Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Mad Props for the new DISAGREE button!

124»

Comments

  • Surge_2Surge_2 Registered Users Posts: 5,644

    Surge_2 said:

    DeadbyDawn forum looks ok, gives no info on 'flags' and just gives info on upvotes. In that sense flags or complaints can't be misused.

    I get some won't like being downvoted (a lot) but it really doesn't bother me. My primary concern is not to get a personal stroke from people I don't know, just giving an opinion, If I think I'm right I'll say it, if people don't agree - shrug.

    Indeed so. I accept disagreements as people who just want to acknowledge that they are wrong.
    I mean... Sometimes people may also just... You know... Disagree? Everything isn't always binary..
    No, thats not possible. Anyone who disagrees with me, even @Vanilla_Gorilla who like me is always correct, is by default, wrong and simply wishes to document for their own peace of mind, that they are wrong.
    Beastmen

  • BonutzBonutz Registered Users Posts: 4,213

    I've already used it and regret doing so.

    Upvotes and downvotes are the reason why Reddit is a cancerous site, not simply because unpopular posts are subjected to crowd-sourced censorship, but because of 'psychic wounds' and emotional poison.

    You do not have to be 'over-sensitive' to feel the effects of a pile-on. Systems like this were designed with normalised individuals in mind; how they effect the average person. You only need to not deviate from that too far for the intended effect to work.

    What is the intended effect? In a practical sense specific to this forum, it's to stop people using the flag button on posts they simply disagree with it rather than ones that are uncivil, by giving them this as an alternative.

    I think this overlooks a possibly unintended chilling effect on forum users. On most sites that have implemented this, like Reddit, the intent is to modify behaviour and it is designed by behavioural psychologists to be effective on as many people as possible. If you make a popular post, you get rewarded with not only attention(humans crave this) but are informed of it's approving nature. If you make an unpopular post, there is also attention but depending on what the goals of your post were, it can be hurtful or corrupting to receive dislikes/disagrees.

    People who care about what others think, are conditioned to follow the crowd or stay silent. Other people are actively encouraged to behave worse, because any attention is better than no attention.

    In the absence of any specific explanation for why a post is down-voted, a good-faith poster is pushed towards reducing their participation. People will 'disagree' for *any* reason and without having to give a voice to it, the targeted person has to fill in the blanks. Replies that articulate a disagreement might be of low-quality, but can hoover up plenty of up-votes simply because they disagree; distorting and ruining any hope for constructive discussion.

    Or how about just grow a pair and stop caring so much about what other people think?

    Some people agree with you in life. Some others disagree with you in life. It's unavoidable. Just do you.
    I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I’m all out of bubblegum.
  • CaesarSahlertzCaesarSahlertz Registered Users Posts: 5,208
    I feel like that the "agree/disagree" on this forum is gonna have the exact same function as the "care" reatcion on facebook... You are never gonna know whether or not people are actually serious..
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,444
    Bonutz said:

    I've already used it and regret doing so.

    Upvotes and downvotes are the reason why Reddit is a cancerous site, not simply because unpopular posts are subjected to crowd-sourced censorship, but because of 'psychic wounds' and emotional poison.

    You do not have to be 'over-sensitive' to feel the effects of a pile-on. Systems like this were designed with normalised individuals in mind; how they effect the average person. You only need to not deviate from that too far for the intended effect to work.

    What is the intended effect? In a practical sense specific to this forum, it's to stop people using the flag button on posts they simply disagree with it rather than ones that are uncivil, by giving them this as an alternative.

    I think this overlooks a possibly unintended chilling effect on forum users. On most sites that have implemented this, like Reddit, the intent is to modify behaviour and it is designed by behavioural psychologists to be effective on as many people as possible. If you make a popular post, you get rewarded with not only attention(humans crave this) but are informed of it's approving nature. If you make an unpopular post, there is also attention but depending on what the goals of your post were, it can be hurtful or corrupting to receive dislikes/disagrees.

    People who care about what others think, are conditioned to follow the crowd or stay silent. Other people are actively encouraged to behave worse, because any attention is better than no attention.

    In the absence of any specific explanation for why a post is down-voted, a good-faith poster is pushed towards reducing their participation. People will 'disagree' for *any* reason and without having to give a voice to it, the targeted person has to fill in the blanks. Replies that articulate a disagreement might be of low-quality, but can hoover up plenty of up-votes simply because they disagree; distorting and ruining any hope for constructive discussion.

    Or how about just grow a pair and stop caring so much about what other people think?

    Some people agree with you in life. Some others disagree with you in life. It's unavoidable. Just do you.
    This kind of system is perfectly fine for people who are usually in the majority. Like fish who don't see water, they are unaffected. They can be themselves just fine.

    This kind of system is not designed to change them. It's designed to change others, no matter their character, morals or personality, if they express themselves in a way that others dislike. Not 'disagree', dislike, for any reason.

    It has one major unintended consequence, which you can see on every social media platform: it makes everyone who participates behave worse.
  • BonutzBonutz Registered Users Posts: 4,213

    Bonutz said:

    I've already used it and regret doing so.

    Upvotes and downvotes are the reason why Reddit is a cancerous site, not simply because unpopular posts are subjected to crowd-sourced censorship, but because of 'psychic wounds' and emotional poison.

    You do not have to be 'over-sensitive' to feel the effects of a pile-on. Systems like this were designed with normalised individuals in mind; how they effect the average person. You only need to not deviate from that too far for the intended effect to work.

    What is the intended effect? In a practical sense specific to this forum, it's to stop people using the flag button on posts they simply disagree with it rather than ones that are uncivil, by giving them this as an alternative.

    I think this overlooks a possibly unintended chilling effect on forum users. On most sites that have implemented this, like Reddit, the intent is to modify behaviour and it is designed by behavioural psychologists to be effective on as many people as possible. If you make a popular post, you get rewarded with not only attention(humans crave this) but are informed of it's approving nature. If you make an unpopular post, there is also attention but depending on what the goals of your post were, it can be hurtful or corrupting to receive dislikes/disagrees.

    People who care about what others think, are conditioned to follow the crowd or stay silent. Other people are actively encouraged to behave worse, because any attention is better than no attention.

    In the absence of any specific explanation for why a post is down-voted, a good-faith poster is pushed towards reducing their participation. People will 'disagree' for *any* reason and without having to give a voice to it, the targeted person has to fill in the blanks. Replies that articulate a disagreement might be of low-quality, but can hoover up plenty of up-votes simply because they disagree; distorting and ruining any hope for constructive discussion.

    Or how about just grow a pair and stop caring so much about what other people think?

    Some people agree with you in life. Some others disagree with you in life. It's unavoidable. Just do you.
    This kind of system is perfectly fine for people who are usually in the majority. Like fish who don't see water, they are unaffected. They can be themselves just fine.

    This kind of system is not designed to change them. It's designed to change others, no matter their character, morals or personality, if they express themselves in a way that others dislike. Not 'disagree', dislike, for any reason.

    It has one major unintended consequence, which you can see on every social media platform: it makes everyone who participates behave worse.
    Well then consider yourself lucky that you're not a sheep. Use dislikes as a badge of honor, guy.
    I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I’m all out of bubblegum.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,444
    Bonutz said:

    Bonutz said:

    I've already used it and regret doing so.

    Upvotes and downvotes are the reason why Reddit is a cancerous site, not simply because unpopular posts are subjected to crowd-sourced censorship, but because of 'psychic wounds' and emotional poison.

    You do not have to be 'over-sensitive' to feel the effects of a pile-on. Systems like this were designed with normalised individuals in mind; how they effect the average person. You only need to not deviate from that too far for the intended effect to work.

    What is the intended effect? In a practical sense specific to this forum, it's to stop people using the flag button on posts they simply disagree with it rather than ones that are uncivil, by giving them this as an alternative.

    I think this overlooks a possibly unintended chilling effect on forum users. On most sites that have implemented this, like Reddit, the intent is to modify behaviour and it is designed by behavioural psychologists to be effective on as many people as possible. If you make a popular post, you get rewarded with not only attention(humans crave this) but are informed of it's approving nature. If you make an unpopular post, there is also attention but depending on what the goals of your post were, it can be hurtful or corrupting to receive dislikes/disagrees.

    People who care about what others think, are conditioned to follow the crowd or stay silent. Other people are actively encouraged to behave worse, because any attention is better than no attention.

    In the absence of any specific explanation for why a post is down-voted, a good-faith poster is pushed towards reducing their participation. People will 'disagree' for *any* reason and without having to give a voice to it, the targeted person has to fill in the blanks. Replies that articulate a disagreement might be of low-quality, but can hoover up plenty of up-votes simply because they disagree; distorting and ruining any hope for constructive discussion.

    Or how about just grow a pair and stop caring so much about what other people think?

    Some people agree with you in life. Some others disagree with you in life. It's unavoidable. Just do you.
    This kind of system is perfectly fine for people who are usually in the majority. Like fish who don't see water, they are unaffected. They can be themselves just fine.

    This kind of system is not designed to change them. It's designed to change others, no matter their character, morals or personality, if they express themselves in a way that others dislike. Not 'disagree', dislike, for any reason.

    It has one major unintended consequence, which you can see on every social media platform: it makes everyone who participates behave worse.
    Well then consider yourself lucky that you're not a sheep. Use dislikes as a badge of honor, guy.
    That is precisely what causes so much incivility and flame-wars on Twitter, FB, Reddit etc; the people who are most-encouraged by it are the people who are always on the attack. They don't care whether the attention is positive or negative; it's all attention.

    I consider myself someone who would like to follow clear and straightforward rules, but there's almost no space on the web that has that. They are all set-up to give moderators maximum cover for any decision they might make and for communities to enforce mutual conformity, with the resulting toxicity then being presented as an anomaly rather than an inevitable consequence of doing things like this.

    Then come in the filters and automated bans for people using bad words and such, with every once in a while it being suggested that 'real names only' be introduced. It's control-freakery which does absolutely nothing to prevent abuse, enables a lot more of it and worst of all: creates a 'new normal' where you can just expect everyone to be awful by default.
  • MaelasMaelas Registered Users Posts: 2,927

    The issue is not 'disagreement'. The issue is something else, which is then dishonestly called 'disagreement'.

    It exists because it does what it's intended to and it works; it would not exist otherwise.

    Just think why Reddit is a cesspit. Good people, gentle people, kind people, thoughtful people, who just so happen to say the 'wrong' thing, are discouraged from posting.

    Spiteful people, angry people, creatively abusive people, who said something attention-grabbing, regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees, are rewarded for posting and motivated to do more.

    I think you make up problems and then get mad at those.

    Why can't kind persons grab attention ? I don't consider myself nor spiteful nor angry, yet I manage to get by on reddit without getting downvoted. Nobody is gonna get their self-esteem crushed by a reddit downvote. Nobody is gonna be a knightly lighting beacon of truth piled on by mean, wrong, downvoting goblins.

    Most of the things downoted deserves it. Have more faith in people. They have a surprising ammount of common sense.
    I believe in Slaanesh supremacy
  • MaelasMaelas Registered Users Posts: 2,927


    It has one major unintended consequence, which you can see on every social media platform: it makes everyone who participates behave worse.

    Nah, that's come from the internet being anonymous and free of consequences. Awful peoples exist everywhere on the internet, not just on social platforms. Some of the biggest platforms doesn't even have disagee buttons anyway (Twitter).
    I believe in Slaanesh supremacy
  • NemoTheElf101NemoTheElf101 Registered Users Posts: 1,924
    Maelas said:


    It has one major unintended consequence, which you can see on every social media platform: it makes everyone who participates behave worse.

    Nah, that's come from the internet being anonymous and free of consequences. Awful peoples exist everywhere on the internet, not just on social platforms. Some of the biggest platforms doesn't even have disagee buttons anyway (Twitter).
    This. Everyone acts differently online than in real life. There's probably a reason why people whose social lives revolve around social media tend to be a bit *extreme* when it comes to things.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,444
    Maelas said:

    The issue is not 'disagreement'. The issue is something else, which is then dishonestly called 'disagreement'.

    It exists because it does what it's intended to and it works; it would not exist otherwise.

    Just think why Reddit is a cesspit. Good people, gentle people, kind people, thoughtful people, who just so happen to say the 'wrong' thing, are discouraged from posting.

    Spiteful people, angry people, creatively abusive people, who said something attention-grabbing, regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees, are rewarded for posting and motivated to do more.

    I think you make up problems and then get mad at those.

    Why can't kind persons grab attention ? I don't consider myself nor spiteful nor angry, yet I manage to get by on reddit without getting downvoted. Nobody is gonna get their self-esteem crushed by a reddit downvote. Nobody is gonna be a knightly lighting beacon of truth piled on by mean, wrong, downvoting goblins.

    Most of the things downoted deserves it. Have more faith in people. They have a surprising ammount of common sense.
    I'm not saying they can't; I'm saying they do not get the same attention as hostile, aggressive and unconstructive posts, especially on 'social media' where other users have ways of publicly approving or disapproving them. It's been a topic of research for years and the evidence so far has only gone one way: https://phys.org/news/2021-04-negativity-chances-twitter-viral.html

    Companies selling SEO services tell their clients(social media influencers, content creators, advertisers etc) what grabs attention and has the most impact, what gets an algorithm to promote them even though social media algorithms are supposed to be feeding users 'relevant content' tailored to them: conspiracy theories, public feuds and outright illegal content appeal to the lowest common denominator. They get the most clicks, so the algorithms for social media sites promote them to a wider audience along with 'related content' and your posts are more likely to be weighed as related if they too are aggressive and strident.

    On Reddit, it's the same minus the algorithm; it's users promoting and discouraging posts as a direct democracy, but with the same outcome.

    On Twitter, people are still 'ratioed', it's just the difference between 'likes' and the other options for a tweet are used as the measure: generally if someone is getting more replies and quote-tweets than they are getting 'likes', their tweet is getting a negative reaction.

    The people being 'ratioed' into negatives the most are people encouraged by it: they are getting attention, they are not deterred but will keep going and even get worse, whether liked or disliked. The people most-affected however are deterred from any active participation at all. The ratio of active users who are constructive to those who are much less so changes, along with the overall tone and character of the site.

    I know nothing about you and I don't want to make assumptions. However, if you do not notice this, the most likely explanation is that you are not being affected because you are not stepping out of line with the majority view.

    The view that toxicity in web communities and sites is down to anonymity is old, and has very little to support it. You only need to point at the examples where real names or public personas at least are used(often on Twitter and Instagram) and see the same problem. Proposals for 'real names only' not only miss the point; they don't work, except to continue the tradition of misguided measures enabling abusers.

    Blizzard trialled 'Real ID' almost ten years ago, forcing all Blizzard account holders to have their real names shown. Curiously, Blizzard employees were exempt and this hypocrisy was called-out on the US Blizzard forums. Scoffing at the complaints, a Blizzard employee elected to turn-off their own pseudonymity to show the complaints as false. That lasted ten minutes.

    Within that time, links to images containing blanked-out sensitive details about that employee's entire life were posted, not to be toxic: but to show what anyone could anonymously do to someone they did not like if they had access to what Real ID would give them access to. Blizzard postponed the launch of it by months and when it came, it was no longer going to be mandatory or even opt-out: it was opt-in and only if the user was over 18.

    It's not anonymity or 'just the way of the world' that makes online communities into cesspits. It's the deliberate and misguided ideas the people running them have; and they are not incentivised to improve them, because they benefit so much from such places.
  • NemoTheElf101NemoTheElf101 Registered Users Posts: 1,924

    Maelas said:

    The issue is not 'disagreement'. The issue is something else, which is then dishonestly called 'disagreement'.

    It exists because it does what it's intended to and it works; it would not exist otherwise.

    Just think why Reddit is a cesspit. Good people, gentle people, kind people, thoughtful people, who just so happen to say the 'wrong' thing, are discouraged from posting.

    Spiteful people, angry people, creatively abusive people, who said something attention-grabbing, regardless of whether anyone agrees or disagrees, are rewarded for posting and motivated to do more.

    I think you make up problems and then get mad at those.

    Why can't kind persons grab attention ? I don't consider myself nor spiteful nor angry, yet I manage to get by on reddit without getting downvoted. Nobody is gonna get their self-esteem crushed by a reddit downvote. Nobody is gonna be a knightly lighting beacon of truth piled on by mean, wrong, downvoting goblins.

    Most of the things downoted deserves it. Have more faith in people. They have a surprising ammount of common sense.
    I'm not saying they can't; I'm saying they do not get the same attention as hostile, aggressive and unconstructive posts, especially on 'social media' where other users have ways of publicly approving or disapproving them. It's been a topic of research for years and the evidence so far has only gone one way: https://phys.org/news/2021-04-negativity-chances-twitter-viral.html

    Companies selling SEO services tell their clients(social media influencers, content creators, advertisers etc) what grabs attention and has the most impact, what gets an algorithm to promote them even though social media algorithms are supposed to be feeding users 'relevant content' tailored to them: conspiracy theories, public feuds and outright illegal content appeal to the lowest common denominator. They get the most clicks, so the algorithms for social media sites promote them to a wider audience along with 'related content' and your posts are more likely to be weighed as related if they too are aggressive and strident.

    On Reddit, it's the same minus the algorithm; it's users promoting and discouraging posts as a direct democracy, but with the same outcome.

    On Twitter, people are still 'ratioed', it's just the difference between 'likes' and the other options for a tweet are used as the measure: generally if someone is getting more replies and quote-tweets than they are getting 'likes', their tweet is getting a negative reaction.

    The people being 'ratioed' into negatives the most are people encouraged by it: they are getting attention, they are not deterred but will keep going and even get worse, whether liked or disliked. The people most-affected however are deterred from any active participation at all. The ratio of active users who are constructive to those who are much less so changes, along with the overall tone and character of the site.

    I know nothing about you and I don't want to make assumptions. However, if you do not notice this, the most likely explanation is that you are not being affected because you are not stepping out of line with the majority view.

    The view that toxicity in web communities and sites is down to anonymity is old, and has very little to support it. You only need to point at the examples where real names or public personas at least are used(often on Twitter and Instagram) and see the same problem. Proposals for 'real names only' not only miss the point; they don't work, except to continue the tradition of misguided measures enabling abusers.

    Blizzard trialled 'Real ID' almost ten years ago, forcing all Blizzard account holders to have their real names shown. Curiously, Blizzard employees were exempt and this hypocrisy was called-out on the US Blizzard forums. Scoffing at the complaints, a Blizzard employee elected to turn-off their own pseudonymity to show the complaints as false. That lasted ten minutes.

    Within that time, links to images containing blanked-out sensitive details about that employee's entire life were posted, not to be toxic: but to show what anyone could anonymously do to someone they did not like if they had access to what Real ID would give them access to. Blizzard postponed the launch of it by months and when it came, it was no longer going to be mandatory or even opt-out: it was opt-in and only if the user was over 18.

    It's not anonymity or 'just the way of the world' that makes online communities into cesspits. It's the deliberate and misguided ideas the people running them have; and they are not incentivised to improve them, because they benefit so much from such places.
    Then don't use those websites. I however have no problem with using sites like Reddit or Twitter because I think before I post and don't give into the ads and micro-transactions.

    There is a worthwhile debate on how social media shapes and reflects messages, especially when it impacts politics and current events, but a video game forum utilizing a "dislike" button to avoid flag abuse just isn't anywhere near that level of bad.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,444
    One forum, no. What about most of them though? Where do people go when they face hostility everywhere?

    Typically, much smaller communities with people who feel the same way or have the same standards when it comes to discussing topics. This though repeats problems of the early web: silo-ing. People become prone to group-think, not steered by the systemic nature of algorithms or ratings, but social-pressure. They become microcosms of the larger communities.

    Because smaller communities though tend to be much more resistant to change, they don't get reshaped so often by fads or suspiciously game-specific ideas, like 'unit diversity'. What happens instead though is they are more vulnerable to a few influential posters; they're not blown about by trends yet are not without direction, it just comes from within rather than the outside.

    The problem for me there: communities need rules for everyone to be able to participate fairly, therefore everyone should be answerable, specifically to those rules. The rules in turn must be clear and precise, not vague and open to interpretation to simply justify whatever the person in charge decides.

    That very simple idea is the one which both large and small online communities seem to just completely ignore, seemingly going out of their way to do so.
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025
    @CA - I would like a rebate on my hard earned 1,700 likes from the previous system, please.

    Hit "agree" if you think it should be monetary or "disagree" for a lifetime of free CA content.
  • BillyRuffianBillyRuffian Moderator UKRegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 39,622
    Fredrin said:

    @CA - I would like a rebate on my hard earned 1,700 likes from the previous system, please.

    Hit "agree" if you think it should be monetary or "disagree" for a lifetime of free CA content.

    You've still got the points you accrued from likes - it's just that you can't see them separately. Check your profile.

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts - for support rather than illumination." (Andrew Lang)

    |Takeda| Yokota Takatoshi

    Forum Terms and Conditions: - https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest

    "We wunt be druv". iot6pc7dn8qs.png
  • FredrinFredrin Senior Member LondonRegistered Users Posts: 3,025

    Fredrin said:

    @CA - I would like a rebate on my hard earned 1,700 likes from the previous system, please.

    Hit "agree" if you think it should be monetary or "disagree" for a lifetime of free CA content.

    You've still got the points you accrued from likes - it's just that you can't see them separately. Check your profile.
    Aha, forever enshrined in points are they? Consider me mollified, then.
Sign In or Register to comment.