Cimadon wrote: »

Iluvrien wrote: »

arena25 wrote: »

Dagoth_Rac wrote: »

No. It was hardly ever used to imply legitimate humor or insult bad ideas. It was mostly used to troll threads about ridiculously broken or OP tactics by the people abusing ridiculously broken or OP tactics. I seriously cannot remember a single time that LOL made a thread more thoughtful or productive. If you cannot take the time to explain why you disagree with someone, don't fall back on LOL as a lazy substitute.

The problem is, not everyone has the time to write a constructive reply.

The problem is that people who can't be bothered to write a constructive reply still believe their opinion should have an impact.

No. Keep "LOL" dead... and, for the same reason, please don't introduce a disagree button.

Discussion? Yes. Excellent. Bring it on.
Drive-by LOLs? Heck no.

Again, you could say the EXACT same thing about an agree button. If you ask me, "disagree" and "agree" should live together or die together.

Drive by LOL's are the best kind of LOL's. :-)

Erm, no you couldn't say the same thing about the "agree" button.

A straight agree is quite literally "Yes, this thing here, exactly as your said it". The only way that you could turn that into an actual post is by copying and pasting what the original poster said directly. There is no extraneous information, as both what you wanted to say and the reasoning for it... is likely to be already contained in the post that you are agreeing with. End of.

A straight disagree (not even taking into account shades of disagreement) cannot be managed in the same way. Just by taking a position that says "not this" then the immediate requirement is "why?", or even more simply "what instead?". There is useful information that could actually expand the discussion that won't be included just by clicking the button. More to be said, you just aren't saying it. Why?

The states of agreeing or disagreeing with something are inherently different.

[Edit: to remove mild snark]

Cimadon wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Cimadon wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Yolokin_Swagonborn wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Yolokin_Swagonborn wrote: »

Disagree would be fine but you would still get people that can't handle being disagreed with and they would still need a safe space and a puppy to hold.

Nah, more it doesn't provide any useful contribution.

I mean, I can come on here and say what I just did. But if I could just click a button and say, "disagree," that doesn't really do anything meaningful. It's not valuable feedback to you, there's nothing you can respond to or interact with. Just the knowledge that someone, somewhere, out there, thinks you're wrong for some reason.

It actually does serve a purpose. Here's why. Some people make outrageous threads and they get a lot of heated discussion. Especially nerf threads. It would be nice to see that the majority of the community doesn't buy into their crazy idea so I don't have to worry about killing it in the crib before ZOS accidentally follows it.

Except, of course, it doesn't actually do that. All it tells ZOS is that there are people out there who dislike the post but don't have the intellectual capacity to respond in a meaningful manor.

OK, this is getting tiresome, again, the same thing can be said about the agree button. Here let me show you:

"All it tells ZOS is that there are people out there who likes the post but don't have the intellectual capacity to respond in a meaningful manor."

And another one:

"I mean, I can come on here and say what I just did. But if I could just click a button and say, "agree," that doesn't really do anything meaningful. It's not valuable feedback to you, there's nothing you can respond to or interact with. Just the knowledge that someone, somewhere, out there, thinks you're right for some reason."

You have one argument and that''s disagreeing is offending or hurts people's feelings, which is a dangerous and ignorant slope to go down.

Okay, while you're patting yourself on the back for being the last champion of free speech, a few things to remember.

That's not my argument, it's ZOS's official position on why the LOL button was removed.

Second, it was removed because people were abusing it. Not, they could have, they actually were using it to harass other board members. I have had discussions with moderators on the subject.

Third, when I said, "this is why we can't have nice things," it was because, yep, we had it, and as a community proved we could not handle the responsibility. Or at least, that we had some13 year olds in residence.

So, yes, it was abused, and now it's gone.

I'm not talking about the LOL button. You argue against the LOL button with alot of examples with a "disagree button". They are not the same.

Actually, I can see that a lol button could be abused, by repeatedly LOL'ing one person's post, you can't quite say the same for agree or awesome. I'm more championing for a disagree button. If "agree" exist's, so should "disagree". Both are respectable.

"Last champion of free speech", would love if you could get that title in ESO.

I'd say, "second verse, same as the first," except in this case it's really the other way round. When the forums originally existed in beta there was a disagree option which got culled before the game even made it to public release. I'm less familiar with the specifics of why it was removed. You could ask @SirAndy, or one of the other Psijics, if you really want to know. But, I suspect it was the same thing that happened to the LOL button. A handful of users abused the snot out of it, and were harassing other players, so out it went.

SirAndy wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Kinda makes me wonder what happened with the "like" button. I can't wrap my head around the context where people could have been abusive with that... unless it was liking disparaging and attacking comments... but we still get that with agree, until the mods step in and declare exterminatus.

If i recall correctly, the "Like" button was removed because it was sort of redundant next to the "Agree" button and there were just too many damn buttons.

Like, Agree, Awesome, Insightful, Aardvark, Disagree, LOL... yeah, I can see where that would be a handful.

j.murro2ub17_ESO wrote: »

A Disagree button should suffice

Why choose? Why not both?

Rouven wrote: »

arena25 wrote: »

(...) but to measure if people who have been with the game longer are actually voting No, and if people who haven't been with the game long voted Yes.(...)

The relationship would not necessarily have anything to do with the game, but with the experience on forums in general.

Whatever. As long as people get my point.

Bring it back! Humor is the oil in the engine of life. Let's reward people for making us laugh.

Sure, the first time I got an LOL on a serious post was a little disconcerting, but in the end, I'm not to bothered by "micro-trolling." I mean, really, if you disagree with me or don't like what I've said, argue with me. Make a counterpoint. Address my issues.

If all you can do is dismissively "laugh" at my serious words and sincere arguments, then you're not worth my time and certainly not worth getting upset about. Let people abuse it for all I care. I'm not bothered by anonymous twits.

(Just to be clear here, I've about had my fill of trolls and people who think being offended is a bigger crime than not caring if you hurt people--both online and in the real world. I just can't be bothered by people who don't have the courage to do more than anonymously push a button.)

lol was too often used as an ironic disagree.

I would like to have a simple "disagree" option. It might mean fewer polls.

Yes. But primarily to ensure Insightful doesn't get slowly corrupted.