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

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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...

This again? it been two weeks already?

I voted no. Way too much potential for trolling.

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.

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

There I said it.