LoL Option Gone?!

IrishGirlGamer

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

... Honestly I havent even paid attention to any flags on my posts. It really doesnt matter to me personally. Hell click insightful all you wish. Awesome too ...

If it really doesn't matter to you, then let's get rid of all the buttons right now. No +1s, no karma, no nothing. No one gets attacked or whatever and no one gets their little ego stroked. You get nothing.

You just get to communicate. How novel.

Dru1076 wrote: »

In the meantime, I'm starting to look like a genius with how many insightful flags I picked up yesterday...

Me, too. Thanks all.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

IrishGirlGamer wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

... Honestly I havent even paid attention to any flags on my posts. It really doesnt matter to me personally. Hell click insightful all you wish. Awesome too ...

If it really doesn't matter to you, then let's get rid of all the buttons right now. No +1s, no karma, no nothing. No one gets attacked or whatever and no one gets their little ego stroked. You get nothing.

You just get to communicate. How novel.

Dru1076 wrote: »

In the meantime, I'm starting to look like a genius with how many insightful flags I picked up yesterday...

Me, too. Thanks all.

Just because I personally dont care one way or the other doesnt mean I get to speak for everyone. I assume these flags are here for a reason. If people abuse them then they arent serving a purpose. I just thyink instead of removing the flags they should remove the people using them for something other than whats intended.

Karnus

This is going to insight a forum riot!

Seriously though, was "lol" really that offensive?

DanielMaxwell

Karnus wrote: »

This is going to insight a forum riot!

Seriously though, was "lol" really that offensive?

apparently it was to some people , oh well live and learn

Kevinmon

The removal of the LOL button is an egregious error by the devs. By doing so, they are catering to the lowest common denominator. There is an age gate every time you load a webpage here, yet all humor has been censored from the forums.

WebBull

Posted this in another thread which it didn't actually belong in.....

Well by removing the LOL button you folks created a situation you didn't want or need. You changed something that wasn't broken, for the worst.

What is truly shocking is the sensitivity towards something as silly as a disagree button or LOL button. Apparently no one at ESO has see any of the in game zone chats. Might want to focus there first before worrying about LOL.

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO

WebBull wrote: »

Posted this in another thread which it didn't actually belong in.....

Well by removing the LOL button you folks created a situation you didn't want or need. You changed something that wasn't broken, for the worst.

What is truly shocking is the sensitivity towards something as silly as a disagree button or LOL button. Apparently no one at ESO has see any of the in game zone chats. Might want to focus there first before worrying about LOL.

These people dont monitor the game tho. They monitor the forums. In a perfect world they woudlnt have had to remove it but this isnt a perfect world lol.

stewhead2ub17_ESO

The whole thing just seems weird. How about a "That's funny" button?? I always used it when I thought someone said something amusing to me. Humanit....*facepalm*

Valen_Byte

In all seriousness, Zo$ created this issue for themselves a long time ago when they removed the Disagree button. So, the internet did what the internet does, it adapted. Now they take away the second Disagree button. The internet adapted again. The use of the insightful button is nothing more than tongue and cheek at this point. But it may stick.

I mean, what do we have now? We have three agree buttons?? How perfectly, politically correct. Participation medals for everyone!!!

We should have two buttons, Agree and Disagree. Or no buttons at all.

Otherwise, the internet WILL adapt.

P.S. Thanks to the "new" LOL...I finaly got my fifth star!!! THANK YOU INTERWEBS!! LOINSIGHTFUL!!!

Iluvrien

Kevinmon wrote: »

The removal of the LOL button is an egregious error by the devs. By doing so, they are catering to the lowest common denominator. There is an age gate every time you load a webpage here, yet all humor has been censored from the forums.

I think the opposite. I think by including it they were catering to the lowest common denominator.

A person sees a post that they think is filled with errors they:

1) Hit "LOL". The OP and the world can see that at least one person thinks that it is either actually amusing or stupid.

2) Respond to the post with an explanation of why they disagree with the points made or why attempting to make those points wasn't a good idea.

Which, out of those two, requires less input, energy and thought from person?

Hitting "LOL" takes a few seconds and requires about the degree of rational consideration that I might give to deciding whether to actually breathe out or not. That, for me and possibly me alone, is your lowest common denominator.

Someone in this thread said that this is a discussion forum not a popularity contest. I agree. Requiring people to actually share an opinion as part of a discussion isn't a bad thing, it really isn't. It has also been suggested that this is catering to the "everyone gets a prize" generation/idea. Not for me, for me the "LOL" button was already catering to the people who just couldn't be bothered to share what might actually have been a very useful set of opinions/insights.

wraith808

Winnower wrote: »

there should be 2 buttons; like on reddit. vote up or vote down.

Have you ever moused over the vote down button, looked at the tooltip, and seen just how wrong you are?

The vote down button on Reddit is *not* a disagree, but an 'off topic' button.

In fact, in the ESO subreddit, it says "For inappropriate comments or submissions". Which isn't disagree.

But hey, who reads such things anyway...

Nazon_Katts

wraith808 wrote: »

DanielMaxwell wrote: »

no misreading , if you intended it to be generic you should have proof read it to make sure it was generic . Replacing you with with "any one" in the first sentence would have made it generic . As it currently reads it is a vield attempt to accuse some one of abusing the flag system buttons .

This is the second time I've come across something like this. Someone says you meant this... and try to use your words against you. You say no... and clarify.

And then they continue to tread on your intent. Where's the sense in that?

Hm, I wouldn't call an advice on wording to prevent future misunderstandings 'continuing to tread on someone's intent', but apparently there's more ways to read and interpret a text than just one.

Tintinabula

Look, playing dumb is for kids. I know if I mean something to be funny. I usually end it with a :P..or an lol. If I am responding in a heated thread about an issue and I'm not being disrespectful but showing another side to the story and I get 40 LOLs in the course of ten minutes..they're not laughing with me(obviously i wasn't trying to be funny)..they're laughing AT me. It's some strange attempt to change my posting behavior. It may work on a few but not me.

It was done too many times and now..ya can't.

ZOS_TristanK

Hey, all. Let's try and zoom out a bit. We're getting to the point where we're arguing about how to argue, which is not particularly constructive. We have removed a few comments from this thread that were beginning to derail into personal attacks and hope that this thread can get back on track. Remember, sometimes it's good just to agree to disagree (even without a button) when you feel like the conversation is going in circles.

Rest assured that we'll continue to monitor reaction flags and the community's needs as time goes on and make adjustments when they are necessary.

Blud

Another nerf -- this time to the forums.

Varicite

DanielMaxwell wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Disagree doesnt mean you think someone is wrong. Where do you get that from? It only means you dont agree with whatever idea etc is being presented.

if you disagree with a viewpoint you think it is wrong in some manner , how much you wish to say about why you think it is wrong can range from a simple I disagree to a 6000 word essay on the subject .

I personally would rather see those who simply wish to say " I think your wrong" and leave it at that , to be able to do so without having to make a post that adds nothing to the conversation beyond them thinking the viewpoint is wrong , just like those who think a viewpoint is right are able to do with the "Agree" button since they can just say "I think your right" by clicking it and add nothing to the conversation.

Saying "No, you're wrong" w/out adding anything further does absolutely nothing for a discussion.

Agreeing w/ what was already said doesn't require anything further, because you support what was already said. What you're adding to the conversation is your support for an existing viewpoint.

Disagreeing isn't supporting anything, and your viewpoint hasn't been shared if you clicked a button. It adds nothing.

DanielMaxwell

Varicite wrote: »

DanielMaxwell wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Disagree doesnt mean you think someone is wrong. Where do you get that from? It only means you dont agree with whatever idea etc is being presented.

if you disagree with a viewpoint you think it is wrong in some manner , how much you wish to say about why you think it is wrong can range from a simple I disagree to a 6000 word essay on the subject .

I personally would rather see those who simply wish to say " I think your wrong" and leave it at that , to be able to do so without having to make a post that adds nothing to the conversation beyond them thinking the viewpoint is wrong , just like those who think a viewpoint is right are able to do with the "Agree" button since they can just say "I think your right" by clicking it and add nothing to the conversation.

Saying "No, you're wrong" w/out adding anything further does absolutely nothing for a discussion.

Agreeing w/ what was already said doesn't require anything further, because you support what was already said. What you're adding to the conversation is your support for an existing viewpoint.

Disagreeing isn't supporting anything, and your viewpoint hasn't been shared if you clicked a button. It adds nothing.

If your expected to explain why you disagree then why should you not be expected to explain why you agree ?

If you agree or disagree with a post the logical follow up question is why do you disagree or agree with the post .

Doing either one with out giving your reasons has them same effect on the discussion of not progressing it and adding nothing constructive to the discussion.

nerevarine1138

DanielMaxwell wrote: »

Varicite wrote: »

DanielMaxwell wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Disagree doesnt mean you think someone is wrong. Where do you get that from? It only means you dont agree with whatever idea etc is being presented.

if you disagree with a viewpoint you think it is wrong in some manner , how much you wish to say about why you think it is wrong can range from a simple I disagree to a 6000 word essay on the subject .

I personally would rather see those who simply wish to say " I think your wrong" and leave it at that , to be able to do so without having to make a post that adds nothing to the conversation beyond them thinking the viewpoint is wrong , just like those who think a viewpoint is right are able to do with the "Agree" button since they can just say "I think your right" by clicking it and add nothing to the conversation.

Saying "No, you're wrong" w/out adding anything further does absolutely nothing for a discussion.

Agreeing w/ what was already said doesn't require anything further, because you support what was already said. What you're adding to the conversation is your support for an existing viewpoint.

Disagreeing isn't supporting anything, and your viewpoint hasn't been shared if you clicked a button. It adds nothing.

If your expected to explain why you disagree then why should you not be expected to explain why you agree ?

If you agree or disagree with a post the logical follow up question is why do you disagree or agree with the post .

Doing either one with out giving your reasons has them same effect on the discussion of not progressing it and adding nothing constructive to the discussion.

The Agree button exists because when you agree with the entirety of someone's post, there's no need for you to say anything further. That simply results in threads getting spammed with one-word "+1" posts.

But if people can't learn to play nicely, then I'm in favor of ZO taking all the toys away. This is supposed to be a discussion forum.

Varicite

DanielMaxwell wrote: »

If your expected to explain why you disagree then why should you not be expected to explain why you agree ?

Because the nature of simply clicking "Agree" means "I agree w/ everything that this person said".

There is no need to explain further. I'm not sure where the disconnect is here.

You literally CAN NOT do that w/ a "Disagree" button, because the nature of disagreement means that you have OTHER reasons than what's been written for disagreement.

wraith808

Nazon_Katts wrote: »

wraith808 wrote: »

DanielMaxwell wrote: »

no misreading , if you intended it to be generic you should have proof read it to make sure it was generic . Replacing you with with "any one" in the first sentence would have made it generic . As it currently reads it is a vield attempt to accuse some one of abusing the flag system buttons .

This is the second time I've come across something like this. Someone says you meant this... and try to use your words against you. You say no... and clarify.

And then they continue to tread on your intent. Where's the sense in that?

Hm, I wouldn't call an advice on wording to prevent future misunderstandings 'continuing to tread on someone's intent', but apparently there's more ways to read and interpret a text than just one.

You didn't phrase it as advice. You phrased it as this is what you meant by what you wrote. Now if no matter what you said in regards to what you meant... I continued to say this is what you wrote so this is what you meant... wouldn't that get a bit tiresome?

Spottswoode

Lazy sarcasm will adapt in the most useless way possible.

Nazon_Katts

wraith808 wrote: »

Nazon_Katts wrote: »

wraith808 wrote: »

DanielMaxwell wrote: »

no misreading , if you intended it to be generic you should have proof read it to make sure it was generic . Replacing you with with "any one" in the first sentence would have made it generic . As it currently reads it is a vield attempt to accuse some one of abusing the flag system buttons .

This is the second time I've come across something like this. Someone says you meant this... and try to use your words against you. You say no... and clarify.

And then they continue to tread on your intent. Where's the sense in that?

Hm, I wouldn't call an advice on wording to prevent future misunderstandings 'continuing to tread on someone's intent', but apparently there's more ways to read and interpret a text than just one.

You didn't phrase it as advice. You phrased it as this is what you meant by what you wrote. Now if no matter what you said in regards to what you meant... I continued to say this is what you wrote so this is what you meant... wouldn't that get a bit tiresome?

I didn't phrase anything. The other guy did. And I read it as an advice, because what was written before was misleading and could have been avoided by just doing what he suggested.

ZOS_EveP

Unfortunately the discussion did not get back on track after our latest intervention. We are now closing this topic.