Making Facepunch better - Don't post about ratings
5,003 replies, posted
[QUOTE=elevate;48152669]I think one of the mods here has done a few under-the-table name changes for people![/QUOTE]
The mod corruption is real
[QUOTE=Snowmew;48152632]While I like making long, drawn-out counter-arguments, not everyone is obsessively contrarian as I am.
I also cannot see how this explicitly benefits this cause. Nobody is going to say "oh, I can't post a disagree rating, guess I'll actually write something instead". Those people are now essentially cut off from contributing anything.
Very, [i]very[/i] rarely have I seen any posts which are wrong, but are in good faith and deserve a rational response. Most of the time, it's legitimate shitposting that doesn't deserve any recognition beyond a box. Those are the kind of posts which [i]should[/i] be disregarded in a manner of seconds without debate. They deserve no such thing because they are either blatantly inflammatory or just irrationally stupid.[/QUOTE]
We have found that the removal incentivizes chronic, opinionated raters to post in place in order to have their opinions heard. If they end up being "cut off" from the debate — we prefer that over having a user who took the effort and time to procure a persuasive argument to be 'dismissed' by a lazy, anti-intellectual action that does not address his post.
You may argue that there are genuinely terrible posts that warrant such abrupt dismissive behavior, and while they do exist — this decision was made after it became apparent that this feature was being abused aggressively in environments that did not warrant such actions. The abuse was consistent enough to where it was no longer a minority.
[QUOTE=Sand Castle;48152649]will titles or username changes ever come back, please answer[/QUOTE]
There are competitions every now and then were one of the prizes is gold or title change (or both). Just keep your eye out.
[QUOTE=elevate;48152669]I think one of the mods here has done a few under-the-table name changes for people![/QUOTE]
do you want to pm me telling me who it was
Mods can't change someone's username though.
[QUOTE=Robotboy655;48152657]Uh,probably not.[/QUOTE]
think i could get one just as an exception? i know there's not really anything special about me but i originally made this account as an alt and didn't put any effort in to the name -- i haven't made too many bad posts any time recently and this is kind of my main account now -- i'd really like to have a not suckass name
[QUOTE=Swebonny;48152718]Mods can't change someone's username though.[/QUOTE]
If we do bring back boostar, can we have the ability to change other peoples usernames? There is much fun to be had.
Agree/Disagree should atleast make a comeback in SH, you can't just strip people of giving their basic opinions on someone's thoughts
[QUOTE=~Kiwi~v2;48152733][img]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-XFX3zvdBEL8/VZ26gRkvO7I/AAAAAAAAFek/UGjDCW5Tf7Q/s0/2015-07-09_12-04-20.png[/img]
/shrug[/QUOTE]
Oh, yea when users request a title change or a name change we forward it to the admins in the mod forum. They do the actual change.
There's no corruption going on here.
:wink:
[QUOTE=Starpluck;48152703]We have found that the removal incentivizes chronic, opinionated raters to post in place in order to have their opinions heard. If they end up being "cut off" from the debate — we prefer that over having a user who took the effort and time to procure a persuasive argument to be 'dismissed' by a lazy, anti-intellectual action that does not address his post.
You may argue that there are genuinely terrible posts that warrant such abrupt dismissive behavior, and while they do exist — this decision was made after it became apparent that this feature was being abused aggressively in environments that did not warrant such actions. The abuse was consistent enough to where it was no longer a minority.[/QUOTE]
Can you actually provide a reasonable example of this abuse? This justification is still incredibly vague and makes the assumption that a poster covered in a pile of boxes or disagrees will stop posting (which is, more often than not, wrong).
SH is not separated from the rest of Facepunch, so you're basically saying that this rampant "abuse" is tolerable and accepted outside of SH. I can see that happening in fast threads, but again, this is Facepunch. It's not the Congressional record. Deal with the abusers, sure, but don't flat-out ignore the wishes and concerns of what's turned out to be the majority of SH users by instituting such a jarring change under the guise of abuse.
[QUOTE=elevate;48152669]I think one of the mods here has done a few under-the-table name changes for people![/QUOTE]
Gwilty has on rare occasions taken requests we've handed forward, for special circumstances like users who had old accounts and would like to use that name but keep their current joindate/postcount or whatever. Garry has since said 'stop that'
[editline]e[/editline]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/tMBjAIa.png[/img]
Someone get SlendyTheMan in here
[QUOTE=Starpluck;48152582]As reiterated prior — we do not believe the inclusion (or rather rating substitution) of an "Agree" or "Disagree" will change the Sensationalist Headline's rating-problematic behavior.
In response to my example of 'dumbing' a post, you held that having a "Disagree" would serve as a suitable replacement. My illustration of the example is not based on a rude or meaner rating such as 'dumb' which can be neutered down to disagree — but rather the impulsive tendency to disregard a post in a matter of seconds without debate — even as the poster deserved an elevated level of respect for taking several minutes to conjure his argument. This discourages the poster from continuing, and that act should only occur after a well-reasoned reciprocating response was directed at the original poster.[/QUOTE]
You're trying to make people post better by removing ratings? I don't think it's going to work that well. People aren't going to "take a minute" to think of a good response. They'll either not post at all or post a dumb reply and end up banned.
And wow, you could have said all that in half the words :v:
Probably won't be long before all ratings gets disabled across Facepunch entirely.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;48152582]As reiterated prior — we do not believe the inclusion (or rather rating substitution) of an "Agree" or "Disagree" will change the Sensationalist Headline's rating-problematic behavior.
In response to my example of 'dumbing' a post, you held that having a "Disagree" would serve as a suitable replacement. My illustration of the example is not based on a rude or meaner rating such as 'dumb' which can be neutered down to disagree — but rather the impulsive tendency to disregard a post in a matter of seconds without debate — even as the poster deserved an elevated level of respect for taking several minutes to conjure his argument. This discourages the poster from continuing, and that act should only occur after a well-reasoned reciprocating response was directed at the original poster.[/QUOTE]
Although wouldn't this erupt into verbal slap-fights between two, three or four posters all the time, followed by short 'I agree' replies from others?
Well... I have *dumb* idea...
[t]http://i.imgur.com/uqre3eu.png[/t]
Just an idea...
it's going to end up like tumblr where everyone's posting 'omg wow' or 'this' which are just different iterations of the same exact message
[editline]8th July 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Nicolas;48152878]Well... I have *dumb* idea...
[t]http://i.imgur.com/uqre3eu.png[/t]
Just an idea...[/QUOTE]
replacing the entire forum with just bda's posts? sounds great
[QUOTE=Nicolas;48152878]Well... I have *dumb* idea...
[t]http://i.imgur.com/uqre3eu.png[/t]
Just an idea...[/QUOTE]
how would you differentiate between informative, useful, and late?
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;48152881]it's going to end up like tumblr where everyone's posting 'omg wow' or 'this' which are just different iterations of the same exact message[/QUOTE]
friendly reminder that 'why reply' has always been a valid ban reason for those kind of posts [img]http://i.imgur.com/tMBjAIa.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Starpluck;48152582]As reiterated prior — we do not believe the inclusion (or rather rating substitution) of an "Agree" or "Disagree" will change the Sensationalist Headline's rating-problematic behavior.
In response to my example of 'dumbing' a post, you held that having a "Disagree" would serve as a suitable replacement. My illustration of the example is not based on a rude or meaner rating such as 'dumb' which can be neutered down to disagree — but rather the impulsive tendency to disregard a post in a matter of seconds without debate — even as the poster deserved an elevated level of respect for taking several minutes to conjure his argument. This discourages the poster from continuing, and that act should only occur after a well-reasoned reciprocating response was directed at the original poster.[/QUOTE]
How come you went to absurdly formal posting right after people poked holes through your idea?
Confusing them with big words "henceforth and forsooth" isn't gonna give you credibility like on dumber forums, as users of the site we'd really appreciate our input meaning something.
I think most of us know that this thread isn't a 'suggestion box', afaik nothing posted here is responded to except to say "you're wrong", let alone any changes enacted. I'm starting to think the purpose of this is just to divert the venting away from everywhere else and into a little corner where nobody has to pay attention to it.
I put a lot of money into my golden name goddamnit I wanna be entitled to something for it :v:
Well, at least there won't be any more people rating rape stories funny or winner just to get a reaction out of people anymore.
Anyway, I don't know how I feel about it just yet. Experiencing it a pro is that you feel less afraid to post something because you don't feel like you're going to get dumbed to oblivion, but a con is that making jokes has no feedback at all anymore. I'm surprised this is being done for the reason it is. SH has never really had any problem sparking massive 15 page long debates, and usually the mods end up shutting those threads down. I guess I wouldn't mind limited ratings, so getting rid of a few in that section as opposed to all of them.
I dunno, I just don't feel like there was all that much justification for doing it. Things was fine.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;48152881]replacing the entire forum with just bda's posts? sounds great[/QUOTE]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/harxrOv.png[/t]
As you wish...
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48152947]Well, at least there won't be any more people rating rape stories funny or winner just to get a reaction out of people anymore.[/QUOTE]
That's like saying at least we won't have to spend the bandwidth to download the icons anymore. It's such a non-issue that it's patently ridiculous. Who cares if someone gets their rocks off to being edgy? Rarely, if ever, have I seen anyone actually react to it.
Is it ok if I make replies just to say that the post is a winner?
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;48152927]Confusing them with big words "henceforth and forsooth"[/QUOTE]
If you get confused by "big words" like this, I think it's more of a personal issue rather than Star's "formal posting"
I dunno I still, as I said before, fail to see how ratings were the root of SH's problems, and I don't see how disabling them is going to improve anything. Even if it works out, it's just going to either:
A - Just turn into one giant echo chamber since, aside from a few hotbutton issues, most of FP thinks the same way about most things, so instead of some dumbs or disagrees at the bottom of a post, it will be pages of people probably saying the exact same thing to a post, and that's a pain in the ass to sift through, as opposed to clicking the MONSTROUS green check instead on a post that pretty much summed up what I wanted to say. I didn't have to post anything, but I could put my vote in that "this post represents what I wanted to say" - and putting your opinion out there is part of why the forum exists.
B - If people see a post they agree with and hit all the points they were going to make, they'll just end up sort of sitting in the background lurking, since there's not much point in just restating an argument that has been more or less made for you already, yet still without a way to actually say "I agree" without getting banned. That's what the ratings provided, a way to agree with an opinion that doesn't clutter up a thread with walls of text that were already said in a slightly different way by someone else.
So, it's either going to lead to, if it goes as planned, bloated threads with a nice big circlejerk (which in my opinion shuts out arguments or discussion far worse than some ratings at the bottom of a post) with people spouting the exact some replies more or less, or a few people will make a post that most viewers will probably agree with (which will happen with many threads, FP isn't exactly a hub of incredibly diverse opinions most of the time) and threads will be rather desolate, which sort of kills the fun of the forum.
Basically, ratings were a way someone could participate in a discussion without having to clutter up a thread with posts of people saying the exact same thing. Now you can say "Well, if someone summed up what you wanted to, don't post" which seems like the exact opposite of what the forum is for, after all, I'd assume most people are here to say their piece in one form or another, and rating were a way to do that without causing unnecessary amounts of large clutter. Sort of achieved a balance, I guess?
[QUOTE=dai;48152901]friendly reminder that 'why reply' has always been a valid ban reason for those kind of posts [img]http://i.imgur.com/tMBjAIa.png[/img][/QUOTE]
except what qualifies for that criterion? i see posts daily that are nothing more than a single word and hell even reported them for the 'why reply' reason and i never see people get banned for it
i'm not telling you how to do your job, but what exactly qualifies other than replying to a post and saying exactly 'i agree'?
edit: if it's not actually enforced then i can easily see it devolve into a cesspool-like mess
-snip, automerge breakers beware-
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;48152991]If you get confused by "big words" like this, I think it's more of a personal issue rather than Star's "formal posting"[/QUOTE]
Not me, but no jokes imo there's some problems with mod communication. They do whatever they want then have a complaints thread probably to patronize us - if ratings come back to SH it'll be the first time the mods have made a big decision based on community feedback that I'm aware of. That doesn't happen with other websites.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;48153017]Not me, but no jokes imo there's some problems with mod communication. They do whatever they want then have a complaints thread probably to patronize us - if ratings come back to SH it'll be the first time the mods have made a big decision based on community feedback that I'm aware of. That doesn't happen with other websites.[/QUOTE]
don't forget we do live in a communist forum, fellow american dog
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.