Debating implementation of a Reaction/Like system

Currently viewing this thread:

Limbojack

Veteran
Best answers
0
I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but please give us the option to react with a thumbs up or down to comments. It would be helpful to see what level of player support certain ideas and suggestions have. Paradox Interactive already has this option, and that alone is why I prefer their forum over this one. Even the devs would probably benefit as it'd allow them to browse through the "popular" suggestions while ignoring the less popular ones.
 

Cpt. Nemo

The Wurst
Section Moderator
M&BWB
Best answers
0
I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but please give us the option to react with a thumbs up or down to comments. It would be helpful to see what level of player support certain ideas and suggestions have. Paradox Interactive already has this option, and that alone is why I prefer their forum over this one. Even the devs would probably benefit as it'd allow them to browse through the "popular" suggestions while ignoring the less popular ones.
If anyone wants to gauge support for an issue, they can just make a thread and count the posts, or even use a poll. I'd prefer this place not turn into a reddit-style voting hivemind.
 

Cioss

Archduke
Best answers
0
Honestly, I was hyped about the like system when I heard forum was moving into XenForo. What a shame...
 

Limbojack

Veteran
Best answers
0
If anyone wants to gauge support for an issue, they can just make a thread and count the posts, or even use a poll. I'd prefer this place not turn into a reddit-style voting hivemind.
It sounds like unnecessary work to make a pool to check the popularity of a suggestion that came as a comment to another pool.
 

Evelyn

Goblet
Duke
WF&SWBNWVC
Best answers
0
If only we had these things called "words" which could be used to show support or disapproval for an opinion or topic.
 

Scuba Steve

Master Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
If anyone wants to gauge support for an issue, they can just make a thread and count the posts, or even use a poll. I'd prefer this place not turn into a reddit-style voting hivemind.
Other places that use a like system don't change into a voting hivemind. It's literally a little bit of text in the bottom of a poster's signature that says "x user liked this post". It's a way of showing support for someone's comment without having to type up a "thank you for this post" comment, which is utterly useless. A like system changes nothing to the flow of the forum, and changes nothing to how posting works.
 

Cpt. Nemo

The Wurst
Section Moderator
M&BWB
Best answers
0
If a user has something to say, they can either post and be open to discussion, or not post at all. If there's a discussion with two opposing ideas, likes/supports/whatever will just benefit majority opinion regardless of its actual merit. It wouldn't need to be explained or proved by talking about the ideas, because actual criticism can be effectively shut down by a lack of votes.
 

Scuba Steve

Master Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
I don't think that's true. I'm on plenty of forums that have a like system where that has not occurred. People will still say what's on their mind regardless if they get likes or not. Total War Centre for example has the reputation feature, and it doesn't shut down actual criticism. Heck, there's plenty of Facebook groups that have excellent discussions that aren't shut down just because someone doesn't put a like on a particular post or comment.

It's not even remotely like reddit, where with a downvote people can effectively shut down dissenting opinions due to how reddit works (hiding posts/comments that have a certain number of downvotes).
 
Best answers
2
I don't think that's true. I'm on plenty of forums that have a like system where that has not occurred. People will still say what's on their mind regardless if they get likes or not. Total War Centre for example has the reputation feature, and it doesn't shut down actual criticism.
Average TWCenter user:



Nobody said anything about literally shutting down criticism. Nothing is physically preventing me from posting if there is an upvote system. The problem is the atmosphere it creates when a bunch of idiots with poorly thought out opinions can change the way a discussion looks. It may seem like I'm just being a ***** for not wanting to go against the grain, but the effect of "the herd" is so damn powerful that it's one of the staples of effective propaganda. No matter how good your self-esteem is, it's much less enjoyable to post when you can literally see the numbers of people who disagree with you.

Facebook is an automated, totalitarian, mass content aggregator used by literally billions of people. The whole upvoting system there is an elaborate control mechanism to regulate behaviour (Until an active purge of a lot of pages in around 2018, this system had split the site between "fragile" tankie tumblr types and Literal Nazis). It's not really comparable to a moderated forum, but the problem still exists. I'll give you an example:


How are you supposed to argue against something like this? Nobody in this screenshot has explained why they believe what they believe, but in an instant you can see which is the "right" opinion. I can already tell that this thread is going to be full of Wehraboo idiots. Other Nazi idiots are going to see this thread and want to post there more. It's a vicious Darwinian cycle which makes it much easier for like-minded people to "find" each other and reinforce each others beliefs. So no, it doesn't directly shut down criticism. But it separates differing opinions and makes them less likely to come into contact. This is the entire point -- I could go on an endless rant about social media, but basically the big websites do this on purpose. It's totalitarian.

Compare that example to some of the more recent bannerlord threads where lots of people are defending the new combat system, and a handful of people who have valid criticisms. The former vastly outnumber the latter. The problems with the combat system are fairly minute, but they drastically lower the skill ceiling.
- With an upvote system, people who don't know how to argue their point will just take to the arrows.
- With the comments alone, you actually have to read the damn thing and make up your own mind whether somebody is correct or not, rather than letting the arrows influence your opinion.

Finally and most significantly, why do you need to know what the ratio of opinions is? If someone just agrees with a post and has nothing else to add, why do we have to have a system to allow them to influence the discussion? What does it add to the conversation if a bunch of posts ?
 

Count Delinard

Lord of Uxkhal
Global Moderator
WBNWVC
Best answers
0
It does lower the entry barrier for the silent majority that lurks the platform and it's a middle ground between stalking and posting that could help people transition from one end of the spectrum to the other.

You shouldn't worry about us implementing them any time soon though, it was discussed extensively within the moderation team on the months prior to the release of the new forums. You can see a vestige of that in the media section or the group's homepages where you can react to posts. Originally we were going to add :yagaya: and :yagana: everywhere but we ended up removing that entirely from the main forums for many of the reasons stated above by some of you.
 

Evelyn

Goblet
Duke
WF&SWBNWVC
Best answers
0
If you want to support or criticize an opinion, idea, post, etc, then you can make your own post with said support or criticism. le updoots xD is neither a good metric for what you want it for nor something that would contribute in a healthy way to the forum atmosphere. Nobody who le updoots or le downdoots has to defend their position, but the psychological and sociological effect of 'support' being quantified as a number is incalculably harmful to proper discussion, debate, and conversation itself.
 

Marko͘

Section Moderator
WBNWM&BWF&SVC
Best answers
3
Average TWCenter user:



Nobody said anything about literally shutting down criticism. Nothing is physically preventing me from posting if there is an upvote system. The problem is the atmosphere it creates when a bunch of idiots with poorly thought out opinions can change the way a discussion looks. It may seem like I'm just being a ***** for not wanting to go against the grain, but the effect of "the herd" is so damn powerful that it's one of the staples of effective propaganda. No matter how good your self-esteem is, it's much less enjoyable to post when you can literally see the numbers of people who disagree with you.

Facebook is an automated, totalitarian, mass content aggregator used by literally billions of people. The whole upvoting system there is an elaborate control mechanism to regulate behaviour (Until an active purge of a lot of pages in around 2018, this system had split the site between "fragile" tankie tumblr types and Literal Nazis). It's not really comparable to a moderated forum, but the problem still exists. I'll give you an example:


How are you supposed to argue against something like this? Nobody in this screenshot has explained why they believe what they believe, but in an instant you can see which is the "right" opinion. I can already tell that this thread is going to be full of Wehraboo idiots. Other Nazi idiots are going to see this thread and want to post there more. It's a vicious Darwinian cycle which makes it much easier for like-minded people to "find" each other and reinforce each others beliefs. So no, it doesn't directly shut down criticism. But it separates differing opinions and makes them less likely to come into contact. This is the entire point -- I could go on an endless rant about social media, but basically the big websites do this on purpose. It's totalitarian.

Compare that example to some of the more recent bannerlord threads where lots of people are defending the new combat system, and a handful of people who have valid criticisms. The former vastly outnumber the latter. The problems with the combat system are fairly minute, but they drastically lower the skill ceiling.
- With an upvote system, people who don't know how to argue their point will just take to the arrows.
- With the comments alone, you actually have to read the damn thing and make up your own mind whether somebody is correct or not, rather than letting the arrows influence your opinion.

Finally and most significantly, why do you need to know what the ratio of opinions is? If someone just agrees with a post and has nothing else to add, why do we have to have a system to allow them to influence the discussion? What does it add to the conversation if a bunch of posts ?


It does lower the entry barrier for the silent majority that lurks the platform and it's a middle ground between stalking and posting that could help people transition from one end of the spectrum to the other.

You shouldn't worry about us implementing them any time soon though, it was discussed extensively within the moderation team on the months prior to the release of the new forums. You can see a vestige of that in the media section or the group's homepages where you can react to posts. Originally we were going to add :yagaya: and :yagana: everywhere but we ended up removing that entirely from the main forums for many of the reasons stated above by some of you.


If you want to support or criticize an opinion, idea, post, etc, then you can make your own post with said support or criticism. le updoots xD is neither a good metric for what you want it for nor something that would contribute in a healthy way to the forum atmosphere. Nobody who le updoots or le downdoots has to defend their position, but the psychological and sociological effect of 'support' being quantified as a number is incalculably harmful to proper discussion, debate, and conversation itself.