Disagree button

Maotti

Were it up to me i'd remove the "LOL" button aswell.

Rylana

No

*pushes disagree button*

nerevarine1138

No

Soloeus wrote: »

I shouldn't be allowed to click an agree or yes button if there isn't a no button. This is a troll tactic of companies to minimize negative communication and try to "kid down" the environment. You can thank Facebook for this model.

I say anything I am allowed to express Yes, i should be allowed to express NO.

They had this option during beta and they disabled it for a reason (trolling via disagree ratings).

If you disagree with someone's point, then you can take the time to post a reason. For example, I disagree with your point, because I think that if someone disagrees with a point, they should take the time to post their reasons for disagreement (which was my reason for disagreeing with you).

AlexDougherty

No

Maotti_Nor wrote: »

Were it up to me i'd remove the "LOL" button aswell.

A bit harsh, sometimes you read a deliberately funny comment, a lol there isn't disapproval. I know I've done a few deliberately funny posts, I appreciate the lols. Mind you I've had a few were I was being serious, sometimes I had been accidently funny, which is ok, but other times, well I can live with it.

ebondeath

Yes

I think this poll would be better if it were Agree/Disagree instead if Yes/No.

I don't want to give LOLs to people I disagree with, I want an emphatic "We're Now Mortal Enemies" button, but Disagree would suit my purposes just as well.

nerevarine1138

No

AlexDougherty wrote: »

Maotti_Nor wrote: »

Were it up to me i'd remove the "LOL" button aswell.

A bit harsh, sometimes you read a deliberately funny comment, a lol there isn't disapproval. I know I've done a few deliberately funny posts, I appreciate the lols. Mind you I've had a few were I was being serious, sometimes I had been accidently funny, which is ok, but other times, well I can live with it.

Yeah. I find that more people use LOL to express their amusement at a post. A select handful of people seem to have fixed on "LOL" as a childish method of expressing disagreement with someone, but it never seems to be the default meaning of that rating.

That said, it isn't actually worth any points towards forum ratings, so it's pretty meaningless in either scenario.

ArRashid

No

If we get a disagree button back, we may as well get "idiot" button as well. Sometimes I really think some people deserve it

BUT having a negative button will just make people overuse it. Psychologically, people are much more likely to express their disagreement than agreement (because they simply don't care enough to actually hit the Agree button). Not to mention trolls WOULD track down your every single post to disagree with it, just so you lose points.

seaef

No

No. People spend way too much time already defining themselves by what they hate.

Besides, it would get abused in a heartbeat.

GreySix

No

Soloeus wrote: »

I shouldn't be allowed to click an agree or yes button if there isn't a no button. This is a troll tactic of companies to minimize negative communication and try to "kid down" the environment. You can thank Facebook for this model.

I say anything I am allowed to express Yes, i should be allowed to express NO.

Disagree. Now here's why:

A troll tactic is to click "disagree" without bothering to expound upon a reason why. You wouldn't do so face-to-face (at least not without the other person thinking you're a moron), so why should you do so on an internet forum?

Soloeus

Yes

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Soloeus wrote: »

I shouldn't be allowed to click an agree or yes button if there isn't a no button. This is a troll tactic of companies to minimize negative communication and try to "kid down" the environment. You can thank Facebook for this model.

I say anything I am allowed to express Yes, i should be allowed to express NO.

They had this option during beta and they disabled it for a reason (trolling via disagree ratings).

If you disagree with someone's point, then you can take the time to post a reason. For example, I disagree with your point, because I think that if someone disagrees with a point, they should take the time to post their reasons for disagreement (which was my reason for disagreeing with you).

By your logic we should also remove the agree and awesome buttons for the same reason. If you agree or want to call someone awesome you should have to explain why.

Alephen

No

i agree that those who disagree should explain why. if someone else has posted the same reason you disagree, go ahead and agree with them.

disagreeing without explaining why adds nothing to a conversation. while many forum threads are surely not proper conversations, the lack of a 'disagree' button is at least an encouragement.

'lol' in this forum means 'i'm laughing with you.' if you are using it to laugh at them, you are just raising that persons... 'forum score?' although the idea of a forum score is rather silly, imo.

GreySix

No

Soloeus wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Soloeus wrote: »

I shouldn't be allowed to click an agree or yes button if there isn't a no button. This is a troll tactic of companies to minimize negative communication and try to "kid down" the environment. You can thank Facebook for this model.

I say anything I am allowed to express Yes, i should be allowed to express NO.

They had this option during beta and they disabled it for a reason (trolling via disagree ratings).

If you disagree with someone's point, then you can take the time to post a reason. For example, I disagree with your point, because I think that if someone disagrees with a point, they should take the time to post their reasons for disagreement (which was my reason for disagreeing with you).

By your logic we should also remove the agree and awesome buttons for the same reason. If you agree or want to call someone awesome you should have to explain why.

Nope.

Since when do you explain to someone why you agree with them, if you're talking face-to-face?

If you agree, then nothing more need be said.

But if you disagree, you'd better have a reason why, or the other person will think you're just special.

Have any of you people ever had face-to-face conversations with real people?

nerevarine1138

No

Soloeus wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Soloeus wrote: »

I shouldn't be allowed to click an agree or yes button if there isn't a no button. This is a troll tactic of companies to minimize negative communication and try to "kid down" the environment. You can thank Facebook for this model.

I say anything I am allowed to express Yes, i should be allowed to express NO.

They had this option during beta and they disabled it for a reason (trolling via disagree ratings).

If you disagree with someone's point, then you can take the time to post a reason. For example, I disagree with your point, because I think that if someone disagrees with a point, they should take the time to post their reasons for disagreement (which was my reason for disagreeing with you).

By your logic we should also remove the agree and awesome buttons for the same reason. If you agree or want to call someone awesome you should have to explain why.

If I agree with someone (or think that they're awesome), any post I make will probably be along the lines of "+1" or "I totally agree, brah." Which is a wasted post. The buttons we have provide a means of ranking forum posters by their utility. When people have more points than they have posts, or when they have a significant number of "Agree" points, one can assume that they generally post content that others find worthwhile.

When you disagree with someone about something, you can't just post "I disagree," without providing a reason. Agreement indicates that you have nothing to add to the discussion that hasn't already been said. Disagreement means that you actually take issue with the post, and if that's the case, you need to explain what your issue is.

AlexDougherty

No

Soloeus wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Soloeus wrote: »

I shouldn't be allowed to click an agree or yes button if there isn't a no button. This is a troll tactic of companies to minimize negative communication and try to "kid down" the environment. You can thank Facebook for this model.

I say anything I am allowed to express Yes, i should be allowed to express NO.

They had this option during beta and they disabled it for a reason (trolling via disagree ratings).

If you disagree with someone's point, then you can take the time to post a reason. For example, I disagree with your point, because I think that if someone disagrees with a point, they should take the time to post their reasons for disagreement (which was my reason for disagreeing with you).

By your logic we should also remove the agree and awesome buttons for the same reason. If you agree or want to call someone awesome you should have to explain why.

Not sure you need to explain why you are complementing someone, I never have. I sometimes do post to say I agree with someone, but that's optional.

But explaining why you disagree is simple manners, if you just press a disagree button they don't know why you disagree, so can't try to fix their suggestion. If you press Agree, or Awesome, or even Insightful they either know why or have some idea.

GreySix

No

AlexDougherty wrote: »

Soloeus wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Soloeus wrote: »

I shouldn't be allowed to click an agree or yes button if there isn't a no button. This is a troll tactic of companies to minimize negative communication and try to "kid down" the environment. You can thank Facebook for this model.

I say anything I am allowed to express Yes, i should be allowed to express NO.

They had this option during beta and they disabled it for a reason (trolling via disagree ratings).

If you disagree with someone's point, then you can take the time to post a reason. For example, I disagree with your point, because I think that if someone disagrees with a point, they should take the time to post their reasons for disagreement (which was my reason for disagreeing with you).

By your logic we should also remove the agree and awesome buttons for the same reason. If you agree or want to call someone awesome you should have to explain why.

Not sure you need to explain why you are complementing someone, I never have. I sometimes do post to say I agree with someone, but that's optional.

But explaining why you disagree is simple manners, if you just press a disagree button they don't know why you disagree, so can't try to fix their suggestion. If you press Agree, or Awesome, or even Insightful they either know why or have some idea.

For example, I'll expand on this to point out the absurdity of posting a detailed response for someone with whom I agree:

I agree, because .... well .... you wrote what I was thinking .... so .....

+1

Morticielle

Yes

42% of the voters fear that they would get an "dislike" too often.

nerevarine1138

No

GreySix wrote: »

AlexDougherty wrote: »

Soloeus wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

Soloeus wrote: »

I shouldn't be allowed to click an agree or yes button if there isn't a no button. This is a troll tactic of companies to minimize negative communication and try to "kid down" the environment. You can thank Facebook for this model.

I say anything I am allowed to express Yes, i should be allowed to express NO.

They had this option during beta and they disabled it for a reason (trolling via disagree ratings).

If you disagree with someone's point, then you can take the time to post a reason. For example, I disagree with your point, because I think that if someone disagrees with a point, they should take the time to post their reasons for disagreement (which was my reason for disagreeing with you).

By your logic we should also remove the agree and awesome buttons for the same reason. If you agree or want to call someone awesome you should have to explain why.

Not sure you need to explain why you are complementing someone, I never have. I sometimes do post to say I agree with someone, but that's optional.

But explaining why you disagree is simple manners, if you just press a disagree button they don't know why you disagree, so can't try to fix their suggestion. If you press Agree, or Awesome, or even Insightful they either know why or have some idea.

For example, I'll expand on this to point out the absurdity of posting a detailed response for someone with whom I agree:

I agree, because .... well .... you wrote what I was thinking .... so .....

+1

I agree.

ebondeath

Yes

I guess I just don't have manners, because I don't feel obligated to explain why I disagree with someone, online or irl.

nerevarine1138

No

Morticielle wrote: »

42% of the voters fear that they would get an "dislike" too often.

Or 42% of us were here during beta and saw the function get abused.

GreySix

No

Morticielle wrote: »

42% of the voters fear that they would get an "dislike" too often.

Or, 42 percent of us oppose moronic and trollish behavior.

ArRashid

No

Alephen wrote: »

i agree that those who disagree should explain why. if someone else has posted the same reason you disagree, go ahead and agree with them.

disagreeing without explaining why adds nothing to a conversation. while many forum threads are surely not proper conversations, the lack of a 'disagree' button is at least an encouragement.

'lol' in this forum means 'i'm laughing with you.' if you are using it to laugh at them, you are just raising that persons... 'forum score?' although the idea of a forum score is rather silly, imo.

lols actually add 0 points to you score. So you're free to laugh at whoever you wish.
Although... those "badges" for lols DO give you points. You know, for 25/100/500/1000...

Vis

No

Thumper's mother was right: "If you don't have anything nice to say..."

MMO communities can get toxic as it is (with classes asking to nerf one another), no need to add to it.

Though I am happy to see the "nerf xyz" threads have gone down a lot lately.

Dusty5

This again? it been two weeks already?

Ser Lobo

Yes

I just use Lol. I find it derogatory, anyhow.

Opioid

No

I voted no. Way too much potential for trolling.

Ser Lobo

Yes

Opioid wrote: »

I voted no. Way too much potential for trolling.

There are no trolls on the internet (sung to the tune from 'An American Tale').

Riptide

No

I was the fellow in the closed beta who came out against the disagree button, and it was removed after a post I made about it.

Here are some brass tacks - the closed beta was made up of folks who, on the whole, went out of their way to be constructive.

Even in that environment the disagree button caused threads to become venomous. It caused many folks to simply sit out conversations and let the least common denominators throw poo at each other.

Believe me when I say in this environment the disagree button would decrease useful posts and increase heartburn all the way around. It wouldn't move the ball forward in any way.

ThisOnePosts

Yes

A disagree button would save me a lot of time. Think of all the fun that can be had with it?!!!!!!

Sturmwaffel

No

Everybody should just go imgur/reddit style with upvotes and downvotes.

There I said it.

GreySix

No

Sturmwaffel wrote: »

Everybody should just go imgur/reddit style with upvotes and downvotes.

There I said it.

Up and down votes makes more sense to me than agree/disagree buttons, though then its just a popularity contest.