Disagree button on threads

Jabbs_Giggity · August 20

Syldras wrote: »

Jabbs_Giggity wrote: »

[Snip]

Jabbs_Giggity wrote: »

[Snip]

[Snip]

[Snip]

Going back to the topic at hand...what makes for a better metric, a dislike button - where a moderator can read the discussion thread and count the negatives and positives? or sifting through a bunch of comments and see what people don't like about the topic?

[Edited quote and for removed content]

Syldras · August 20

Jabbs_Giggity wrote: »

[Snip]

[Snip]

But indeed, this conversation does prove a few points that were made earlier in this thread, like the conflation between topic and poster, comments on the reasoning used in an argumentation seen as personal insults, etc.

Jabbs_Giggity wrote: »

Going back to the topic at hand...what makes for a better metric, a dislike button - where a moderator can read the discussion thread and count the negatives and positives? or sifting through a bunch of comments and see what people don't like about the topic?

Why would a moderator want to do that? And is quantity more important than quality when it comes to discussions?

[Edited quote and for removed content]

Jabbs_Giggity · August 20

Syldras wrote: »

Jabbs_Giggity wrote: »

[Snip]

[Snip]

Jabbs_Giggity wrote: »

Going back to the topic at hand...what makes for a better metric, a dislike button - where a moderator can read the discussion thread and count the negatives and positives? or sifting through a bunch of comments and see what people don't like about the topic?

Why would a moderator want to do that? And is quantity more important than quality when it comes to discussions?

If people use the Forum to implement change to a game's performance, in measurable difference Quantity>Quality to large companies like ZOS. Like it or hate it, that's a fact.
IF a moderator were to decide to go above and beyond to measure a post's quality by sifting through sometimes hundreds of posts, yes a reply on why you agree/disagree with the OP's topic is measurable, but not nearly as metrically measurable as a dislike button to counter the positive like button.

[Edited quote]

valenwood_vegan · August 20

SilverBride wrote: »

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.

This is great advice. Comment politely on the ideas, not the person.

[Edited quote]

Syldras · August 20

Jabbs_Giggity wrote: »

If people use the Forum to implement change to a game's performance, in measurable difference Quantity>Quality to large companies like ZOS. Like it or hate it, that's a fact.
IF a moderator were to decide to go above and beyond to measure a post's quality by sifting through sometimes hundreds of posts, yes a reply on why you agree/disagree with the OP's topic is measurable, but not nearly as metrically measurable as a dislike button to counter the positive like button.

Just a simple yes or no (or like/dislike) does not bring useful info in many cases. Most questions need a more detailed elaboration where strengths and weaknesses lie. Also, the info that something needs improvement might be the start of a discussion, but in the end, for an improvement, it has to move to a how.

Jabbs_Giggity · August 20

Syldras wrote: »

Jabbs_Giggity wrote: »

If people use the Forum to implement change to a game's performance, in measurable difference Quantity>Quality to large companies like ZOS. Like it or hate it, that's a fact.
IF a moderator were to decide to go above and beyond to measure a post's quality by sifting through sometimes hundreds of posts, yes a reply on why you agree/disagree with the OP's topic is measurable, but not nearly as metrically measurable as a dislike button to counter the positive like button.

Just a simple yes or no (or like/dislike) does not bring useful info in many cases. Most questions need a more detailed elaboration where strengths and weaknesses lie. Also, the info that something needs improvement might be the start of a discussion, but in the end, for an improvement, it has to move to a how.

This I do not disagree with you on. However, just because you, or we want the How does not mean that ZOS wants the how or why. Simply put, ZOS wants metrics. See how they barely listen to users who reference full data in detail on good and bad changes in PTS, yet still do nothing about it and it goes live as is.
Look at how Congressional hearings are voted on - Yay or Nay. There is no quantitive argument process during a vote, only beforehand which often falls on deaf ears.
Does ZOS actively monitor Zone Chat in Cyrodiil for theories on how to improve the game? Probably not, but uncertain as we cannot say for sure. 9/10 times they will rely on measurable data, such as set performance via numbers populated in damage metrics over people saying "Man, Tarnished Nightmare is broken AF"

If you want to participate in a discussion thread, you are free to do so - hence adding a comment. If you want to agree with a Post you can agree, super agree (awesome) or slightly question the universe (insightful). But you cannot disagree because that is bad...makes great sense...

SilverBride · August 20

Jabbs_Giggity wrote: »

But you cannot disagree because that is bad...makes great sense...

We can disagree and are free to post why. But there is a reason that a lot of forums no longer have a disagree option. Because they can, and have been, used to troll posters.

JemadarofCaerSalis · August 20

Syldras wrote: »

@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.

I have seen more and more people who cannot fathom that someone can hold a different world view than themselves, or worse, they feel anyone who does is a very bad person. It doesn't matter what that world view is, if you don't agree with them, you are wrong and need to be corrected. It gets tiresome at times trying to figure out what to post without being banned (as sadly some of those people are in positions of power on some sites) or without being dogpiled by people who hold the same world view.

I also completely agree about the Label thing. I am old enough to remember the whole 'don't stick a label on me! I don't need a label' phase people went through when they were actively rejecting labels. Now, not only do people embrace labels, but the labels are so specific they only tend to apply to like one person. And, yes, if you say anything bad about that label, then it is an attack on their own personal identity.

As for the fiction vs reality, it is amusing at times. There are certain things (that I won't bring up here) that when people bring it up, everyone shouts 'but it is just FICTION!'. However, other things, such as having negative aspects to a society, or having darker lore in general that will get people up in arms over it, because it is obviously an allegory for real life oppression or it has unfortunate overtones, or it is coming from a place of privilege. Or similar things.

I play a pet site, where it had to be explicitly stated that you aren't throwing pets into a cauldron (no where NEAR as bad as it sounds :P) because people couldn't handle the idea that you might be (and it was never stated you were. These were in game items and you could give them to a mechanic that gave you a material for an alchemy like mechanic in return)

It is something I have seen in increasing numbers. People not being able to handle dark things in lore or things that don't fit their own narratives. I also have noticed more and more that people can't seem to handle the idea that someone can be flawed, one slip up and all the good you have done is now wiped out forever in their minds.

I like discussion and while I don't tend to like dark lore, I can understand others do, and can even appreciate it at times. But, it can sometimes be difficult to find a place to discuss things like that without someone getting upset about something in that lore.

I am also not fond of the idea of a limit to posting, because it just seems like it is punishing people who might have things to say. Someone had dozens of posts helping others, and now they are flagged because they post too much?

also, on a forum, there is no 'butting in and shouting over someone' because that person can still reply to the exact person they want and their post will be seen. In RL, the issue with shouting over someone is that it drowns out that other person's opinion and can completely derail the conversation. That can't really happen on a forum based board. Someone who posts after my post can reply to anyone who has posted before me, and their post will be seen by anyone who scrolls to the end of the forum (until someone posts after them, but even then, someone reading the board will still see that post and can reply to it). So, I don't really see an issue with prolific posters, unless they are also breaking TOS in the process.

JemadarofCaerSalis · August 20

SilverBride wrote: »

Jabbs_Giggity wrote: »

But you cannot disagree because that is bad...makes great sense...

We can disagree and are free to post why. But there is a reason that a lot of forums no longer have a disagree option. Because they can, and have been, used to troll posters.

Yeah, I mean look at this whole thread, most people disagreeing with the OP, and I can at least state that I haven't been warned about it.

I have also seen where any sort of disagree function is used to harass, but there is also another aspect to it, where the person who posted the post will see any sort of clicking of the disagreement as harassment or take it personally. Knowing that only five people posted, but 15 disagree can be disheartening to people, especially when you don't know why those 15 people disagree with what you posted.

chessalavakia_ESO · August 20

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.

As of my starting typing this post up the ESO forums have had 164,814 users that have commented.

73.75% of those users have made 1-9 comments
19.92% have made 10-99 comments
4.42% have made 100-499 comments
.94% have made 500-999 comments
.67% have made 1000-2499 comments
.2% have made 2500-4999 comments
.08% have made 5000- 9999 comments.
.02% have made 10,000-24,999 comments.

I can't get inside another person's head and tell you irrefutably why they did or didn't post something.

But, you do see trends in general behavior.

Most people will generally become quieter or silent if enough people disagree with them either by downvoting their content or disagreeing with them more directly both because people don't necessarily love rocking the boat and because people don't want to necessarily waste their time.

You'll hit the occasional exception where someone will keep posting and arguing regardless of what anyone else says or does.

For example, if you look at the Overland Content Feedback thread you'll notice that multiple users have made over 900 posts in that thread alone.

TaSheen · August 20

I'm not sure what all that has to do with anything? This is one of two forums on which I post (the other is one I run myself). I LOVE ESO, just as I used to love WoW where I was a regular poster in the CS forum; and just as I used to love RIFT, where I was also a regular poster for the 3 years I played that game. Also.... I posted for all the years I played Skyrim in beth's forum(s) for that game (before they moved to a reddit-like whatever they want to call it now).

When I'm invested in a game, I post when I can help someone, or when I need help myself. I also post when people suggest things I personally wouldn't like, and I don't see an issue with politely saying I wouldn't like it/use it (whatever "it" might be on a given day). And when people post things that I WOULD like, I say so; when people post things that are funny, I give them appreciation.

I don't see what's wrong with any of that....

Syldras · August 20

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

As of my starting typing this post up the ESO forums have had 164,814 users that have commented.

73.75% of those users have made 1-9 comments
19.92% have made 10-99 comments
4.42% have made 100-499 comments
.94% have made 500-999 comments
.67% have made 1000-2499 comments
.2% have made 2500-4999 comments
.08% have made 5000- 9999 comments.
.02% have made 10,000-24,999 comments.

I can't get inside another person's head and tell you irrefutably why they did or didn't post something.

But, you do see trends in general behavior.

I can't read people's minds either, but from my own behaviour in forums I know that in many cases, I tend to use the forum only to get a question answered, to report a bug or something like that. Things that are usually resolved in 5 posts or so, and after that, I'm gone again and will only post again after a longer time, if there's another thing I want to get clarified.

TheMajority · August 21

chessalavakia_ESO 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.

As of my starting typing this post up the ESO forums have had 164,814 users that have commented.

73.75% of those users have made 1-9 comments
19.92% have made 10-99 comments
4.42% have made 100-499 comments
.94% have made 500-999 comments
.67% have made 1000-2499 comments
.2% have made 2500-4999 comments
.08% have made 5000- 9999 comments.
.02% have made 10,000-24,999 comments.

I can't get inside another person's head and tell you irrefutably why they did or didn't post something.

But, you do see trends in general behavior.

personally my though on the numbers is that they aren't really proving that peopel with lower post count are somehow intimidated to post. I think it more proves that a large number of player use the forum for utilitarian purposes. Ask a question, get answer, then go back to the games. its logical to my mind that less people would be more heavily invested in big discussions. I did it this way before I decided I would like to participate more in some topics.

silencing people to make other people more "comfortable" is not fair. discomfort and lack of confidence in expessing opinions is an issue they need to solve inside of themself. no one holds them back from the discussion.

And how will it make them more confident to post? to silence others is to send the message that if you invest time here, you too will get a punishment of silence. It says to me: be careful, forum poster, don't post too much or they will think you to be a vetran, then you get the muzzle.

I grew up in a life like that, and moved away from my home country so my children would not have to grow up like that, so I never will agree to methods which enforce silence with a false sense of somehow making the community better if voices are not heard. Yes its maybe extreme to compare it to a country, but this gives me that feeling. it's not a good.

spartaxoxo · August 21

SilverBride wrote: »

Jabbs_Giggity wrote: »

I cannot even begin to describe the amounts of messages I have been sent by ZOS as "warning" for being offensive while simply using gentleman's etiquette to disprove a false claim by another.

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.

Yup. I can't say I'm perfect about that but it really does make a world of difference when it comes to discussion.

spartaxoxo · August 21

chessalavakia_ESO 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.

As of my starting typing this post up the ESO forums have had 164,814 users that have commented.

73.75% of those users have made 1-9 comments
19.92% have made 10-99 comments
4.42% have made 100-499 comments
.94% have made 500-999 comments
.67% have made 1000-2499 comments
.2% have made 2500-4999 comments
.08% have made 5000- 9999 comments.
.02% have made 10,000-24,999 comments.

As a general industry rule, the vast majority of people who visit forum will never comment. And of the ones that do comment, almost none are frequent posters.

In my experience having moderates a video game website and a power user, most people don't come to forums to have hobbyist conversations about game balance. They come to get a question answered or see what an employee may have to say and then they leave.

LaintalAy · August 21

Kelenan7368 wrote: »

I see a need for a disagree button to be placed on posts so the community can ratio post that seem to be absurd.
please consider this.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

We have looked into a dislike or disagree button, but we have found through research and feedback from others who use Vanilla forum services that a dislike button when not tied to a mechanism (like surfacing content or prioritizing conversations) often becomes a disruptive tool that doesn't help to facilitate constructive conversation. Obviously there is more at play there, like the content and the usefulness of the tool to the user, but we do not have any plans to add a dislike/ disapprove button anytime soon.

The OP's question was answered by ZOS, at least 50 posts ago. Maybe some readers missed that.

chessalavakia_ESO · August 21

TheMajority wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO 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.

As of my starting typing this post up the ESO forums have had 164,814 users that have commented.

73.75% of those users have made 1-9 comments
19.92% have made 10-99 comments
4.42% have made 100-499 comments
.94% have made 500-999 comments
.67% have made 1000-2499 comments
.2% have made 2500-4999 comments
.08% have made 5000- 9999 comments.
.02% have made 10,000-24,999 comments.

I can't get inside another person's head and tell you irrefutably why they did or didn't post something.

But, you do see trends in general behavior.

personally my though on the numbers is that they aren't really proving that peopel with lower post count are somehow intimidated to post. I think it more proves that a large number of player use the forum for utilitarian purposes. Ask a question, get answer, then go back to the games. its logical to my mind that less people would be more heavily invested in big discussions. I did it this way before I decided I would like to participate more in some topics.

silencing people to make other people more "comfortable" is not fair. discomfort and lack of confidence in expessing opinions is an issue they need to solve inside of themself. no one holds them back from the discussion.

And how will it make them more confident to post? to silence others is to send the message that if you invest time here, you too will get a punishment of silence. It says to me: be careful, forum poster, don't post too much or they will think you to be a vetran, then you get the muzzle.

I grew up in a life like that, and moved away from my home country so my children would not have to grow up like that, so I never will agree to methods which enforce silence with a false sense of somehow making the community better if voices are not heard. Yes its maybe extreme to compare it to a country, but this gives me that feeling. it's not a good.

You do have to admit some humor exists in that the first part of this thread is about how we shouldn't have a disagree option because it will make people uncomfortable/silenced followed by the later part of the thread being some of the same people talking about how restricting posting amounts to make people more comfortable/not be silenced is horrible because it's censorship.

Not having a disagree button and capping the amount people can post after a certain amount of postings are both forms of censorship.

The forums already operate under Community Rules that also enforce forms of censorship.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/502831/community-rules

SilverBride · August 21

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

The forums already operate under Community Rules that also enforce forms of censorship.

Community rules are not censorship. They are there to keep discussions civil.

All societies have their social norms, and most do not advocate for someone saying anything they want in a public setting, no matter how offensive. And this forum is a society.

Syldras · August 21

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Not having a disagree button and capping the amount people can post after a certain amount of postings are both forms of censorship.

It would be censorship if you weren't allowed to disagree. But you are, fully. You just have to write it instead of pushing a button.

spartaxoxo · August 22

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

Not having a disagree button and capping the amount people can post after a certain amount of postings are both forms of censorship.

That is not accurate. Nobody is prevented by ZOS from disagreement just because there is not a button. Capping the number of posts would physically prevent said user from speaking. ZOS isn't giving additional support to disagreement, but that is not the same thing.

Cirran · August 22

I completely agree with the OP.

In my opinion some folks are not worth engaging in a conversation/discussion with as having a civil conversation/discussion is not their end goal. Reading their posts else where on the forums clearly communicates their intent.

Just look at any thread about PvP, balance, and "ZoS is not making the game the way I want them to" threads.

Sometimes I think some folks are not aware just how invested/passionate they are in this video game.

Typing on a forum it is hard to convey intent. Oner person's "meh" is another's "What a troll their opinion is not mine and they should be called out on it."

Cirran

JemadarofCaerSalis · August 22

Cirran wrote: »

I completely agree with the OP.

In my opinion some folks are not worth engaging in a conversation/discussion with as having a civil conversation/discussion is not their end goal. Reading their posts else where on the forums clearly communicates their intent.

Just look at any thread about PvP, balance, and "ZoS is not making the game the way I want them to" threads.

Sometimes I think some folks are not aware just how invested/passionate they are in this video game.

Typing on a forum it is hard to convey intent. Oner person's "meh" is another's "What a troll their opinion is not mine and they should be called out on it."

Cirran

I guess I just don't understand why a disagree button would be needed in that case, unless it is meant to be used in the way I have seen it more often: used to harass and troll people, not because of what they say, but because someone decided they didn't like them.

I have always come at things with a 'if I don't agree with a post, and I don't want to take the time or can't figure out how to articulate why, then I just don't engage with that post'.

Basically, if someone isn't worth engaging in a conversation, then don't? I don't need a disagree button to not engage them.

Using a more charitable light, even if the intent is to go 'you aren't worth engaging' a disagree button doesn't do anything, because that person doesn't know WHY you don't feel they are worth engaging. As said, tone is hard to convey, so some people might not realize exactly how they come across, and if they don't know that is how they come across they can't work on it, or try to come across in a different way.

TaSheen · August 22

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Cirran wrote: »

I completely agree with the OP.

In my opinion some folks are not worth engaging in a conversation/discussion with as having a civil conversation/discussion is not their end goal. Reading their posts else where on the forums clearly communicates their intent.

Just look at any thread about PvP, balance, and "ZoS is not making the game the way I want them to" threads.

Sometimes I think some folks are not aware just how invested/passionate they are in this video game.

Typing on a forum it is hard to convey intent. Oner person's "meh" is another's "What a troll their opinion is not mine and they should be called out on it."

Cirran

I guess I just don't understand why a disagree button would be needed in that case, unless it is meant to be used in the way I have seen it more often: used to harass and troll people, not because of what they say, but because someone decided they didn't like them.

I have always come at things with a 'if I don't agree with a post, and I don't want to take the time or can't figure out how to articulate why, then I just don't engage with that post'.

Basically, if someone isn't worth engaging in a conversation, then don't? I don't need a disagree button to not engage them.

Using a more charitable light, even if the intent is to go 'you aren't worth engaging' a disagree button doesn't do anything, because that person doesn't know WHY you don't feel they are worth engaging. As said, tone is hard to convey, so some people might not realize exactly how they come across, and if they don't know that is how they come across they can't work on it, or try to come across in a different way.

So true. Very cogently stated.

Cirran · August 22

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Cirran wrote: »

I completely agree with the OP.

In my opinion some folks are not worth engaging in a conversation/discussion with as having a civil conversation/discussion is not their end goal. Reading their posts else where on the forums clearly communicates their intent.

Just look at any thread about PvP, balance, and "ZoS is not making the game the way I want them to" threads.

Sometimes I think some folks are not aware just how invested/passionate they are in this video game.

Typing on a forum it is hard to convey intent. Oner person's "meh" is another's "What a troll their opinion is not mine and they should be called out on it."

Cirran

I guess I just don't understand why a disagree button would be needed in that case, unless it is meant to be used in the way I have seen it more often: used to harass and troll people, not because of what they say, but because someone decided they didn't like them.

I have always come at things with a 'if I don't agree with a post, and I don't want to take the time or can't figure out how to articulate why, then I just don't engage with that post'.

Basically, if someone isn't worth engaging in a conversation, then don't? I don't need a disagree button to not engage them.

Using a more charitable light, even if the intent is to go 'you aren't worth engaging' a disagree button doesn't do anything, because that person doesn't know WHY you don't feel they are worth engaging. As said, tone is hard to convey, so some people might not realize exactly how they come across, and if they don't know that is how they come across they can't work on it, or try to come across in a different way.

This falls into the one person's "meh" is another person's "OMGosh!"

You feel you should know the why so you can understand the why. 'And you assign ill intent to that because you are not able to understand the why.

Many folks play the game, and some folks post on the forums. Not everyone is the same and due to that you will not always understand the why.

This is my final thought on this.

I disagree with you but agree you have the right to your opnion.

Have a great rest of you day.

Cirran

TheMajority · August 22

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

TheMajority wrote: »

chessalavakia_ESO 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.

As of my starting typing this post up the ESO forums have had 164,814 users that have commented.

73.75% of those users have made 1-9 comments
19.92% have made 10-99 comments
4.42% have made 100-499 comments
.94% have made 500-999 comments
.67% have made 1000-2499 comments
.2% have made 2500-4999 comments
.08% have made 5000- 9999 comments.
.02% have made 10,000-24,999 comments.

I can't get inside another person's head and tell you irrefutably why they did or didn't post something.

But, you do see trends in general behavior.

personally my though on the numbers is that they aren't really proving that peopel with lower post count are somehow intimidated to post. I think it more proves that a large number of player use the forum for utilitarian purposes. Ask a question, get answer, then go back to the games. its logical to my mind that less people would be more heavily invested in big discussions. I did it this way before I decided I would like to participate more in some topics.

silencing people to make other people more "comfortable" is not fair. discomfort and lack of confidence in expessing opinions is an issue they need to solve inside of themself. no one holds them back from the discussion.

And how will it make them more confident to post? to silence others is to send the message that if you invest time here, you too will get a punishment of silence. It says to me: be careful, forum poster, don't post too much or they will think you to be a vetran, then you get the muzzle.

I grew up in a life like that, and moved away from my home country so my children would not have to grow up like that, so I never will agree to methods which enforce silence with a false sense of somehow making the community better if voices are not heard. Yes its maybe extreme to compare it to a country, but this gives me that feeling. it's not a good.

You do have to admit some humor exists in that the first part of this thread is about how we shouldn't have a disagree option because it will make people uncomfortable/silenced followed by the later part of the thread being some of the same people talking about how restricting posting amounts to make people more comfortable/not be silenced is horrible because it's censorship.

Not having a disagree button and capping the amount people can post after a certain amount of postings are both forms of censorship.

The forums already operate under Community Rules that also enforce forms of censorship.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/502831/community-rules

hm, I'm not see anything humorous. the contradiction you are creating is your own view of matters. it is not what has actually happened. It is within your thoughts alone. why is this to be found funny? I'm not understanding.

1. you have a beleive that posters feel silenced by vetran post. this isn't the case, you did not post any proofs. only anecdotal observances. you said in response to another post yourself that you don't know this as facts and can't read minds. so action taken to punish other on an uncertainties would be unfair.

2. as others say, not having a disagreement button don't keep you from writing disagreement. similar to this, the existence of vetran poster don't keep you from participation in a thread.

I do not see the wall the vetran poster build to keep new poster out. where is it? I did not run into it on my way over. I am here. I disagree politely with some on a few threads today. I still do live. (I don't mean it in a snappy way, I add humor as others do to show a point)

someones own reluctance to talk is not a responsibility of another poster. they should not receive a punishment for it or because of a guess someone makes about why certain group isn't posting.

well, I don't think it will ever happen anyway.

ok, I do my best to participate. well, I am going to study now how and when to use plural words better and when. long posts are difficult for this reason. sorry. english vocabulary is fun to read, but it's use is a different thing. thank you for conversing.

opalcity · August 22

Cirran wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Cirran wrote: »

I completely agree with the OP.

In my opinion some folks are not worth engaging in a conversation/discussion with as having a civil conversation/discussion is not their end goal. Reading their posts else where on the forums clearly communicates their intent.

Just look at any thread about PvP, balance, and "ZoS is not making the game the way I want them to" threads.

Sometimes I think some folks are not aware just how invested/passionate they are in this video game.

Typing on a forum it is hard to convey intent. Oner person's "meh" is another's "What a troll their opinion is not mine and they should be called out on it."

Cirran

I guess I just don't understand why a disagree button would be needed in that case, unless it is meant to be used in the way I have seen it more often: used to harass and troll people, not because of what they say, but because someone decided they didn't like them.

I have always come at things with a 'if I don't agree with a post, and I don't want to take the time or can't figure out how to articulate why, then I just don't engage with that post'.

Basically, if someone isn't worth engaging in a conversation, then don't? I don't need a disagree button to not engage them.

Using a more charitable light, even if the intent is to go 'you aren't worth engaging' a disagree button doesn't do anything, because that person doesn't know WHY you don't feel they are worth engaging. As said, tone is hard to convey, so some people might not realize exactly how they come across, and if they don't know that is how they come across they can't work on it, or try to come across in a different way.

This falls into the one person's "meh" is another person's "OMGosh!"

You feel you should know the why so you can understand the why. 'And you assign ill intent to that because you are not able to understand the why.

Many folks play the game, and some folks post on the forums. Not everyone is the same and due to that you will not always understand the why.

This is my final thought on this.

I disagree with you but agree you have the right to your opnion.

Have a great rest of you day.

Cirran

Do you see what you did there in your reply?

You clearly and civilly explained that you disagree with their response and why you disagree with it.

And that's why we don't need a disagree button.

ZOS_Volpe · August 22

Greetings,

We've removed some comments that were discussing disciplinary actions. As this thread continues, be sure to stay constructive and keep the Forum Rules in mind to avoid derailing the thread or action on one's account.

Thank you for understanding.

LaintalAy · August 23

The original post discussing this topic has now changed.

JemadarofCaerSalis · August 23

LaintalAy wrote: »

The original post discussing this topic has now changed.

For me, personally, it doesnt' change anything, because that is exactly what I was talking about.

Any votes someone doesn't like, whether or not they were absurd posts, or good posts, are 'ratioed' so they can't be seen without going through hoops.

Syldras · August 23

Not sure if it's cultural differences, my age or personal differences in upbringing, but I don't understand why any post should be "ratioed". Are people afraid of other people wording their opinion nowadays? I see no reason why a text shouldn't remain visible, no matter if it's weird or an unpopular suggestion or opinion (the only exceptions would be hatespeech, harassment, etc - that should be made blocked out or deleted). Everyone can choose to comment on it, to disagree on it, or if you find it absolutely nonsensensical already while skimming, you can just ignore it completely and move on.