Debating implementation of a Reaction/Like system

Users who are viewing this thread

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?

It doesn't influence discussion anywhere else on the internet. Why is it assumed the TaleWorlds forum is such a hive of scum and villainy that it will do so here?

It's not even to know the ratio of opinions. There's no ratio at all, because it's simply who liked it, not who disliked it. For example, where I recently quoted you and replied /Thread.

With a like system, I don't have to really do that kind of post.

And again, people keep talking about upvoting and downvoting. Xenforo's system isn't like that, so it's completely moot to even mention upvotes and downvotes. It's a way to say "good post" without spamming the thread with "good post". I understand the concern that certain folks will flock to liking certain opinions, but on one of the places where such opinions are more controversial than any here; a US Civil War forum, the like system doesn't even remotely do anything to the discussion that occurs. The only thing you find out in that style of forum is who are the sycophants for any particular member, and that's not a bad thing.
 
d5fa38d9e9.png



9b817e4a50.png



890062444b.png

That looks so much better. I hate reading half a dozen "+1" following a good suggestion, especially when its a reaction to a comment to another thread. And again, it would be an easy way for the devs to consider player feedback. Just look at a suggestion and the number of "votes" it has got. Most suggestions don't use the pool thing anyway, so this just looks a lot cleaner and better. You don't even have to tell anyone who voted what if that's a concern, for some reason.
 
It doesn't influence discussion anywhere else on the internet.

I probably wouldn't have to look very hard to find academic evidence that it does. Countless social experiments have dealt with the impact of group dynamics. I haven't even touched on the fact that it makes people more likely to post stuff that they think will them upvoted rather than what they actually believe. Or that it inflates egos. Or that the upvote is an unequal parasocial interaction that I can't respond to. If someone posts something extremely stupid and 100 people upvote it, I can't then single out those people and try and challenge their views. It turns forums into more of a peanut gallery than they already are.
 
Once again über omega hyper minds found a bitter solution to the non-existent issue.

Sometimes, I see a little funny post and I simply, plainly just want to freakin like it - with a like button-. That's not that system breaking sociological backstabbing you play doughs. We are doing it every day at Tomshardware and surprise surprise nobody is getting killed.
 
You can like the post in your mind. If you only like something plainly, but not enough to write it and you have nothing else to say, it doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the first place. If you absolutely need to voice that appreciation, then you should post. Real, voiced/written appreciation is much more impactful and fun to see than a like.
 
I probably wouldn't have to look very hard to find academic evidence that it does. Countless social experiments have dealt with the impact of group dynamics. I haven't even touched on the fact that it makes people more likely to post stuff that they think will them upvoted rather than what they actually believe. Or that it inflates egos. Or that the upvote is an unequal parasocial interaction that I can't respond to. If someone posts something extremely stupid and 100 people upvote it, I can't then single out those people and try and challenge their views. It turns forums into more of a peanut gallery than they already are.

At least with Reddit, they've studied that upvotes tend to make good posters even better posters. If someone posts something stupid and 100 people upvote it, you don't need to single out those people, you single out the poster. The benefit of only having "likes" compared to "upvotes" and "downvotes" is that you don't have to compete against the people who say something stupid and get a massive amount of likes, and then you get downvotes dogpiling you for saying something contrary. You're more likely to amass your own likes. And even in my interactions on Reddit, probably about 85% of the time I post something contrary to whoever I'm replying to, I invariably end up getting upvotes instead of downvotes (not that they really matter). Some subreddits are more hive-minded and downvote happy to contrary opinions than others, but most of the ones I've been on (even the ones that have a significant amount of partisanship, like r/politics, and r/news) have users who are capable of recognizing content that helps contribute to the forum and stimulates discussion.

And as stated previously, Civil War Talk has a like system, and it doesn't have these kinds of things you think will happen here, and that site attracts folks who have openly racist views, and think the Confederacy was in the right. You instead see the same kinds of people liking the same kinds of posts, and it allows you to know who the sycophants are, and at a glance what kind of person you'll be talking to (example: user X likes user Y's post, but user X rarely posts anything at all. User Y posts something racist, and user X likes it. Now you know user X is likely a closet racist, they just don't say those things on the forum themselves.) If anything, it allows the members to actually get to know other members better.

Finally, for one more example, another forum I'm on that uses Xenforo is RPG Pub. They have Xenforo's like system, and it doesn't influence comments. An example from there; someone asked if I would post some of the academic and primary sources I have regarding the Three Kingdoms period. I posted a huge list of stuff (and I could make it even longer if I wanted to). Nobody replied to that specific post in itself (and I wouldn't expect anyone to); but I knew people read it based on the likes I received from it, even the people who weren't partaking in the thread itself. It at least shows that even if you don't get specific replies, people can still appreciate a post, and the vast majority of the time it's going to be for good posts rather that stupid ones.
 
Screenshot-20200422-063521.jpg

Screenshot-20200422-063540.jpg
Not to mention the 'tech' is there. All of this "you can quote it and reply if you have to" is a massive joke. :cautious:

You know what, this topic is for feedback and suggestions so I wish we had Facebook's emoji reactions under posts, but with an option to hide them. So people who wanted to quote and reply their feelings can do their antics as well.
 
Another strawman. Typical of someone who has no legitimate point.
And here quoted is both an argumentum ad hominem and an argumentum ad logicam. Spotting a fallacy is good for making a counter point. If you don't make one, it's kind of moot. Besides, we've already posted rather logical arguments and counter arguments. In response we got a repeat of your side's arguments and mocking. So don't be surprised we threw back the ball.
 
Last edited:
Another weak argument. Typical of someone who has no legitimate point. Surely your point can't be that you love to associate with racists?

If you really believe what I've said is a weak argument, I've got some oceanfront property in North Dakota that I think you should buy. You do realize those racists at Civil War Talk get banned? Stop with the guilt by association, it's uncivil.

And here quoted is both an argumentum ad hominem and an argumentum ad logicam. Spotting a fallacy is good for making a counter point. If you don't make one, it's kind of mind. Besides, we've already posted rather logical arguments and counter arguments. In response we got a repeat of your side's arguments and mocking. So don't be surprised we threw back the ball.

Sorry, but it is not an argumentum ad hominem. I have not attacked the character of Brutus, only that by his actions of resorting to strawmen, he must have no actual argument against what I have said (and he has not given a proper argument to anything that I've said). The only person who has even responded in any way that could be construed as an argument to what I've stated is Jacob. Additionally, what you've quoted from me is not argumentum ad logicam, because I have not asserted that because Brutus has only given strawmen that his point is false. I have asserted that because Brutus has not given any argument at all and only responded with strawmen, and accusing me with guilt by association, that he must have no legitimate argument against what I have said, for if he did, in the four posts that he has responded to anything I've said, he had ample opportunity to provide said argument. Instead; three times strawmen were made, and one time nothing was addressed at all.

No one has refuted what I've had to say in any response given to me. There is evidence where a like system in other forums around the web do not cause what is assumed it will cause here. Unless you have examples of other forums where a like system has done what you say will happen here, then by all means give them. Otherwise you're asserting that your speculation is more valid than the examples where a like system has not done what it is claimed it will do here. There is nothing about TaleWorlds forums that is special, different, or unique to suggest that a like system would stifle discussions here.
 
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.

The problem here is that people are already biased.
With a long standing forum such as this one, there are already dynamics between long time users.
I ,as a fairly new (active) member to this forum, can sometimes find myself being biased towards, recruts, people without profile pictures or pictures I don't like. If a rekrut is in a discussion with a member which I value more, I might be subconciously influenced to support either side.

And to be honest I don't think that everybody goes through all the conversation even though you should. Posting without reading is just easier.


The chance of an upvote system could be that it is anonymous. - However, I think an upvote system should only be in place for suggestion threads.
Suggestion threads are in need to be active so that developers or modders can see them. They have to fight for attention until they are recognized, I think that's why +1 is often spammed there. A voting system could work as a different indicator instead of the numbers of replys on such threads.
And while suggestions can cause discussions most of the time you are either pro or contra a suggestion. Also an upvote-system doesn't habe to exclude people from actually writing (as others have said before) And last but not least, with suggestions, the final decision to implement something is always with the person to implement a change.

A problem with the system could be that suggestions with a low count could be ignored by the majority of readers. But that is already a problem and I think it's impossible to solve.

I don't think that an upvote system should be in place for any other threads such as discussions or off topic.
Generally I am also think that a forum should be a place to talk and interact and while I do think that any form of bias can have a negative effect on all discussions, a like-system is not a solution here.


TL;DR :Like-System only for suggestion-threads, discussions and everything else should stay as they are.
 
The problem here is that people are already biased.
With a long standing forum such as this one, there are already dynamics between long time users.
I ,as a fairly new (active) member to this forum, can sometimes find myself being biased towards, recruts, people without profile pictures or pictures I don't like. If a rekrut is in a discussion with a member which I value more, I might be subconciously influenced to support either side.

I really dislike this system as well. At first it was kind of fun, but nowadays I hate having this giant phallic lance next to my name and I'm pretty sure it influences the way new users interact with me. It blows my mind that some select users are still saying stuff like "you're just a recruit". It's such an idiotic way to have a discussion. Even so I am fairly sure this sort of thing goes on people's heads.

If I ran the forum I would have automatic profile pictures for everyone (which you could remove if you wanted). Seeing some anonymous guy with a pitchfork next to my opulent avatar and sig is like the forum equivalent of a guy in rags talking to a guy in a suit. Simply being able to recognise people gets rid of some of this imbalance.

Suggestion threads are in need to be active so that developers or modders can see them. They have to fight for attention until they are recognized, I think that's why +1 is often spammed there. A voting system could work as a different indicator instead of the numbers of replys on such threads.

I would agree with you if the developers hadn't already ignored entire megathreads of carefully documented and organised game issues.

For modding or game-related question threads it makes sense for the author to be able to highlight the correct fix and have it displayed next to the post. But I don't think having an upvote system which anyone can contribute to is a good idea.
 
Back
Top Bottom