Disagree button on threads

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I think how much time people spend on certain types of social media also affects how they handle dissenting views.
I have seen a lot of people who come from places like tumblr, where they can completely block out things they dislike and where they can make sure dissenting views can't interact with their blogs (which, to be clear, I am not against), who tend to be more in the 'anything slightly negative or not perfectly aligning with my view is toxic', while people who come from more forum based places tend to be more able to take criticism, or just see things they don't like without imploding.
This is, of course, not always true, and it could simply be that a particular type of person is drawn to the sites where they are able to curate what they see, rather than the curation itself lending itself to the issue at hand.

Habits certainly play a role (I wouldn't even limit it to social media). Having a polite and argument-based discussion also takes certain skills. I can imagine that some people are more used to that, and some less. I'm used to discussing all kinds of topics (from politics to philosophy to art interpretations) with friends since I was 13 or so. Also, I have a scientific background. I don't say this is neccessary to have a fair discussion (absolutely not), but it certainly helps if it's something one is used to do. In my case, after several decades, it's so ingrained, it's getting difficult not to argue like this. It's just how my brain works by now.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

I think how much time people spend on certain types of social media also affects how they handle dissenting views.
I have seen a lot of people who come from places like tumblr, where they can completely block out things they dislike and where they can make sure dissenting views can't interact with their blogs (which, to be clear, I am not against), who tend to be more in the 'anything slightly negative or not perfectly aligning with my view is toxic', while people who come from more forum based places tend to be more able to take criticism, or just see things they don't like without imploding.
This is, of course, not always true, and it could simply be that a particular type of person is drawn to the sites where they are able to curate what they see, rather than the curation itself lending itself to the issue at hand.

Habits certainly play a role (I wouldn't even limit it to social media). Having a polite and argument-based discussion also takes certain skills. I can imagine that some people are more used to that, and some less. I'm used to discussing all kinds of topics (from politics to philosophy to art interpretations) with friends since I was 13 or so. Also, I have a scientific background. I don't say this is neccessary to have a fair discussion (absolutely not), but it certainly helps if it's something one is used to do. In my case, after several decades, it's so ingrained, it's getting difficult not to argue like this. It's just how my brain works by now.

Yeah, I also notice that the other forums I go to tend to skew younger (as in they attract younger audiences).

I have always liked light hearted debates (ie, nothing with real substance where people are going to get hurt if you have the 'wrong' opinion) and spent my time on debate forums, when forums still had those. Now I spend a lot of time in suggestion forums, and see a lot of people who can't really take people disliking their suggestion.

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Yeah, I also notice that the other forums I go to tend to skew younger (as in they attract younger audiences).
I have always liked light hearted debates (ie, nothing with real substance where people are going to get hurt if you have the 'wrong' opinion) and spent my time on debate forums, when forums still had those. Now I spend a lot of time in suggestion forums, and see a lot of people who can't really take people disliking their suggestion.

Oh, I discussed all kinds of topics, no matter how serious. I can also still remember that 20 years ago, many news websites had an open comment function beneath their articles, and often, one didn't even have to register to write. And while there were a few people who, let's say, reacted in a very emotional and unfair way, most often good, interesting and polite discussions ensued. Nowadays, the comment function is often disabled, or people have to register, sometimes even using their real name, but in the end, they're still bashing each other's brains in. There had been a change for sure...

JemadarofCaerSalis

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Yeah, I also notice that the other forums I go to tend to skew younger (as in they attract younger audiences).
I have always liked light hearted debates (ie, nothing with real substance where people are going to get hurt if you have the 'wrong' opinion) and spent my time on debate forums, when forums still had those. Now I spend a lot of time in suggestion forums, and see a lot of people who can't really take people disliking their suggestion.

Oh, I discussed all kinds of topics, no matter how serious. I can also still remember that 20 years ago, many news websites had an open comment function beneath their articles, and often, one didn't even have to register to write. And while there were a few people who, let's say, reacted in a very emotional and unfair way, most often good, interesting and polite discussions ensued. Nowadays, the comment function is often disabled, or people have to register, sometimes even using their real name, but in the end, they're still bashing each other's brains in. There had been a change for sure...

I remember those as well.

My brother and I have also run into the comments are disabled issues. We use streaming services and one service recently removed all comments (not just disabled them, but removed them from ALL the titles) and I used to use those to determine what order to watch the titles in, because it isn't always obvious.

But, they added some titles some people didn't agree with, and instead of just ignoring those titles, they had to flame the comments section. Even my brother, who doesn't necessarily agree with the titles in question was 'just ignore them!'

Which, to bring this back on topic, is one of the reasons why I don't agree with a disagree button. Sure, there will be some that will use it in the intended way, but too often they are used to compare validity of views (have seen that before 'your comment is at a negative number, therefore my comment is more valid!'), a way to shut people up, by downvoting them to oblivion (and no handy portals to get the comment back out). I have also seen them used to disagree with a *person* and not the comment, where people will look at post history and downvote *everything* that person has posted, no matter what it says.

SilverBride

I disagree with the need for a disagree button.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

I disagree with the need for a disagree button.

I agree. I also disagree with the need for a disagree button.

chessalavakia_ESO

Syldras wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

With that said, I think the forums might benefit from having some level of limitations on the amount that some of us more veteran forum users post in some categories.

I disagree. It would cut off interesting ongoing discussions and it might prevent important information from being shared.

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Many of us more veteran players are relatively calcified in our views and as such discussion with us can hold limited value as we don't really shift our views based on what other people say and we've already said our position on many of the issues dozens of times already.

Why would one have the forum software to limit one's posts because of that? If one feels a discussion doesn't help in any way or one has nothing more to say, one can just choose not to post.

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

When I was younger I ignored the advice not to discuss politics and I used to regularly discuss politics IRL with other people. I won more than I lost but, my positions rarely moved much when I lost and the same was true for most of the people I argued with. For the few who did actually have their positions shift many of them also shifted with the next person they talked to so my persuading them had no lasting impact. In the end, while I did learn some things from the process occasionally most of the time I probably just annoyed people and I doubt I lead to any lasting shifts in anyone's thinking. As a result I've generally tried to limit the amount I discuss politics IRL.

I approach these discussions with a different mindset: It's not about winning, and it's absolutely okay to agree to disagree in the end. What I am interested in his how other people view the world and on which things they base their opinions. Sometimes during a discussion we indeed notice that we have not considered some aspects, or sometimes that a belief is based on prejudice or false assumptions, which does lead to reconsidering things.

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Nowadays, here in the United States politics can be very strongly tied to how people see the world, how others see them, and the information/entertainment they consume which makes discussions even more of a mess.

The main problem I see here (we have the same thing going on in my country) is that people increasingly think in stereotypes. Meaning that if you are "faction a", you also have to like "thing b", and share "opinion d, e, f and g", and some people can't imagine anymore that there are individuals who freely observe and contemplate topics to make a decision based on these observations alone, by using their intellect, instead on conforming to expectations such as "as a member of group x you have to have opinion y about this".

Veteran forum users have a tendency to post frequently enough that many other users don't bother arguing with them for very long which cuts down on the number of viewpoints we hear from on forums.

If the Veteran forum users were limited in the amount of posts they could make in some sections of the forums on a weekly basis it's likely they would be more selective with what they choose to post and invest more effort into specific posts.

For example, if you look at the discussion in this thread, pretty much everyone posting besides the OP thinks that having a disagree button is a bad idea.

But, if you look at the votes on the post, you'll notice the OP has 20 people agreeing with them via reactions which is identical to the number of reactions in favor of the first post in disagreement.

SilverBride

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Veteran forum users have a tendency to post frequently enough that many other users don't bother arguing with them for very long which cuts down on the number of viewpoints we hear from on forums.

If the Veteran forum users were limited in the amount of posts they could make in some sections of the forums on a weekly basis it's likely they would be more selective with what they choose to post and invest more effort into specific posts.

For example, if you look at the discussion in this thread, pretty much everyone posting besides the OP thinks that having a disagree button is a bad idea.

But, if you look at the votes on the post, you'll notice the OP has 20 people agreeing with them via reactions which is identical to the number of reactions in favor of the first post in disagreement.

Add up all the agrees from all of those that disagree with the OP and the number is much higher than 20.

TheMajority

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Veteran forum users have a tendency to post frequently enough that many other users don't bother arguing with them for very long which cuts down on the number of viewpoints we hear from on forums.

If the Veteran forum users were limited in the amount of posts they could make in some sections of the forums on a weekly basis it's likely they would be more selective with what they choose to post and invest more effort into specific posts.

For example, if you look at the discussion in this thread, pretty much everyone posting besides the OP thinks that having a disagree button is a bad idea.

But, if you look at the votes on the post, you'll notice the OP has 20 people agreeing with them via reactions which is identical to the number of reactions in favor of the first post in disagreement.

(excuse my English as I try to participate in the topic)

Respectfully, I don't think that you can make this assumption or speak for why other users don't post. You can not know if other users made this decisions based on vetran users. Questions I would ask:

1. Is the user on a phone? It is easier to hit "agree" on the phone, than to type.
2. Is the voter an confident english speaker? Agree is simple to hit if you cannot express why you agree well. We have many non-english speaking users who may not always post.
3. Does the user think that simply hitting agree is enough to convey an opinion while 'disagree' does have more things to discuss about it?

I am not a vetran user (but I played the game longer than my forum account has existed) but I am not intimidated by vetran users. I do not even see their rank on my phone. They are just people to talk to like any other and I can agree or disagree with them. They aren't scary or bad- when you treat them politely and respectful to them, as you should any user regardless of forum rank.

They have been kind to me even though I struggle to communicate, at times.

There are also users who are not vetran, and vetran user or more stars does not mean you always post with great frequency.

TaSheen

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

With that said, I think the forums might benefit from having some level of limitations on the amount that some of us more veteran forum users post in some categories.

I disagree. It would cut off interesting ongoing discussions and it might prevent important information from being shared.

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Many of us more veteran players are relatively calcified in our views and as such discussion with us can hold limited value as we don't really shift our views based on what other people say and we've already said our position on many of the issues dozens of times already.

Why would one have the forum software to limit one's posts because of that? If one feels a discussion doesn't help in any way or one has nothing more to say, one can just choose not to post.

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

When I was younger I ignored the advice not to discuss politics and I used to regularly discuss politics IRL with other people. I won more than I lost but, my positions rarely moved much when I lost and the same was true for most of the people I argued with. For the few who did actually have their positions shift many of them also shifted with the next person they talked to so my persuading them had no lasting impact. In the end, while I did learn some things from the process occasionally most of the time I probably just annoyed people and I doubt I lead to any lasting shifts in anyone's thinking. As a result I've generally tried to limit the amount I discuss politics IRL.

I approach these discussions with a different mindset: It's not about winning, and it's absolutely okay to agree to disagree in the end. What I am interested in his how other people view the world and on which things they base their opinions. Sometimes during a discussion we indeed notice that we have not considered some aspects, or sometimes that a belief is based on prejudice or false assumptions, which does lead to reconsidering things.

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Nowadays, here in the United States politics can be very strongly tied to how people see the world, how others see them, and the information/entertainment they consume which makes discussions even more of a mess.

The main problem I see here (we have the same thing going on in my country) is that people increasingly think in stereotypes. Meaning that if you are "faction a", you also have to like "thing b", and share "opinion d, e, f and g", and some people can't imagine anymore that there are individuals who freely observe and contemplate topics to make a decision based on these observations alone, by using their intellect, instead on conforming to expectations such as "as a member of group x you have to have opinion y about this".

Veteran forum users have a tendency to post frequently enough that many other users don't bother arguing with them for very long which cuts down on the number of viewpoints we hear from on forums.

If the Veteran forum users were limited in the amount of posts they could make in some sections of the forums on a weekly basis it's likely they would be more selective with what they choose to post and invest more effort into specific posts.

For example, if you look at the discussion in this thread, pretty much everyone posting besides the OP thinks that having a disagree button is a bad idea.

But, if you look at the votes on the post, you'll notice the OP has 20 people agreeing with them via reactions which is identical to the number of reactions in favor of the first post in disagreement.

Censorship by any other name....

NO THANK YOU.

Syldras

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

If the Veteran forum users were limited in the amount of posts they could make in some sections of the forums on a weekly basis it's likely they would be more selective with what they choose to post and invest more effort into specific posts.

So if I can make, let's say, 20 posts per week in the main forum, and I had one entertaining Monday evening with a longer lore-related discussion here, consisting of 13 posts, and, on the side, have helped one person with a question within 7 posts (clarifying the situation, checking possible error sources, trying out different things), I'm not allowed to discuss about upcoming companions, the guild merchant system, the shortage of ink, the design on a new armor style and, most of all, help other people (for example newbies) with their questions anymore until I've waited 7 days? How does that make anything better? How does that not skew discussions? It would probably only lead to one thing: People not helping others anymore, not to "waste" their precious remaining posts.

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

For example, if you look at the discussion in this thread, pretty much everyone posting besides the OP thinks that having a disagree button is a bad idea.
But, if you look at the votes on the post, you'll notice the OP has 20 people agreeing with them via reactions which is identical to the number of reactions in favor of the first post in disagreement.

If they care, they can voice their opinion just like anybody else. There's nothing that prevents them. If they're "not bothering because of" or "intimidated by" people with a different opinion writing about theirs, that's unfortunate, but the solution isn't forcing the others to be silent as well.

DreamyLu

The point is: When we disagree on a proposal, it means we see weak points in it. To tell about gives the possibility to analyze them and provide satisfying solutions (that can be not to change anything).
Because if we don't explain what are our concerns, the points will not be addressed and the possibility to get a solution implemented for those will never be given. If later the proposal gets implemented, it's then too late to complain.

That's why it's important to hear from people who disagree the reasons why they disagree. So that all aspects are taken into consideration in case of a potential future implementation.

ArchangelIsraphel

Syldras wrote: »

Indeed. I can't count the times I've read an accusation coming out of the blue (from my perspective, at least) that seemed more than absurd to me.

To add to the absurdity, the accusations frequently contradict each other given the mood of the poster and the subject of the thread at the time. I have been, all in the same thread, gotten accused of being a "filthy casual roleplayer" and a "tryhard sweatlord". At this point, its practically becoming a sport to see how many "titles" I can collect.

Syldras wrote: »

(although already the discussing of ideas instead of people seems to be alien to some)

This. This is something people seem to struggle with. In recent years, more and more often, it seems that people have trouble separating themselves from their ideas. They respond as if you are attacking them as a person simply by calling a concept into question. Or for just providing information.

I feel like it might be the result of people seeking social approval through their posts online rather than seeking actual discussion, and when they don't receive the proverbial "thumbs up" they feel their personhood/value has been somehow diminished. When in reality, the opposite is true.

Or possibly a lack of exposure to healthy debate- too much insulation from having ideas challenged/treating ideas as if they are made of glass and must be protected from "breaking".

I see a similar vein of thinking crop up when people can't separate the morals and values of a person V.S. the morals and values of the character they play, which can be polar opposites. Or when they assume you support a certain type of belief simply because you don't shy away from writing about it or depicting it in narrative. What you write about in a story, and what you personally believe, can be two separate things entirely.

Syldras wrote: »

[snip]

At this point, there should be a forum badge in your honor:
Congratulations! You Earned The Grab Your Torches and Pitch Forks, Syldras Posted! Badge. You made 2,500 Unhinged Assumptions About Syldras On The Official Forums!

Syldras wrote: »

Ah, yes, and of course I'm always (what was it...? ah, yes) offended. Yes. I'm horribly offended. While sitting in front of my computer drinking tea and reading the forum, and randomly commenting on this or that which I find interesting (sometimes things I can't remember anymore when I'm off to do something else 10 minutes later). Sometimes I'm even so offended that I'm grinning or chuckling and shaking my head at some absurd assumption.

Hey, me too! And my blood pressure is also apparently quite high, as I am told I am also quite "salty". Must see a doctor about that sometime soon XD

I raise my eyebrow so often at these forums I am fairly certain that my face will, one day, be permanently locked in the position. I'll end up living the rest of my life looking like that one Mr. Spock meme from Star Trek.

Honestly though, I'm just sitting here having a grand time commenting and reading interesting ideas. I think some people might be surprised to learn that I actually like them and their posts quite a bit, even when I don't agree. I've never taken any of it to heart.

Syldras wrote: »

I think this is very much possible. It might still depend on region and probably there are individual differences between families as well, but in Germany, I never heard that one should not discuss about politics or religion, for example. Which is a thing I've seen in US-American forums quite often, which always caught my attention. In Germany, a few decades ago, it was the opposite, actually: It was considered that an adult man (gender roles still were stricter back then, later it extended to every adult) would have to be versed in politics and religion, have an opinion on both, and have to be able to explain and also defend their stance in that regard with logical arguments. People would meet up to discuss these things as something like a passtime.

This is precisely how my family treated me when I was growing up. I've always been glad of it. I don't see Religion or Politics as a taboo subject, and I thoroughly enjoyed sitting with older members of my family to discuss both. (They often invited American, Dutch and Irish friends who enjoyed debate to these discussions) I don't shy away from having my thoughts on these matters called into question, and have had some very interesting conversations as a result. These discussions are why I have a fascination with various religions and the study of them.

There are so many facets to discuss, and it really seems a shame to insulate ones self behind a single belief or political opinion without exploring the foundations on which you stand yourself.

I'd go further with that topic, but I wouldn't want Volendrung to come and bop us both on the head XD

[edited to remove quote]

TheMajority

TaSheen wrote: »

Censorship by any other name....

NO THANK YOU.

Yeah I'm not a fan of that kind of restriction. If that happened, it would be better to create another forum which would not be silencing people just for enjoying discussion...

I don't think it would ever happen though, because it would just be wrong and very bad PR for the company.

ArchangelIsraphel

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Veteran forum users have a tendency to post frequently enough that many other users don't bother arguing with them for very long which cuts down on the number of viewpoints we hear from on forums.

If the Veteran forum users were limited in the amount of posts they could make in some sections of the forums on a weekly basis it's likely they would be more selective with what they choose to post and invest more effort into specific posts.

For example, if you look at the discussion in this thread, pretty much everyone posting besides the OP thinks that having a disagree button is a bad idea.

But, if you look at the votes on the post, you'll notice the OP has 20 people agreeing with them via reactions which is identical to the number of reactions in favor of the first post in disagreement.

In the interest of discussion, I'd like to point out that I think you are misrepresenting certain factors in relation to this thread. I don't think the lack of "agree" posts has anything to do with veteran posters or their opinions on the matter. I think it has more to do with the fact that we received an official response from Kevin regarding a disagree button fairly early in the thread, and many probably decided "well, that's that then."

(We also very, very recently had a thread exactly like this one pop up, so it could be that people are a bit "meh" about the topic)

If you look at the actual posters in the thread, the data I collected is as follows (counted, to the best of my ability, with no duplicates):

1 Star Posters: 0
2 Star Posters: 2
3 Star Posters: 4
4 Star Posters: 2
5 Star Posters: 6
6 Star Posters: 5
7 Star Posters: 2
8 Star Posters: 0
9 Star Posters: 3
10 Star Posters: 9

My next question is, how are we quantifying what makes a veteran poster? Are we saying that this is people with a full 10 stars, or are we saying that this is anyone over 5 stars (at the halfway point to 10)

Or would you consider someone who posts frequently to be "veteran" regardless of the amount of stars they have?

If we're saying that star count is what makes a poster veteran, then from 1-5 we have 14 posters, and from 6-10 we have 19 posters.

Which, looking at the numbers spread out, seems reasonable? After all, I'd think people who spent more time on the forum would care about this topic a lot more than someone newer. It really doesn't seem like "non-vets" are that hesitant about participating in conversation with vets. The fact that most people are in agreement doesn't mean that others are put off from posting an opposing view.

Most importantly...how do we know that the 20 people who clicked agree without posting aren't veterans themselves? Why is it being assumed that those 20 agrees are from infrequent posters? It's impossible to know that.

Not trying to put you off from having a different opinion, I'm just genuinely interested in what data points you have to back up the claim.

ETA: Also, just to add- I never saw the forums as a divide between "veteran posters" and non vets. I don't pay attention to the star count under someones name or how often they post when I engage them in discussion...I pay attention to what they say.

ArchMikem

Kelenan7368 wrote: »

How is clicking a disagree button trolling?

Mob Mentality. It only takes one or two deliberate downvotes, which will incite others to pile on regardless of what the OP actually is about. People are more likely to be negative toward someone or something if they witness negativity being applied.

Long story short, disagree button can be weaponized for ridicule.

Bonus points if the forum has a feature that hides or removes posts that reaches a downvote threshold. People can use the system to target and silence those they don't like or victimize.

Hapexamendios

No, let's not. I feel it would be abused and it's very easy just to make a post like this.

vsrs_au

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Veteran forum users have a tendency to post frequently enough that many other users don't bother arguing with them for very long which cuts down on the number of viewpoints we hear from on forums.

If the Veteran forum users were limited in the amount of posts they could make in some sections of the forums on a weekly basis it's likely they would be more selective with what they choose to post and invest more effort into specific posts.

For example, if you look at the discussion in this thread, pretty much everyone posting besides the OP thinks that having a disagree button is a bad idea.

But, if you look at the votes on the post, you'll notice the OP has 20 people agreeing with them via reactions which is identical to the number of reactions in favor of the first post in disagreement.

In the interest of discussion, I'd like to point out that I think you are misrepresenting certain factors in relation to this thread. I don't think the lack of "agree" posts has anything to do with veteran posters or their opinions on the matter. I think it has more to do with the fact that we received an official response from Kevin regarding a disagree button fairly early in the thread, and many probably decided "well, that's that then."

(We also very, very recently had a thread exactly like this one pop up, so it could be that people are a bit "meh" about the topic)

If you look at the actual posters in the thread, the data I collected is as follows (counted, to the best of my ability, with no duplicates):

1 Star Posters: 0
2 Star Posters: 2
3 Star Posters: 4
4 Star Posters: 2
5 Star Posters: 6
6 Star Posters: 5
7 Star Posters: 2
8 Star Posters: 0
9 Star Posters: 3
10 Star Posters: 9

My next question is, how are we quantifying what makes a veteran poster? Are we saying that this is people with a full 10 stars, or are we saying that this is anyone over 5 stars (at the halfway point to 10)

Or would you consider someone who posts frequently to be "veteran" regardless of the amount of stars they have?

If we're saying that star count is what makes a poster veteran, then from 1-5 we have 14 posters, and from 6-10 we have 19 posters.

Which, looking at the numbers spread out, seems reasonable? After all, I'd think people who spent more time on the forum would care about this topic a lot more than someone newer. It really doesn't seem like "non-vets" are that hesitant about participating in conversation with vets. The fact that most people are in agreement doesn't mean that others are put off from posting an opposing view.

Most importantly...how do we know that the 20 people who clicked agree without posting aren't veterans themselves? Why is it being assumed that those 20 agrees are from infrequent posters? It's impossible to know that.

Not trying to put you off from having a different opinion, I'm just genuinely interested in what data points you have to back up the claim.

ETA: Also, just to add- I never saw the forums as a divide between "veteran posters" and non vets. I don't pay attention to the star count under someones name or how often they post when I engage them in discussion...I pay attention to what they say.

I don't know if you were already aware (my apologies if you were), but the forum star system isn't linear. The first post of this thread shows the star allocation per forum points, and the forum points is some (undisclosed) function of the number of posts and reactions received of various types:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/279963/how-many-forum-stars-do-you-have

Shara_Wynn

TaSheen wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

With that said, I think the forums might benefit from having some level of limitations on the amount that some of us more veteran forum users post in some categories.

I disagree. It would cut off interesting ongoing discussions and it might prevent important information from being shared.

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Many of us more veteran players are relatively calcified in our views and as such discussion with us can hold limited value as we don't really shift our views based on what other people say and we've already said our position on many of the issues dozens of times already.

Why would one have the forum software to limit one's posts because of that? If one feels a discussion doesn't help in any way or one has nothing more to say, one can just choose not to post.

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

When I was younger I ignored the advice not to discuss politics and I used to regularly discuss politics IRL with other people. I won more than I lost but, my positions rarely moved much when I lost and the same was true for most of the people I argued with. For the few who did actually have their positions shift many of them also shifted with the next person they talked to so my persuading them had no lasting impact. In the end, while I did learn some things from the process occasionally most of the time I probably just annoyed people and I doubt I lead to any lasting shifts in anyone's thinking. As a result I've generally tried to limit the amount I discuss politics IRL.

I approach these discussions with a different mindset: It's not about winning, and it's absolutely okay to agree to disagree in the end. What I am interested in his how other people view the world and on which things they base their opinions. Sometimes during a discussion we indeed notice that we have not considered some aspects, or sometimes that a belief is based on prejudice or false assumptions, which does lead to reconsidering things.

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Nowadays, here in the United States politics can be very strongly tied to how people see the world, how others see them, and the information/entertainment they consume which makes discussions even more of a mess.

The main problem I see here (we have the same thing going on in my country) is that people increasingly think in stereotypes. Meaning that if you are "faction a", you also have to like "thing b", and share "opinion d, e, f and g", and some people can't imagine anymore that there are individuals who freely observe and contemplate topics to make a decision based on these observations alone, by using their intellect, instead on conforming to expectations such as "as a member of group x you have to have opinion y about this".

Veteran forum users have a tendency to post frequently enough that many other users don't bother arguing with them for very long which cuts down on the number of viewpoints we hear from on forums.

If the Veteran forum users were limited in the amount of posts they could make in some sections of the forums on a weekly basis it's likely they would be more selective with what they choose to post and invest more effort into specific posts.

For example, if you look at the discussion in this thread, pretty much everyone posting besides the OP thinks that having a disagree button is a bad idea.

But, if you look at the votes on the post, you'll notice the OP has 20 people agreeing with them via reactions which is identical to the number of reactions in favor of the first post in disagreement.

Censorship by any other name....

NO THANK YOU.

I am not really sure that placing a restriction on the number of posts a person can post on a message forum over a set period of time, is the same as "censorship" per say. You can still say what you want, you would just have to wait a bit longer to do so.

It is a bit more akin to telling that one person, who keeps butting in and shouting over the top of others, to "pipe down" i.e. "You've had your turn and said your piece now please be quiet and let someone else speak'.

However, on the topic of censorship, everyone's posts on here already undergo quite extensive censorship. We are for example, not allowed to post anything that isn't strictly related to ESO, no personal details, no political posts, no swearing etc.

There will ever be the "noisy minority" and the "silent majority" in all things, not least on social media and message forums.

**Edit**

Just to add, I don't think that there should be a limit in the number of posts a person can post and if there ever were, then it would have to apply to everyone, not just "veteran posters".

Also "The Kevin" hath spoken so...

And... I think they should get rid of the "Agree" button. If you want to agree with something then you should qualify it with a post that argues why Never mind Awesome or Insightful! There should absolutely be no anonymous agreement allowed... period!

Drammanoth

At least one thing is settled - 'Instightful' has turned out to be a 'Disagree' button.

How British
[edit] Now I'll be wary of using it as a 'disagree', but I find it amusing how one can use it ironically. COOL!

Diebesgut

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I disagree with the need for a disagree button.

I agree. I also disagree with the need for a disagree button.

... had to think it over and now i guess i agree too with the above 🤔

Varana

Drammanoth wrote: »

At least one thing is settled - 'Instightful' has turned out to be a 'Disagree' button.

How British
[edit] Now I'll be wary of using it as a 'disagree', but I find it amusing how one can use it ironically. COOL!

It has not turned out to be that.
It has turned out that some posters might use it in that way.
But judging from how these threads went, and which posts get Insightfuls on these forums, I'm pretty sure that this is a rather negligible amount of people. If you use it ironically, it won't bring that intent across, because it will get drowned by all the people who use it for what it's intended to be used.

Elsonso

Varana wrote: »

Drammanoth wrote: »

At least one thing is settled - 'Instightful' has turned out to be a 'Disagree' button.

How British
[edit] Now I'll be wary of using it as a 'disagree', but I find it amusing how one can use it ironically. COOL!

It has not turned out to be that.
It has turned out that some posters might use it in that way.
But judging from how these threads went, and which posts get Insightfuls on these forums, I'm pretty sure that this is a rather negligible amount of people. If you use it ironically, it won't bring that intent across, because it will get drowned by all the people who use it for what it's intended to be used.

Clicking on "Insightful" to disagree is raising the stature of the person they disagree with. "I disagree with you, and I disagree with you so much that I want to reward you for saying it."

AvalonRanger

Personally, I'm interested in minority report if it has decent reason.

So I prefer "1 agree" rather than 100 disagree.

ArchangelIsraphel

vsrs_au wrote: »

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Veteran forum users have a tendency to post frequently enough that many other users don't bother arguing with them for very long which cuts down on the number of viewpoints we hear from on forums.

If the Veteran forum users were limited in the amount of posts they could make in some sections of the forums on a weekly basis it's likely they would be more selective with what they choose to post and invest more effort into specific posts.

For example, if you look at the discussion in this thread, pretty much everyone posting besides the OP thinks that having a disagree button is a bad idea.

But, if you look at the votes on the post, you'll notice the OP has 20 people agreeing with them via reactions which is identical to the number of reactions in favor of the first post in disagreement.

In the interest of discussion, I'd like to point out that I think you are misrepresenting certain factors in relation to this thread. I don't think the lack of "agree" posts has anything to do with veteran posters or their opinions on the matter. I think it has more to do with the fact that we received an official response from Kevin regarding a disagree button fairly early in the thread, and many probably decided "well, that's that then."

(We also very, very recently had a thread exactly like this one pop up, so it could be that people are a bit "meh" about the topic)

If you look at the actual posters in the thread, the data I collected is as follows (counted, to the best of my ability, with no duplicates):

1 Star Posters: 0
2 Star Posters: 2
3 Star Posters: 4
4 Star Posters: 2
5 Star Posters: 6
6 Star Posters: 5
7 Star Posters: 2
8 Star Posters: 0
9 Star Posters: 3
10 Star Posters: 9

My next question is, how are we quantifying what makes a veteran poster? Are we saying that this is people with a full 10 stars, or are we saying that this is anyone over 5 stars (at the halfway point to 10)

Or would you consider someone who posts frequently to be "veteran" regardless of the amount of stars they have?

If we're saying that star count is what makes a poster veteran, then from 1-5 we have 14 posters, and from 6-10 we have 19 posters.

Which, looking at the numbers spread out, seems reasonable? After all, I'd think people who spent more time on the forum would care about this topic a lot more than someone newer. It really doesn't seem like "non-vets" are that hesitant about participating in conversation with vets. The fact that most people are in agreement doesn't mean that others are put off from posting an opposing view.

Most importantly...how do we know that the 20 people who clicked agree without posting aren't veterans themselves? Why is it being assumed that those 20 agrees are from infrequent posters? It's impossible to know that.

Not trying to put you off from having a different opinion, I'm just genuinely interested in what data points you have to back up the claim.

ETA: Also, just to add- I never saw the forums as a divide between "veteran posters" and non vets. I don't pay attention to the star count under someones name or how often they post when I engage them in discussion...I pay attention to what they say.

I don't know if you were already aware (my apologies if you were), but the forum star system isn't linear. The first post of this thread shows the star allocation per forum points, and the forum points is some (undisclosed) function of the number of posts and reactions received of various types:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/279963/how-many-forum-stars-do-you-have

I was not, thank you for the information. That's very useful.

SilverBride

Drammanoth wrote: »

At least one thing is settled - 'Instightful' has turned out to be a 'Disagree' button

I disagree with this for 2 reasons.

Recently it was discussed in a thread that the "insightful" button meant "lol" since the "lol" button had been removed long ago.

For the "insightful" button to mean anything other than "insightful" there has to be a general consensus that this is what is meant... which there isn't.

Syldras

@ArchangelIsraphel

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

To add to the absurdity, the accusations frequently contradict each other given the mood of the poster and the subject of the thread at the time. I have been, all in the same thread, gotten accused of being a "filthy casual roleplayer" and a "tryhard sweatlord". At this point, its practically becoming a sport to see how many "titles" I can collect.

How can you be amused about that?! You are supposed to be offended! (But seriously, I sometimes wish people were as creative when it comes to suggestions or solutions to problems as they are with the insults they come up with all the time. Although one might feel honored somehow for the time and efforts they spend on their angry reactions...)

I think it's often projection, by the way. I do not mean that as an insult, but as an explanation, as the psychological mechanism that's at play there. Some people obviously get very agitated in a discussion (especially when being criticized), so they seem to register the whole situation (instead of only their feelings towards it) as "dire, emotional" and therefore expect the person they're talking with to feel the same way.

I also come across people sometimes, who seem to struggle with the fact that not everybody has the same world view, feelings, opinions, likes and dislikes as them. Although it's fine (with me at least), if someone makes this mistake, but is open to corrections. It gets nasty at the point when some people are outright refusing to accept (or even to listen to) attempts to correct their assumptions, and dismiss these attemps as lying to them or even the speaker fooling oneself ("No, you actually are like that, too, you just can't admit it"). Which is horribly rude.

And certainly also the personal notion about what a discussion is plays a role. For some, it seems to be a real fight, the person with the opposite opinion is the "enemy", and the main goal is "winning". For some, it's still a "battle", but more like playful banter. For some, it's akin to a dance (if that makes any sense?). Some want their opinion to be put to the test. Others see it as an occasion to gain new insights, learn and broaden their knowledge. The question is: What to we do with this? Knowing how people react and why is one thing. But if someone starts to foam in a discussion, they're usually not really open to reasoning.

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

In recent years, more and more often, it seems that people have trouble separating themselves from their ideas. They respond as if you are attacking them as a person simply by calling a concept into question. Or for just providing information.

I guess it's also a side-effect of people increasingly relying on labels and clichés. They basically make themselves a one-label-personality, ground their whole concept of who they are on only one aspect or subject, and if that one aspect is somehow "questioned" (sometimes not even on purpose, or merely by saying that one does not care for this thing), they explode. Or sometimes, it's 3 or 4 labels, but that still doesn't make it any better.

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

I feel like it might be the result of people seeking social approval through their posts online rather than seeking actual discussion, and when they don't receive the proverbial "thumbs up" they feel their personhood/value has been somehow diminished. When in reality, the opposite is true.

Yes.

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

Or possibly a lack of exposure to healthy debate- too much insulation from having ideas challenged/treating ideas as if they are made of glass and must be protected from "breaking".

Absolutely. And the current tendencies online to be able to just block everyone you don't agree with certainly doesn't help. I see that more and more often. What a difference to the situation between, let's say 2000 and 2010, where a blocking function (if it even existed) was reserved for spam or actual harassment/stalker-ish behaviour.

ArchangelIsraphel wrote: »

I see a similar vein of thinking crop up when people can't separate the morals and values of a person V.S. the morals and values of the character they play, which can be polar opposites. Or when they assume you support a certain type of belief simply because you don't shy away from writing about it or depicting it in narrative. What you write about in a story, and what you personally believe, can be two separate things entirely.

What, you don't eat people in real life?! *inconspicuously pushes the sofa over the trapdoor - this is a joke, of course; I don't own any sofas*

I think when it comes to that, the problem is that some people can't grasp what roleplay may consist of. There are people who only play themselves in the game (including their real-life values and morals) - and that's fine, as long as they don't assume that everyone else does the same.

But yes, of course I'm used to the weirdest assumptions made about me because of the persona I roleplay here and the way I roleplay him (although I often find it astonishing that some seem to be completely unaware about the humour and especially irony between the lines, that make it more than clear that it's not some weird "grand evil wizard overlord power fantasy", but that my character has quirks and flaws - lots of them).

The same problem comes up more and more often when I write about history objectively (fact-based, not emotionalized, without judgement), btw. Not sure if that's maybe also a cultural difference, but when I studied, one of the main rules was to describe matter-of-factly (and the main difficulty one should be aware of was not to be influenced in one's interpretation by one's personal world view or experiences). A historian's job is to find out and describe what happened, not to present a judgement. Of course many things that were "normal" in the past are horrid and immoral from today's perspective, but people should form their own opinions when they read about these things, they don't need a someone to tell them what to feel. And with that premise, now some people think I approve of the weirdest things because I usually just write "the medieval tradition of x" and not "the horrendous, inhumane, gruesome medieval tradition of x"...

Shara_Wynn wrote: »

I am not really sure that placing a restriction on the number of posts a person can post on a message forum over a set period of time, is the same as "censorship" per say. You can still say what you want, you would just have to wait a bit longer to do so.
It is a bit more akin to telling that one person, who keeps butting in and shouting over the top of others, to "pipe down" i.e. "You've had your turn and said your piece now please be quiet and let someone else speak'.

Not quite, when it's a limit applied not to one topic, but to the whole forum (or subforum). As I said, it just doesn't make sense not to be able to post on other topics, just because I have already made a certain amount of posts on one topic.

Galeriano2

LalMirchi wrote: »

I disagree.

There is no need for a disagree button.

Let's agree to disagree

SilverBride

Jabbs_Giggity wrote: »

[Snip]

The one thing I've found that will prevent snips and warnings more than anything else is to never, ever make any comments about the player that posted an idea or suggestion that we disagree with. We need to keep our comments on the topic only. But too often players will criticize the poster, which can be seen as baiting.

[Edited quote]

Syldras

SilverBride wrote: »

The one thing that will prevent snips and warnings more than anything else is to never, ever make any comments about the player that posted an idea or suggestion that we disagree with. We need to keep our comments on the topic only. But too often players will criticize the poster which can be seen as baiting.

While I don't think that everything should be heavily moderated, indeed making a comment about a player if the topic is not "George, 53, from Portsmouth, England", but for example the difficulty of the Archive bosses or a suggestion about Ayleid jewelry, doesn't contribute much to the discussion.