Negative 'Downvoting' Removed

Unknown

I have to be honest, and I realize this might sound counterintuitive to many in the forum...

This strikes me as a pretty gutsy move by the devs, and has frankly earned some respect from me.

The problem with some using neg votes as "disagreements of opinion" is the simple fact that disagreements are the only way anything changes. If everyone always agrees with everyone for fear of "standing out," we end up with an echo chamber, with either a dev-positive or dev-negative vibe, depending on which way the wind blows, and who most and least benefits from each subject (the false dichotomy of "vet vs. noob" comes immediately to mind).

I've almost posted more than once and thought twice because I wasn't interested in getting negged, by another poster and least of all by a mod ( ).

What I've seen happening with regularity is a pig-pile in one direction or another, and I can't help thinking that there might have been someone who had a valid disagreement, but didn't want the mark of being a "negative" poster based on not agreeing with that particular herd on that particular topic on that particular day.

As for the perpetually crabby posters, well, that's what reporting is for. Anyhoo, I never thought I'd say this about something like this, but yeah, kudos to the devs for ironically opening an avenue for frank, unadulterated discussion.

DBC

Arondite

Drummerboycroy wrote:

I have to be honest, and I realize this might sound counterintuitive to many in the forum...

This strikes me as a pretty gutsy move by the devs, and has frankly earned some respect from me.

The problem with some using neg votes as "disagreements of opinion" is the simple fact that disagreements are the only way anything changes. If everyone always agrees with everyone for fear of "standing out," we end up with an echo chamber, with either a dev-positive or dev-negative vibe, depending on which way the wind blows, and who most and least benefits from each subject (the false dichotomy of "vet vs. noob" comes immediately to mind).

I've almost posted more than once and thought twice because I wasn't interested in getting negged, by another poster and least of all by a mod ( ).

What I've seen happening with regularity is a pig-pile in one direction or another, and I can't help thinking that there might have been someone who had a valid disagreement, but didn't want the mark of being a "negative" poster based on not agreeing with that particular herd on that particular topic on that particular day.

As for the perpetually crabby posters, well, that's what reporting is for. Anyhoo, I never thought I'd say this about something like this, but yeah, kudos to the devs for ironically opening an avenue for frank, unadulterated discussion.

DBC

I don't know, I agree that some people are too afraid of red thumbs, true. But at the same time, I think that's the fault of the person and not of the reputation system.

I'm one of the most opinionated, abrasive and boisterous people I've ever met (including these forums). Despite butting heads numerous times with lesser-known and more popular members alike, I've accumulated 2nd-page-on-the-members-list level reputation in 6 months. Why? I'd like to reason that it's precisely because I express my opinions honestly, zealously and reasonably. I'm loud, but I'm sincere and I stand by what I say. I think people respect that, and despite stepping on numerous toes, I've actually been downvoted 670 times fewer than I've been upvoted.

The community isn't as red-vote-happy as some would claim it is.

Unknown

Drummerboycroy wrote:

This strikes me as a pretty gutsy move by the devs

I...don't know that there's much courage involved in getting on board what most of the rest of the internet has already figured out long ago, that downvoting only ever leads to more hurt feelings which means more complaints for them to deal with. Most forums and comments sections have it disabled from day one. I was surprised they left it like that for as long as they did. Though to be fair, the amount of hate in this place is actually pretty low for a video game based forum.

pmorcs

do not care

Sword user

Never felt like downvoting until I was downvoted myself for only asking a question. My post didn't call for a nerf (which is what I assume it was downvoted for), but I could see how it might be interpreted as such. Being that there is no retort for the downvote, I think removing it is better. Community policing can only work when the community doesn't encourage over policing of even bringing up topics.

GothicKratos

I love that the tinfoil hats come out even in this very thread

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

I love that the tinfoil hats come out even in this very thread

Tend to agree.

MarvelDestiny

GK, I love how focused you are on tinfoil. Do you own stock in Reynolds Wrap?

GothicKratos

MarvelDestiny wrote:

GK, I love how focused you are on tinfoil. Do you own stock in Reynolds Wrap?

I'm actually Reynolds. You caught me.

Unknown

Guess we know who the next new character is then.

jimstarooney

Oh no! I enjoy my notoriety.

jimstarooney

Arondite wrote:

Drummerboycroy wrote:

I have to be honest, and I realize this might sound counterintuitive to many in the forum...

This strikes me as a pretty gutsy move by the devs, and has frankly earned some respect from me.

The problem with some using neg votes as "disagreements of opinion" is the simple fact that disagreements are the only way anything changes. If everyone always agrees with everyone for fear of "standing out," we end up with an echo chamber, with either a dev-positive or dev-negative vibe, depending on which way the wind blows, and who most and least benefits from each subject (the false dichotomy of "vet vs. noob" comes immediately to mind).

I've almost posted more than once and thought twice because I wasn't interested in getting negged, by another poster and least of all by a mod ( ).

What I've seen happening with regularity is a pig-pile in one direction or another, and I can't help thinking that there might have been someone who had a valid disagreement, but didn't want the mark of being a "negative" poster based on not agreeing with that particular herd on that particular topic on that particular day.

As for the perpetually crabby posters, well, that's what reporting is for. Anyhoo, I never thought I'd say this about something like this, but yeah, kudos to the devs for ironically opening an avenue for frank, unadulterated discussion.

DBC

I don't know, I agree that some people are too afraid of red thumbs, true. But at the same time, I think that's the fault of the person and not of the reputation system.

I'm one of the most opinionated, abrasive and boisterous people I've ever met (including these forums). Despite butting heads numerous times with lesser-known and more popular members alike, I've accumulated 2nd-page-on-the-members-list level reputation in 6 months. Why? I'd like to reason that it's precisely because I express my opinions honestly, zealously and reasonably. I'm loud, but I'm sincere and I stand by what I say. I think people respect that, and despite stepping on numerous toes, I've actually been downvoted 670 times fewer than I've been upvoted.

The community isn't as red-vote-happy as some would claim it is.

I always upvote this guy, I respect people that put their opinions across regardless whether people agree or not.

DD-The-Mighty

So is there another secret plan is the works for the excessive upvote baiting threads?

Unknown

raisinbman wrote:

Finally, the scattered darkness won't hide the trolls and haters. No longer can they disparage me with voting.

Those who seek to challenge me must do so in posts. Thusly, making ignoring easier and painless.

I stand as an equal to everyone else.


But I will miss downvoting things that are absolute tinykitty so that naive forumgoers would be wary of them.

Buret0 wrote:

community bullying

I'm not gonna comment any further cuz I'll get in trouble, but at least someone brought it up

Yeah, let's raise the flag of freedom and equality, truth and justice and maybe a hard-boiled egg thrown in... Also, let it be known that people like Jamie and Gothic are trolls and haters lurking in the scattered (scattered? really?) darkness of the grid, possibly to attack poor harrassed forum users on lightcycles.

Can I please have the downvote back briefly? Just for this post?
Or at least a "mark as butthurt" button?

No, seriously. I thought the downvote was good to mark trolling and similar and I occasionally used it for just that. But seemingly some people who get a downvote go on a ragefest/random downvote crusade because they seem to think it's a personal attack, so removing the function is probably for the best.

orionpeace

It seems to me that the people against down-voting are the same folks who think every kid deserves a trophy, win or lose, and that red marks on a graded paper are just too emotionally traumatizing for anyone to handle.

I'm not pro-down-voting. I just feel this move is accommodating the lowest common denominator.

I have never withheld a post because I was afraid of down-votes. I guess I just don't understand why a down-vote would actually bother anyone, at any time.

JVReal

I think it's a good move that shouldn't have to be necessary, but apparently is.

Look at all the definitions of negative, even the synonyms for negative are uncooperative, antagonistic, hostile according to dictionary.com. When you downvote a person, you are giving them negative reputation. You are saying that their post falls into the definition of a negative post, not a differing opinion.

Differing opinion does not equal uncooperative, antagonistic, hostile, of no positive value, etc.

When a person downvotes, thus assessing a person's comment as being negative, simply because they don't agree with it, that does not fall into the realm of what the downvote is for. Unfortunately, it has been used as exactly that... a lot.

When I first joined this forum, there was the debate of 8 hour refreshes vs 2 1/2 hour refreshes. I expressed my opinion about individual accountability in deciding how often and how long you play and was against 8 hour refreshes (currently I do enjoy them especially now that my scaling has increased dramatically since then) and I was immediately downvoted to the point of my post being hidden. That immediately gave me an indication of a hostile environment, not an environment interested in a debate, not interested in an exchange of thoughts or ideas. An environment where someone will express themselves and downvote anyone else that dares to disagree. It took a little bit for me to decide to post my opinion again if it was contrary to the 'flow' of the forum. That is not how it should be.

You don't agree? Why not? You have a different thought? Express it. If I don't agree, I don't upvote. If I don't agree, but I see your point or where you are coming from, I upvote. If you're comment is to dismiss my thoughts and simply say i'm 'butthurt', then I'll downvote and say why if I feel it's worth the ensuing wave of revenge downvotes.

Whether your reputation gets dinged or not should not be the reason you do or do not post. Your post should contribute in some way, whether it's to lighten the mood, to encourage, to agree, to disagree, or to call out some terrible behavior. If it isn't constructive in some way, if it doesn't make this place a better place, maybe it doesn't need to be out there.

I have a tendency to upvote a lot of posts. I always get frustrated when I get the little popup message saying that I can't upvote anymore, come back later. What's up with that? I'm being too positive... you put a leash on me? If you could remove that little thing, I'd be a happy camper. I have a positive thread out there and I like to upvote and comment on as many of the positive posts people put in there, and its frustrating when I can't do that because I've upvoted too many times. I'd appreciate a fix on that.

Unknown

Pros:
+ More people posting counterpoints?
+ Get rid of revenge downvotes.
+ Removes overall bad vibe from negative votes.

Cons:
- Unable to hide posts that should be hidden. Extra workload for mods.
- Encourages attention cravers to continue to make posts without content.
- Unable to see how much your trolling works if you're trying to troll. Now only those who respond can be counted.
- Forces non-consequential responses when one disagrees; is made worse by this forum layout. Increases meaningless post bloat.
- Stupid posts with a few upvotes will fool new players who don't know any better.
- People who post mob posts will have high reputation without the balancing of negative votes, further fooling people into respecting their opinion unwarrantedly.

Neutral:
= It's still not going encourage people to post when the mob is there. Such posts expressing a different opinion will still be seen as flamebait because of certain users' overreactions and inability to split arguments into points.

Overall, I'm against this, but don't see the harm in trying an experiment. It could work out.

orionpeace

JVReal wrote:

When a person downvotes, thus assessing a person's comment as being negative, simply because they don't agree with it, that does not fall into the realm of what the downvote is for. Unfortunately, it has been used as exactly that... a lot.

This is the problem.

People see an up-vote as agreement, an endorsement, or general approval of the way the message was delivered. If people, AGREE with your post, they often up-vote, if they are the type of forum visitor who is inclined to be interactive.

On the flip side, people see a down-vote has a hate fueled, vitriolic response rather than the opposite of an up-vote, which is merely an easy mechanism for expressing DISAGREEMENT.

In my opinion, if they removed the mechanism for easily expressing a negative response to a post, they should also remove the same mechanism for easily expressing a positive response.

Punisher5784

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. While I hated receiving thumbs down for an opinion, sometimes the other players made me realize what I said was wrong so it did help at times.

Some people love the 'hate' and do not mind the down vote. The best thing you can do now when someone makes a post you do not agree with, just ignore them, if players stop responding to that player (I can think of 5 off the top of my head), maybe they will stop posting.

JVReal

orionpeace wrote:

JVReal wrote:

When a person downvotes, thus assessing a person's comment as being negative, simply because they don't agree with it, that does not fall into the realm of what the downvote is for. Unfortunately, it has been used as exactly that... a lot.

This is the problem.

People see an up-vote as agreement, an endorsement, or general approval of the way the message was delivered. If people, AGREE with your post, they often up-vote, if they are the type of forum visitor who is inclined to be interactive.

On the flip side, people see a down-vote has a hate fueled, vitriolic response rather than the opposite of an up-vote, which is merely an easy mechanism for expressing DISAGREEMENT.

In my opinion, if they removed the mechanism for easily expressing a negative response to a post, they should also remove the same mechanism for easily expressing a positive response.

If that were the case, label them agree and disagree, and don't translate them into positive and negative reputation because tying the two together convolutes the definition of what they are... are they agree/disagree or are they positive/negative? The two sets are completely different.

A post you don't agree with shouldn't be hidden by negative feedback if it simply a post people disagree with. The fact that it hides the post after receiving a net of 5 negative feedback is indicative of the rating system being intended to hide and remove downvoted posts because of the negativity and inappropriateness of them, not worthy of being considered. It is not indicative of a system that simply says this is not a popular opinion.