human nature: people often flag because it's a quick vent, which reduces actual dialog; and making a post about a flag is awkward at best, haranguing at worst. Plus –as I pointed out before– how many posts are clear-cut single statements that can be reacted to so? (To me writing that, and having to read replies to it is much better than the «dialogue de sourds» of flagging.)
Sign In or Register to comment.