Is LOL is unofficial downvote option?

Mr.Turtlesworth · July 2014

theroyalestpythonnub18_ESO · July 2014

Sometimes. Sometimes it just means lol.

Maverick827 · July 2014

It depends on the post. If there is nothing obviously intended to be funny in the post, then LOL means "I'm laughing at you."

Mr.Turtlesworth · July 2014

I use it as a downvote :disagree: unless it's meant to be funny

Artemiisia · July 2014

I see it as this, if you get more lol then agree, there might be something with how you express things

Dayel · July 2014

I just take all my LOLs as sincere compliments about my humor. So if that is not what the person giving me one meant to say, then their opinion was lost on me.

Snit · July 2014

It can be laughter with you or at you. Sometimes, it's just one of those... 'special' people who end every sentence they type with 'lol.'

AdamBourke · July 2014

All the LOLs I've received have been on posts when i've intended to be funny. And I only use them when I think a post is amusing intentionally (AND not a troll post).

I know some people use it sarcastically. But personally I wouldn't want to risk the trolls thinking people were finding them amusing.

babylon · July 2014

AdamBourke wrote: »

All the LOLs I've received have been on posts when i've intended to be funny.

Just fixed that record for you.

Mr.Turtlesworth · July 2014

babylon wrote: »

AdamBourke wrote: »

All the LOLs I've received have been on posts when i've intended to be funny.

Just fixed that record for you.

There's literally no difference between what he said and what you said

Falmer · July 2014

I would never take them as anything other than their intended meaning. If people want to LOL at a post of mine as an attempt to show disagreement, have at it.

I can guarantee I won't be losing any sleep over it.

babylon · July 2014

Mr.Turtlesworth wrote: »

babylon wrote: »

AdamBourke wrote: »

All the LOLs I've received have been on posts when i've intended to be funny.

Just fixed that record for you.

There's literally no difference between what he said and what you said

Not sure you understand the words "literally" and "no" and "difference".

Mr.Turtlesworth · July 2014

babylon wrote: »

Mr.Turtlesworth wrote: »

babylon wrote: »

AdamBourke wrote: »

All the LOLs I've received have been on posts when i've intended to be funny.

Just fixed that record for you.

There's literally no difference between what he said and what you said

Not sure you understand the words "literally" and "no" and "difference".

I'm confused as [snip]

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Cursing & Profanity]

Tabbycat · July 2014

Maybe. Maybe not. I have seen it used as intended and I have seen it used as a disagree/ dislike.

There are always going to be some people that use it to troll others. Although I don't know how successful that is when you don't know who did it in the first place. An anonymous person laughing at me? Hmmm. Okies, whatever floats your boat, whatever stirs your coffee.

Fi'yra · July 2014

Most people have a better 'LOL' ratio because they generally are funny, and then some have a bad 'LOL' ratio because they're generally *** [snip]

#yolo

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on Cursing & Profanity]

Artemiisia · July 2014

Mr.Turtlesworth wrote: »

babylon wrote: »

Mr.Turtlesworth wrote: »

babylon wrote: »

AdamBourke wrote: »

All the LOLs I've received have been on posts when i've intended to be funny.

Just fixed that record for you.

There's literally no difference between what he said and what you said

Not sure you understand the words "literally" and "no" and "difference".

I'm confused as [snip]

made me think about this

Left/Right

Moderator Edit: Edited quote from moderated post.

Fi'yra · July 2014

Snit wrote: »

It can be laughter with you or at you. Sometimes, it's just one of those... 'special' people who end every sentence they type with 'lol.'

omg, I know them people *** *** me off.. lol

Soloeus · July 2014

Mr.Turtlesworth wrote: »

I am laughing out loud - at you. In a mean, bully like way. I am making fun of you and insulting you.

This is how I handle posts that are stupid. I don't always post why I agree with something so I don't always post why I disagree either. I want to have a medium to downvote and LOL is downvote now.

The company decided LOL was a good downvote option and this is what they wanted, so who are you to criticize that.

Soloeus · July 2014

Tabbycat wrote: »

Maybe. Maybe not. I have seen it used as intended and I have seen it used as a disagree/ dislike.

There are always going to be some people that use it to troll others. Although I don't know how successful that is when you don't know who did it in the first place. An anonymous person laughing at me? Hmmm. Okies, whatever floats your boat, whatever stirs your coffee.

So what if I want to downvote you instead of laugh at you, should I be allowed to downvote you? I can just troll you with the LOL button so why not? No behavior was prevented by removing the button.

A different button was simply used instead.

DenverRalphy · July 2014

It's a benign award for saying something funny. Some users think it's the de-facto downvote... but since you get badges for it... the joke's on them right?

My attitude is simple... want to LOL tag my post? Knock yerself out. The practice of using it as a down-vote is simply a demonstration of maturity (or lack thereof).

Soloeus · July 2014

No its a rebellion against not having the downvote option. A lack of maturity is some dolt deciding to say you can have an easy button to agree but not disagree.

xMovingTarget · July 2014

Threads like this are great to form LOLs !

ExiledKhallisi · July 2014

LOL = Laugh out Loud = You thought it was funny. I find it more insulting at snide commenters and snooty posters to just view the LOL vote as, "They think i'm entertaining"

Soloeus · July 2014

"I thought it was funny" is a broad statement and without context is meaningless.

Did I find it funny because it was a great joke?
Did I find it funny because it was so tragic that humor is the only thing to appreciate?
Did I find it funny because the person speaking is full of crap?
Did I find it funny not because it was a joke but because it was total crap and its funny that anyone would say that?

When I use "LOL" I only mean the latter 2. Maybe from now on I will make a snarky remark to demonstrate the intent of my LOL. This of course, means that instead of quietly disagreeing and feeling better about myself, I have to start by using "LOL" then explain it isn't in a positive way.

Tabbycat · July 2014

Soloeus wrote: »

Tabbycat wrote: »

Maybe. Maybe not. I have seen it used as intended and I have seen it used as a disagree/ dislike.

There are always going to be some people that use it to troll others. Although I don't know how successful that is when you don't know who did it in the first place. An anonymous person laughing at me? Hmmm. Okies, whatever floats your boat, whatever stirs your coffee.

So what if I want to downvote you instead of laugh at you, should I be allowed to downvote you? I can just troll you with the LOL button so why not? No behavior was prevented by removing the button.

A different button was simply used instead.

Well see without a disagree or downvote button you would actually have to make a post to say that you disagree with me and why. Which leads to, hopefully, a discussion about it. I think the point is the devs would rather know why people disagree about something than the fact that they do.

Soloeus · July 2014

Tabbycat wrote: »

Soloeus wrote: »

Tabbycat wrote: »

Maybe. Maybe not. I have seen it used as intended and I have seen it used as a disagree/ dislike.

There are always going to be some people that use it to troll others. Although I don't know how successful that is when you don't know who did it in the first place. An anonymous person laughing at me? Hmmm. Okies, whatever floats your boat, whatever stirs your coffee.

So what if I want to downvote you instead of laugh at you, should I be allowed to downvote you? I can just troll you with the LOL button so why not? No behavior was prevented by removing the button.

A different button was simply used instead.

Well see without a disagree or downvote button you would actually have to make a post to say that you disagree with me and why. Which leads to, hopefully, a discussion about it. I think the point is the devs would rather know why people disagree about something than the fact that they do.

No it doesn't. It leads me to troll you with a thoughtless remark. I wouldn't be spending mental energy to devise a response that would generate discourse of any level of quality. I would make a "grey area" mockery of you that wouldn't be deleted because I would be careful not to violate the rules.

Again, its part of the dissatisfaction of not having a dislike button.

1. If I disagree with you, I will usually post why because I want the discourse.
2. Sometimes, I just don't. What was posted was obscene or bothered me and "Homie don't play that." Dislike is a means for me to disagree without having to post something snarky at you.

In other words not having the LOL button encourages more trolling because when I have a dislike button my gratification comes instantly. But when I have only an "LOL" button, I have to validate myself for that gratification so the person doesn't think I am complimenting them.

TLDR: Dislike Button lets me feed my inner trollrage at some of the crap I read with a one-button click. "LOL" button forces me to follow up with actual soft trolling so there isn't a mistake in your perception about the LOL.

Thus, no "Dislike" = more trolling than having "Dislike."

SFBryan18 · July 2014

Trying to figure out what the button is intended for only gives more power to those who wish to abuse it. It means you laughed. That's it. If someone makes me laugh, I LoL their post. It's not an insult, unless they didn't want to be funny. I personally like making people laugh.

I've noticed several of my posts have gotten LoL when there was nothing funny about them and also when there was no reason to disagree. This is just the anonymous trolls who don't have the courage to speak their mind, so they abuse some LoL button in an attempt to troll. They only win if you fall into their trap and get angry.

Go ahead and LoL every one of my posts. I like them, and take them as a compliment. If you have something to say, then say it. No one can know which of my LoL's were genuine, so we will just assume they all were.

There is no need for a disagree button. You can just write it and explain why. From my experience, disagree buttons turn into a popularity contest which the most common forum members will take advantage of by forming little clicks and down voting anyone they don't like. It would not make the forum better at all.

Tabbycat · July 2014

Soloeus wrote: »

Tabbycat wrote: »

Soloeus wrote: »

Tabbycat wrote: »

Maybe. Maybe not. I have seen it used as intended and I have seen it used as a disagree/ dislike.

There are always going to be some people that use it to troll others. Although I don't know how successful that is when you don't know who did it in the first place. An anonymous person laughing at me? Hmmm. Okies, whatever floats your boat, whatever stirs your coffee.

So what if I want to downvote you instead of laugh at you, should I be allowed to downvote you? I can just troll you with the LOL button so why not? No behavior was prevented by removing the button.

A different button was simply used instead.

Well see without a disagree or downvote button you would actually have to make a post to say that you disagree with me and why. Which leads to, hopefully, a discussion about it. I think the point is the devs would rather know why people disagree about something than the fact that they do.

No it doesn't. It leads me to troll you with a thoughtless remark. I wouldn't be spending mental energy to devise a response that would generate discourse of any level of quality. I would make a "grey area" mockery of you that wouldn't be deleted because I would be careful not to violate the rules.

Again, its part of the dissatisfaction of not having a dislike button.

1. If I disagree with you, I will usually post why because I want the discourse.
2. Sometimes, I just don't. What was posted was obscene or bothered me and "Homie don't play that." Dislike is a means for me to disagree without having to post something snarky at you.

In other words not having the LOL button encourages more trolling because when I have a dislike button my gratification comes instantly. But when I have only an "LOL" button, I have to validate myself for that gratification so the person doesn't think I am complimenting them.

TLDR: Dislike Button lets me feed my inner trollrage at some of the crap I read with a one-button click. "LOL" button forces me to follow up with actual soft trolling so there isn't a mistake in your perception about the LOL.

Thus, no "Dislike" = more trolling than having "Dislike."

Your post shows an interesting element to the argument that I had not considered before.

Soloeus · July 2014

I think people who want a "Dislike" button are afraid to admit they feel more inclined to troll when they don't have a "Dislike" button. I remember in Beta, I wasn't posting a lot of negativity.

Some people were really thought provoking in their posts and I would often just click "Agree" or "Disagree" and leave some 2-word "I Agree!" or "No Thanks!" and I would feel happy.

Yet without that button when I find something that really hits me, I feel inclined to hit back. Without a "downvote" to hit back with, my only recourse is the "LOL" button and if I use it, I feel inclined to justify the use.

I wish it weren't so. I am better than this, I promise.

It is more about Censorship. I feel the lack of a dislike button is one of the most Orwellian constructs. You can agree but not disagree. 10 words for YES and 0 words that conceptually mean NO. I feel censored, even though I am not really being oppressed by anybody. It is hard to explain.

I only like using the "Dislike" button when I just want to say nothing but still have my dissent in some small way be noted.

Thanks for taking the time to read that though.

SFBryan18 · July 2014

If someone disagrees, they should explain why or forever hold their peace. "I disagree because..." Agreeing is different because you might not have anything to add. "Enough said, I agree".

There's another stat which we do not see...

Insightful's given.
Agree's given.
Awesome's given.
LOL's given.

These stats would blacklist the spammers. Imagine one person saying, "You have more LOL's received". And the other person saying, "Yea, but you've given 5 times more LOL's than I've received". Obviously some members spam the button and pretend to speak for a larger population. Most websites cap their usage. Not sure if this is done here.

Chatoyancy · July 2014

Honestly, I would like to know what ZOS's stance is on this. They removed the Dislike option, so I would assume they also aren't fond of LOL being using as Dislike.

When it comes to forums, I think the most important features are communication and clarity. Having a dislike option reduces communication. Without dislike, now LOL reduces clarity. I never use LOL meaning dislike, but anymore, I don't use LOL period because it could be misconstrued as a negative LOL. I see LOLs, and I have no idea what the giver meant. I pretty much just use "Awesome" for regular LOL for that reason.

...I'm going to get LOL'ed for this, but can we just remove the LOL tag too?