Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: +1
  • Subject: +1
Subject: +1

Posted by: American Recoil
That is why ideas people come up with never make it past just being an idea. There are always gonna be people, like yourself, who have to disagree and want to "-1" everything.
No, I'm disagreeing for a reason, which I stated. Even if I hit a "-1" button and didn't post doesn't mean I didn't have a reason for it. Perhaps someone else stated it, for example.

Posted by: Xplode441
Why do you feel that you need to give a negative score to a post you just don't agree with. Wouldn't it be more constructive to give reasons as to why you don't agree with the person instead of doing what you're doing right now?
Two reasons:

1) I may find it to be unhelpful, non-contributory, pointless, a bad argument, etc... which can help show to others that they feel the same way about it and may want to dismiss/ignore it.

2) Meta. If many users start rating posts they find helpful/useful/good/bad/unhelpful, it gives the site another piece of data to work with - the possibility of filtering my view to view the highest (potentially "the best") posts in the topic, eliminating/hiding posts below a certain threshold, etc...

As for posting reasons I agree/disagree with a post, while I personally do that, I won't do it in situations where:

- I want to lurk (being able to contribute to the site/discussion while lurking appeals to me a lot)
- When someone else has already posted what I would have (reposting is bad netiquette and kind of spammy)

However, there are other potential reasons I can think of where someone would like to contribute without posting, such as disagreeing with someone but the author doing so in such a manner that gets them blacklisted. If they have another outlet to give feedback, perhaps they will not make such posts.

  • 07.16.2012 2:39 AM PDT

After readin all of it finally, I'm going to have to disapprove....Simply because there's no real contribution being made to the community...

  • 07.16.2012 2:43 AM PDT

Posted by: Great_Pretender
Case and point: don't worry about it. Girls start getting boobies pretty soon, and then you'll have plenty of other things to think about. Being an Inheritor is not a life goal.
-TGP-

Posted by: dazarobbo
Two reasons:
1) I may find it to be unhelpful, non-contributory, pointless, a bad argument, etc... which can help show to others that they feel the same way about it and may want to dismiss/ignore it.

2) Meta. If many users start rating posts they find helpful/useful/good/bad/unhelpful, it gives the site another piece of data to work with - the possibility of filtering my view to view the highest (potentially "the best") posts in the topic, eliminating/hiding posts below a certain threshold, etc...

As for posting reasons I agree/disagree with a post, while I personally do that, I won't do it in situations where:

- I want to lurk (being able to contribute to the site/discussion while lurking appeals to me a lot)
- When someone else has already posted what I would have (reposting is bad netiquette and kind of spammy)

However, there are other potential reasons I can think of where someone would like to contribute without posting, such as disagreeing with someone but the author doing so in such a manner that gets them blacklisted. If they have another outlet to give feedback, perhaps they will not make such posts.

That's all I wanted to know, I just had no idea why you were simply posting -1 without offering an explanation as to why you felt that way. I feel bad for the posters who would have to live in a state of confusion, wondering why their post was voted negatively when there is no explanation.

  • 07.16.2012 3:24 AM PDT

When I grow up I want to be bitter and spiteful.

"i liked the reality where everything was on fire better"
-legato on remedial chaos theory

Despite the status quo bias most users of this site hold to anything they can perceive as "social-networking" or, much to the disdain of their trademark, "Facebook", there are in fact a wealth of perfectly logical reasons for opposing the implementation of a like/dislike system in the forums.

The primary issue concerning a like/dislike system is that it ultimately contributes nothing to discussion. What a like/dislike system does do is alter one's perception of a post. Fundamentally, it does not change the content of the post, but rather creates a bias in the reader for or against it. Rather than assessing the post yourself, you are already lead to believe that a post is good or bad, valid or otherwise. If one were truly to desire to improve discussion, they would seek to remove preconceived biases, not propagate more of them.

The second most bothering fault in a like/dislike system is it's usability. All a user has to do to back or fully discredit is click a button. In a real discussion, opinions must be backed with reasoning and argument. There must be an explanation to why something is true or false. If a person agrees with someone, it contributes nothing to a discussion, and thus has no place in it. A like/dislike system requires no argument and no reasoning. Helpful posts with developed points and argument can be completely invalidated by several dumb people clicking a button. Likewise, misconceptions can be promoted by countless masses even, and even if they are false, the majority rules.

This addresses the first of many fallacies inherent in a like/dislike system: the completely fallacious belief that the majority is correct. I can bore you to death with all the common fallacies and cognitive biases that will be promoted with such a system, but to be honest it's 6:30am and I'm rather tired. Anyone who is capable of reading knows that users of the Community Forum widely succumb to bandwagons, group mindsets, faulty axioms, and a variety of other 'circle-jerk' faults in reason. Popularity should not dictate the truth of a matter. To take these problems, and legitimize and promote them in a shiny new forum feature would simply make these problems worse.

Nothing brings me greater joy than reading what people have to say on a matter. While not everyone enjoys reading, there is always something to be gained from taking all users opinions on a matter into account, be it knowledge or simply perspective of a user. With a like/dislike system, users would be predisposed to read liked posts, and likely disregard unliked posts. In this matter, posts will not be read, information could be overlooked, and potential insight could be lost. It is nice to trust a system that could promote helpful ideas, but if everyone is focused on the promoted ideas, users will likely not double-check that an unliked post is invalid or holding potentially useful information. If a user does not wish to read every post, I would not like to install a feature that would facilitate their laziness.

The craziest thing is that a like/dislike system is not dictated by rules such as "is this point valid?" or "is this worth reading?". It is only restricted to whether you like or dislike it. While some may aspire to have a system that can find and emphasize valid posts, ultimately it will only show which posts users enjoy reading. This may deter completely valid posts for insulting users, just as it may promote useless posts because they are 'cool'. From this, an even larger problem can be seen, not just for those opposed, but also for those who would like this system. The issue is that not everyone shares the same opinion. People like different things. What the majority of users like, you may not, and the system be utterly useless. This system only works if your interests are aligned with the majority. If there is not a majority, there will only be contrasting opinions to which posts will be in a constant struggle of equilibrium between those who like and dislike a certain post. Clearly people who like a like/dislike system would not find my opinions and logic appealing, and would not enjoy them promoted.

Finally, I wish to address a viewpoint that is opposed to my own; that is to say, those who wish to see this system in place. I am disappointed in the lack of well-reasoned logic in favor of such a system. Most arguments I have seen are, at their roots, dependent on promoting self-serving laziness, or are ultimately built upon fallacy. What is even more upsetting is users who argue "it would be nice for me to like this post", or simply want something without providing adequate reasoning aside from "+1".

There is an opinion that instituting a like/dislike system would help to resolve spam posts that simply quote and agree with a post. This opinion is wrong. Better said, opinions cannot be valid or invalid; however, the logic behind this belief is in fact completely invalid. While such useless agreement posts would disappear as posts, they would not in fact be removed, but rather take a new form. Those that argue for progress should damned well know that hiding a problem does not solve it.

But taking useless agreement posts and forming them into likes/dislikes does not hide them. Such an act would empower and promote this spam, giving it an appealing form and legitimizing it as a valid and non-spam part of the forums. What is even worse is that such spamy agreement posts are now indistinguishable from "likes" that have been clicked for completely valid and logical reasons. You can see a +1, but you cannot see if this is agreement spam, or if it is elmicker.

Good morning to you, goodnight to me.

  • 07.16.2012 3:49 AM PDT

Quite creative for a simple notification system. I'm not against one, but I don't see the point of it being anything other than a +1 or a thumb up, whatever. I also find the double stamp thing a little useless if it's limited to 1-7 a day.

  • 07.16.2012 4:25 AM PDT

Posted by: Duck duck DEATH
Your post summed up most of the things I've been thinking about on this. The harsh reality is that the community will misuse the system and it will cause problems.

  • 07.16.2012 4:51 AM PDT

Key

@DDD, (only because I'm back to the old iPhone and don't want to quote all that), while you've made some valid points on the matter of whether or not a like system would get rid of the spam that it's implementation is (in theory) supposed to get rid of, you did make points about personal biases that I'd like to address.

You see, while I have no doubt you read all of the OP, you may have misread something somewhere. There would not be a dislike function in the system I am proposing. You could revoke an Approval you've already given, but no post would go into negatives. So the only preconceived notions people could have about a post would be positive because of the fact that finding some sort of problem with a post that has no Approvals or Likes is stupid due to the fact that it all has to do with when people who would Approve that post see it. If nobody's seen the post, nobody can Approve it.

So my point is that because people can't go into the negatives with this system, any opinions one might make before a post is made would be largely positive. Now, while that may my be good from a skewing of thoughts and opinions prospective, it's better than automatically hating a thread because 3 people "disliked" the OP for being too long.

  • 07.16.2012 6:38 AM PDT

Roll tide

Posted by: darthnazgul
Posted by: Mike_Bson
Posted by: darthnazgul
See the rapist.
I don't like rap.

*facepalm*

I don't really like the stamp of approval idea because if for posting people would get a reward for nice posts, people would only be making one post to get their "zinger" across for a stamp of approval, and then leave the thread. I got my upvotes, why should I keep sticking around?

And honestly, I know some of you hate quote spamming, but I think one of the most beautiful things on the internet is two pages of people posting the same quote. Don't get rid of that.

[Edited on 07.16.2012 6:51 AM PDT]

  • 07.16.2012 6:50 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

ODST Expeditionary Force I The WorkPLace I Mythics
Technically Mythic
Posted by: Cobravert
I just saw a green monkey nut shot a small tan lizard(?) in a gunny sack.


Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: chubbz

The concept of '+1', or 'upvoting', is the same no matter what. People are always going to get it stuck in their minds that having more of them makes them more important.

You know all of that crap you see on Facebook, 'Like/share if you do XYZ' or 'Like/share if you agree'? Prepare to see that plastered all over the Flood if anything like this is implemented. I like the idea of the system, but in the end it always turns out to be horribly mis-used.
Then you make the a bannable offense just like making a thread with a rigged poll is spam and therefore bannable. And the point of the Approve system would mainly be for posts. It could be implemented for threads, but even if it was there would just be a number next to the thread name. Everything would still be organized chronologically by the last post time.

That's the thing people aren't seeming to get from this. It's just a like system. It's not some sort of popularity counter. I mean, it could be, but (unlike the Waypoint system) this wouldn't be calculated in any form viewable by the general public or any regular user. Its just a less boring method of showing approval for a certain post.


You say it's not some sort of popularity contest, which is true if you look at the system by itself. What I don't think you're taking into account is the ways in which a community will find a way to incorporate it into something pointless, mundane, and nothing related to any good discussion.

I'll use an example. The other day I was on Facebook, and I saw a friend of mine had liked a photo. The photo was posted by someone else, and it was a picture of a bathtub spigot. The caption said 'Like if you take a shower/bath every day.' Something completely pointless and of almost no discussion value, yet it had tens of thousands of likes. The like system on Facebook was meant to do exactly what your system would be: a way to show approval for something. Yet it's being used by Facebook attention seekers(in lieu of the other word) to farm for photo likes. Now imagine that scenario here: some kid in the Flood makes a thread with the same title, links a picture of a bath, and asks for +1s. No discussion value, nothing of interest, just someone looking to get a punch of upvotes so he can brag about it.

You can explain the system, but not the community.

  • 07.16.2012 7:02 AM PDT

Key


Posted by: Comrade Napoleon
because if for posting people would get a reward for nice posts
A reward? Anyone who thinks that a little insignia on the bottom of their post from arbitrorizamazing74 is a huge accomplishment of any sort, the likes of which would necessitate leaving the thread on such a high note as that has to "sort out [their] priorities" (as Ron Weasley would say).

people would only be making one post to get their "zinger" across for a stamp of approval and then leave the thread. I got my upvotes, why should I keep sticking around?Why would they? The point of a forum is to discuss things. People come on here to discuss things. Sure, there might be a few people who start posting just for Approvals, but the vast majority of the people who come here (I think) realize that they come here for discussion and so taking away their means of facilitating discussion (by not posting after having posted the aforementioned "zinger") would be counterproductive to the whole reason why they're here (on BNet).

And honestly, I know some of you hate quote spamming, but I think one of the most beautiful things on the internet is two pages of people posting the same quote. Don't get rid of that.Beautiful? Quote-posting is beautiful? No it isn't. It's annoying, repetitive, and is 10x better at defacilitating discussion than any like/dislike system could/would be.

  • 07.16.2012 7:02 AM PDT

Clutchin' is a habit! 7th Column fo' lyfe


Posted by: NewRadical12
I'd be neutral on it. I don't have a problem with people simply quoting others to express agreement as much as some people seem to, but I can see the benefits of an up- and down-voting system for individual posts.

I especially like the idea of being able to see who has liked a certain post.


yup

  • 07.16.2012 8:08 AM PDT

Key


Posted by: chubbz

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: chubbz

The concept of '+1', or 'upvoting', is the same no matter what. People are always going to get it stuck in their minds that having more of them makes them more important.

You know all of that crap you see on Facebook, 'Like/share if you do XYZ' or 'Like/share if you agree'? Prepare to see that plastered all over the Flood if anything like this is implemented. I like the idea of the system, but in the end it always turns out to be horribly mis-used.
Then you make the a bannable offense just like making a thread with a rigged poll is spam and therefore bannable. And the point of the Approve system would mainly be for posts. It could be implemented for threads, but even if it was there would just be a number next to the thread name. Everything would still be organized chronologically by the last post time.

That's the thing people aren't seeming to get from this. It's just a like system. It's not some sort of popularity counter. I mean, it could be, but (unlike the Waypoint system) this wouldn't be calculated in any form viewable by the general public or any regular user. Its just a less boring method of showing approval for a certain post.


You say it's not some sort of popularity contest, which is true if you look at the system by itself. What I don't think you're taking into account is the ways in which a community will find a way to incorporate it into something pointless, mundane, and nothing related to any good discussion.

I'll use an example. The other day I was on Facebook, and I saw a friend of mine had liked a photo. The photo was posted by someone else, and it was a picture of a bathtub spigot. The caption said 'Like if you take a shower/bath every day.' Something completely pointless and of almost no discussion value, yet it had tens of thousands of likes. The like system on Facebook was meant to do exactly what your system would be: a way to show approval for something. Yet it's being used by Facebook attention seekers(in lieu of the other word) to farm for photo likes. Now imagine that scenario here: some kid in the Flood makes a thread with the same title, links a picture of a bath, and asks for +1s. No discussion value, nothing of interest, just someone looking to get a punch of upvotes so he can brag about it.

You can explain the system, but not the community.
I may be looking at this wrong, but the whole "Like if ______." scenario seems like spam to me and, as I've said before in this thread (at least, I think I have), it would be just as much of a bannable offense as rigged polls.

  • 07.16.2012 8:17 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

ODST Expeditionary Force I The WorkPLace I Mythics
Technically Mythic
Posted by: Cobravert
I just saw a green monkey nut shot a small tan lizard(?) in a gunny sack.


Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: chubbz

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: chubbz

The concept of '+1', or 'upvoting', is the same no matter what. People are always going to get it stuck in their minds that having more of them makes them more important.

You know all of that crap you see on Facebook, 'Like/share if you do XYZ' or 'Like/share if you agree'? Prepare to see that plastered all over the Flood if anything like this is implemented. I like the idea of the system, but in the end it always turns out to be horribly mis-used.
Then you make the a bannable offense just like making a thread with a rigged poll is spam and therefore bannable. And the point of the Approve system would mainly be for posts. It could be implemented for threads, but even if it was there would just be a number next to the thread name. Everything would still be organized chronologically by the last post time.

That's the thing people aren't seeming to get from this. It's just a like system. It's not some sort of popularity counter. I mean, it could be, but (unlike the Waypoint system) this wouldn't be calculated in any form viewable by the general public or any regular user. Its just a less boring method of showing approval for a certain post.


You say it's not some sort of popularity contest, which is true if you look at the system by itself. What I don't think you're taking into account is the ways in which a community will find a way to incorporate it into something pointless, mundane, and nothing related to any good discussion.

I'll use an example. The other day I was on Facebook, and I saw a friend of mine had liked a photo. The photo was posted by someone else, and it was a picture of a bathtub spigot. The caption said 'Like if you take a shower/bath every day.' Something completely pointless and of almost no discussion value, yet it had tens of thousands of likes. The like system on Facebook was meant to do exactly what your system would be: a way to show approval for something. Yet it's being used by Facebook attention seekers(in lieu of the other word) to farm for photo likes. Now imagine that scenario here: some kid in the Flood makes a thread with the same title, links a picture of a bath, and asks for +1s. No discussion value, nothing of interest, just someone looking to get a punch of upvotes so he can brag about it.

You can explain the system, but not the community.
I may be looking at this wrong, but the whole "Like if ______." scenario seems like spam to me and, as I've said before in this thread (at least, I think I have), it would be just as much of a bannable offense as rigged polls.


Which is true, but if you're going to treat it as such, you're giving the mods a whole new area they have to learn, and moderate. Spam in the Flood is bad enough as it is.

  • 07.16.2012 8:47 AM PDT

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
So the only preconceived notions people could have about a post would be positive
That is still a bad thing though.

  • 07.16.2012 8:56 AM PDT

Key


Posted by: chubbz

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: chubbz

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: chubbz

The concept of '+1', or 'upvoting', is the same no matter what. People are always going to get it stuck in their minds that having more of them makes them more important.

You know all of that crap you see on Facebook, 'Like/share if you do XYZ' or 'Like/share if you agree'? Prepare to see that plastered all over the Flood if anything like this is implemented. I like the idea of the system, but in the end it always turns out to be horribly mis-used.
Then you make the a bannable offense just like making a thread with a rigged poll is spam and therefore bannable. And the point of the Approve system would mainly be for posts. It could be implemented for threads, but even if it was there would just be a number next to the thread name. Everything would still be organized chronologically by the last post time.

That's the thing people aren't seeming to get from this. It's just a like system. It's not some sort of popularity counter. I mean, it could be, but (unlike the Waypoint system) this wouldn't be calculated in any form viewable by the general public or any regular user. Its just a less boring method of showing approval for a certain post.


You say it's not some sort of popularity contest, which is true if you look at the system by itself. What I don't think you're taking into account is the ways in which a community will find a way to incorporate it into something pointless, mundane, and nothing related to any good discussion.

I'll use an example. The other day I was on Facebook, and I saw a friend of mine had liked a photo. The photo was posted by someone else, and it was a picture of a bathtub spigot. The caption said 'Like if you take a shower/bath every day.' Something completely pointless and of almost no discussion value, yet it had tens of thousands of likes. The like system on Facebook was meant to do exactly what your system would be: a way to show approval for something. Yet it's being used by Facebook attention seekers(in lieu of the other word) to farm for photo likes. Now imagine that scenario here: some kid in the Flood makes a thread with the same title, links a picture of a bath, and asks for +1s. No discussion value, nothing of interest, just someone looking to get a punch of upvotes so he can brag about it.

You can explain the system, but not the community.
I may be looking at this wrong, but the whole "Like if ______." scenario seems like spam to me and, as I've said before in this thread (at least, I think I have), it would be just as much of a bannable offense as rigged polls.


Which is true, but if you're going to treat it as such, you're giving the mods a whole new area they have to learn, and moderate. Spam in the Flood is bad enough as it is.
It's just as easy as telling police "If you see any people covered in somebody else's blood holding a knife... make sure to arrest them."

People who want "likes" or "Approvals" are going to be pretty obnoxious and obvious about it, or else that defeats the point of asking for them. The more people know that you want likes, the more likes you get.

  • 07.16.2012 9:15 AM PDT

Key


Posted by: AcedannyK 7
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
So the only preconceived notions people could have about a post would be positive
That is still a bad thing though.
Obviously, but it's nowhere near as bad as people constantly putting others down just to go along with a supposed crowd because the post has 3 dislikes on it.

  • 07.16.2012 9:15 AM PDT

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: AcedannyK 7
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
So the only preconceived notions people could have about a post would be positive
That is still a bad thing though.
Obviously, but it's nowhere near as bad as people constantly putting others down just to go along with a supposed crowd because the post has 3 dislikes on it.
We're still going to need Bandwagon Breakdown Insurance with the number of people jumping on them with a like/approval system though, trust me.

  • 07.16.2012 9:35 AM PDT

-Avatar-

I work for the Department of Defense.

I'm honestly 100% for it. Most forums are overrun with stupidity and any insightful thread is usually lost into the chaos that is "hurr durr whats ur favorite soda!"

I know some forums don't have "discussion" as their main objective but jesus christ it's just nasty out there.

I'm fine with a reddit-esque system. Yes there will be circle- blam's, but that is a compromise I suppose.

  • 07.16.2012 9:43 AM PDT

Key


Posted by: AcedannyK 7
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: AcedannyK 7
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55
So the only preconceived notions people could have about a post would be positive
That is still a bad thing though.
Obviously, but it's nowhere near as bad as people constantly putting others down just to go along with a supposed crowd because the post has 3 dislikes on it.
We're still going to need Bandwagon Breakdown Insurance with the number of people jumping on them with a like/approval system though, trust me.
Like I've indirectly implied in the past post, I recognize that the "Approval"-Bandwagon is/would be a problem. At the same time, I know I'm kind of placing a blanket of insignificance on my own idea, but they're just likes (approvals, whatever). It doesn't go on someone's profile as a number they can brag about ("I have 900 likes on my posts and you only have 700. I'm better than you and my opinions are better than yours."), it would give anyone any perks (titles, avatars, themes, etc. for x amount of total likes), and caring about likes in general is an overall silly thing to do, and most of the more seasoned of members won't care about them other than for seeing who agrees with any given opinion or post.

Sure, things are going to be different in The Flood. But isn't almost every facet of the way the Community Forum works different in The Flood? It's always utilized features differently and had different traits as a community despite many of the users of it also being Septagon regulars. Attempting to mold a feature so that it will work the same and be used the same in the Septagon as in The Flood is a pointless endeavor.

  • 07.16.2012 9:55 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Legendary Member

ODST Expeditionary Force I The WorkPLace I Mythics
Technically Mythic
Posted by: Cobravert
I just saw a green monkey nut shot a small tan lizard(?) in a gunny sack.


Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

It's just as easy as telling police "If you see any people covered in somebody else's blood holding a knife... make sure to arrest them."

People who want "likes" or "Approvals" are going to be pretty obnoxious and obvious about it, or else that defeats the point of asking for them. The more people know that you want likes, the more likes you get.


You're still missing the mark. Continuing with your comparison, the police would then just arrest the guy without figuring out why he was covered in blood, holding a knife, due process, etc etc. Which isn't possible.

In the sense of the mods here, they'd have to figure out whether someone has alot of upvotes because of spam, or whether people just genuinely liked what they said. They would have to moderate that the same way they moderate everything else, which is pretty complicated, if the testimonials of the mods are to be believed. Sure, some instances of 'abuse' of this will be cut and dried and easily to handle, but there will be other aspects that will harder to adjust to.

Again, I'm not sure if this is all a good enough reason to not have the feature, because it isn't a bad idea, but it's making sure that the feature will work in the best way possible. I think that's why we haven't seen the addition of many of the suggested features over the years. The Webteam will know what will work, so I guess we can just wait and see what happens.

[Edited on 07.16.2012 10:07 AM PDT]

  • 07.16.2012 10:06 AM PDT

Key


Posted by: chubbz

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

It's just as easy as telling police "If you see any people covered in somebody else's blood holding a knife... make sure to arrest them."

People who want "likes" or "Approvals" are going to be pretty obnoxious and obvious about it, or else that defeats the point of asking for them. The more people know that you want likes, the more likes you get.


You're still missing the mark. Continuing with your comparison, the police would then just arrest the guy without figuring out why he was covered in blood, holding a knife, due process, etc etc. Which isn't possible.

In the sense of the mods here, they'd have to figure out whether someone has alot of upvotes because of spam, or whether people just genuinely liked what they said. They would have to moderate that the same way they moderate everything else, which is pretty complicated, if the testimonials of the mods are to be believed. Sure, some instances of 'abuse' of this will be cut and dried and easily to handle, but there will be other aspects that will harder to adjust to.

Again, I'm not sure if this is all a good enough reason to not have the feature, because it isn't a bad idea, but it's making sure that the feature will work in the best way possible. I think that's why we haven't seen the addition of many of the suggested features over the years. The Webteam will know what will work, so I guess we can just wait and see what happens.
I understand what you're saying now, and I agree that adding one more thing to moderate is like throwing another bag on the mule's back, but, like I said, they're just likes. They don't count for anything. If someone's being blatant about it and get's banned for spam, then they get banned for spam. If they do it via PMs or Private Groups and don't get caught, then what becomes of the situation? There's a bunch of stamps on their post and it appears that lots of people like their idea(s). In the grand scheme of things, that's not really a big deal.

It's not like, say, the "Half a T-Shirt Debacle" where people were accused of spamming or asking for people to rig the system for them so that they could receive a prize. It would just be people begging for likes so they could feel good about themselves or be supre populr on da internetz or whatever other reason people have for doing stuff like that.

It's a victimless crime, essentially, when it's not done in a spammy way in-thread.

[Edited on 07.16.2012 10:17 AM PDT]

  • 07.16.2012 10:16 AM PDT

Hey I am a big Bungie fan ever since I played Halo 2. I love the series, I love Bungie. I have made a few Bungie logos in my metal shop.

I like it

  • 07.16.2012 10:41 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

SPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!

I think this idea, while essentially the same thing, is still better than a "like" button. It seems to be more about approval and negating pointless replies than just like whoring. I'm sure were this implemented some people would use it as another method of whoring, but they'd probably find some other way to do that anyway. They can be dealt with.

I like the idea of the logos, but not in a drop down menu. I only see problems arising from that sort of addition. I think you should be able to customize your own little Destiny Logo, but not apply it to other posts. Honestly, I think that the logo thing should only potentially apply to threads themselves. I wouldn't mind thread rating system, but a reply rating system is just too much with little benefit. I still don't like the idea of displaying rainbow vomit logos, but some compromise could probably be made. I also think its a terrible idea to list who approved or '+1ed'. Generally anonymous listing will work fine, and people can reply if the '+1ed", though that would likely add to the "QFT" nonsense, that doesn't really bother me.

Also, I know that double-Z fellow didn't include it in the OP, but some people have been discussing '-1' and I think that would be a terrible thing to implement. If you disagree, reply. On boards where I've seen negative ratings, the primary reaction from down voted users is just anger and responsive negativity. There is absolutely no benefit to be gained from down voting. None. All it does is piss people off and cause them to be more juvenile, or give trolls a "power level" to contrast and compare. No negatives or downvotes or -1.

So all in all I am behind that double-z fellow's idea. I'd just rather it was displayed and implemented differently than he suggested.

  • 07.16.2012 10:56 AM PDT

Key


Posted by: evilcam
I think this idea
You're one of few it seems.

I like the idea of the logos, but not in a drop down menu Like other things, that was put in there as a pacifier (this time for those who wouldn't want to see all the logos.

Honestly, I think that the logo thing should only potentially apply to threads themselves. I wouldn't mind thread rating system, but a reply rating system is just too much with little benefit. I can understand that point of view, as more people read OPs than they do any given post in a thread. Also, I can see the benefits of localizing the approvals and stamps to the OP as opposed to seeing them scattered all over the place. But, I can still see a reason to have it on individual posts, as well.

I still don't like the idea of displaying rainbow vomit logos, but some compromise could probably be made.What about all of it being from one blue-ish pallet (to go with the bungie logo, but still stand out from the grey background), and then having smaller brush options to allow greater customization along with the smaller color-range?

I also think its a terrible idea to list who approved or '+1ed'. Generally anonymous listing will work fineWhile I'm strongly against people who claim a system like this will halt any sort of discussion, I think that changing from a system of pointless posts that identify you as approving an idea to a system where you anonymously approve of something is a big downgrade. There's no reason to anonymously express approval of an idea. If you're going to say "this person's forge map is good and should be in matchmaking", why hide the fact that you're approving that idea? You're not admitting to supporting the German National Socialist Party or the Damn Illinois -blam!-s. You're approving of a forge map.

On boards where I've seen negative ratings, the primary reaction from down voted users is just anger and responsive negativityWhile I can't testify as having been on a forum where this was implemented (unless you count YouTube), I can only imagine what would happen (especially in The Flood).

So all in all I am behind that double-z fellow's idea.Thank you.

I'd just rather it was displayed and implemented differently than he suggested. h8 u 2.

  • 07.16.2012 11:56 AM PDT

-Avatar-

I work for the Department of Defense.


Posted by: evilcam


The lack of a -1 is pretty important. It's unfortunate that the system would have to be gutted for it to be clean. The downvote feature is overused and highly highly abused for a "that guy sucks" button.

All this speculation of implementing a system that actually gives us a somewhat user-designated post system only reminds me that I feel there is simply no way Achronos would be for it.

:/

  • 07.16.2012 12:43 PM PDT