Maintenance for the week of April 6:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – April 6
Please introduce a 'troll alarm' or 'dislike' option for posts.
-
Vipstaakki✭✭✭✭✭
✭How are you going to avoid misuse? There will be trolls giving troll alarms to every single post they can seen.2 -
Bouldercleave✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Nearly every day I see on the forum posts which I dislike or do not agree. A typical example is a thread, often started by a newcomer, in which a nerf to a certain ability or a general statement about nerfing a class is demanded.
So I was asking myself if there is no way to change the forum rules in a meaningful manner that it reduces the amount of these "nerf these and nerf that" threads without hampering feedback.
I understand that feedback is always welcome, but it can not be that some newcomer can start a thread with a general statement and no stat breakdown, perhaps not even further contributing to its discussion, and these threads keep circling around and around.
So the idea is to let the community heal itself from those forum posts by introducing a 'troll alarm' or 'dislike' button to posts. If a post gets enough of these 'dislikes', it will get removed automatically (and a forum moderator informed). In case it is the opening post of a thread, the thread gets locked with an information that its opening post receives too many negative 'dislikes'.
Thoughts?
Millennials are far too sensitive for that. We have to think of their feelings in everything we do now.
Although I would farm "dislikes" like Ch4mp farms quitting threads, the "everyone gets a trophy" crowd would implode.2 -
MercyKilling✭✭✭✭✭starkerealm wrote: »Part of the reason that the Disagree button was removed in the first place was because it didn't promote meaningful debate.
Erm...except if I disagree with something or someone, debate over whether I disagree is pointless, and it's not up to debate. All I want to do is state that I disagree. Or, that if I -did- state why I disagreed, it would violate a rule, so I be diplomatic and just disagree without stating the why. Hence the need for SOME form of plain indicator that states a flat, non-negotiable disagreement.
I too remember the disagree and LOL buttons. I miss them. Pity people can't just ACT like people.....which brings to mind an adage of sorts:
Want to know what kind of person you're dealing with? Watch them when there's no consequence to their actions.I am not spending a single penny on the game until changes are made to the game that I want to see.
1) Remove having to be in a guild to sell items to other players at a kiosk.
2) Cosmetic modding for armor and clothing.
3) Difficulty slider.
4) Fully customizable player housing that isn't tied to anything in the game other than having the correct resources and enough gold to build. Don't tie it to PvP, guild membership, or anything at all. Oh, make it instanced so as not to take up world map space, too. Zeni screwed this one up already.
Any /one/ of these things implemented would get me spending again, maybe even subbing.0 -
KochDerDamonen✭✭✭✭✭
✭No reason to make a public game of this. Report, ignore if necessary, move along. Nothing is gained by making rule enforcement a public spectacle.MercyKilling wrote: »starkerealm wrote: »Part of the reason that the Disagree button was removed in the first place was because it didn't promote meaningful debate.
Erm...except if I disagree with something or someone, debate over whether I disagree is pointless, and it's not up to debate. All I want to do is state that I disagree. Or, that if I -did- state why I disagreed, it would violate a rule, so I be diplomatic and just disagree without stating the why. Hence the need for SOME form of plain indicator that states a flat, non-negotiable disagreement.
I too remember the disagree and LOL buttons. I miss them. Pity people can't just ACT like people.....which brings to mind an adage of sorts:
Want to know what kind of person you're dealing with? Watch them when there's no consequence to their actions.
@MercyKilling I don't know what "people" you interact with on a daily basis, but if I just walked up to people who were stating an opinion and said "I disagree" full stop, no explanation, and full expectation that they somehow didn't know who I was and wouldn't want to KNOW why, I wouldn't get what I would want. They would either ask why, or call me a prick or something behind my back.
No one is debating THAT you disagree, they wish to debate the basis and reasoning of the disagreement. You can disagree til the end of time itself, but that is only a statistic. People are generally more interested in the 'why' part of an opinion, it's something worth discussing that helps reflect on their own reasoning and the topic itself.Edited by KochDerDamonen on July 30, 2017 5:33PMIf you quote someone, and intend for them to see what you have said, be sure to Mention them with @[insert name].0 -
Belegnole✭✭✭✭✭I agree that unfortunately if something can be abused, it will. The only method I have seen to curb some of the negative things I have seen that actually works is setting limits. I've worked with forum software in the past where limits can be set per user as to how many posts they can make. This can be made very specific as to what type of posts. For example one poll per every X hours, days weeks. Many forums use this type of feature with new members where you can't start a thread until you have made X number of replies to existing threads.1 -
Tryxus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Insightful | Agree | Disagree | Awesome | LOL | Troll
Somehow... do not want."Stand strong, stay true and shelter all."
Tryxus - Guardian of the Green - Warden - PC/EU2 -
Vercingetorix✭✭✭✭✭
✭The "troll alarm" button is called "ignore the thread". Simply not posting or reacting to a troll post causes it to fall into obscurity. You can also place the offender on your "Ignore" list.“Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”0 -
MercyKilling✭✭✭✭✭KochDerDamonen wrote: »they wish to debate the basis and reasoning of the disagreement.
@ KochDerDamonen
Which generally means they are trying to change my mind/opinion to match theirs. Not happening when it comes to game experience/play. Hence, to me at least...forum "debate" is pointless.
So....again...I respectfully disagree.
Edited by MercyKilling on August 1, 2017 2:31AMI am not spending a single penny on the game until changes are made to the game that I want to see.
1) Remove having to be in a guild to sell items to other players at a kiosk.
2) Cosmetic modding for armor and clothing.
3) Difficulty slider.
4) Fully customizable player housing that isn't tied to anything in the game other than having the correct resources and enough gold to build. Don't tie it to PvP, guild membership, or anything at all. Oh, make it instanced so as not to take up world map space, too. Zeni screwed this one up already.
Any /one/ of these things implemented would get me spending again, maybe even subbing.0 -
BlazingDynamo✭✭✭✭✭Dislike button would be nice. I can see it causing an issue with the sensitive though, so wont happen.0 -
GreyWolf_79✭✭✭✭No. Horrible idea.Nearly every day I see on the forum posts which I dislike or do not agree.
If I had a dollar for every time I read or heard something I disliked or disagreed with, I'd be the richest man on the planet. That doesn't give me the right to censor them (unless they are actually in violation of official policy, such as hate speech). The problem with censoring opinions that you don't agree with is that sometimes (or more likely oftentimes) people won't agree with yours. Double edged sword and all.
As an example? I would downvote your thread, if given the chance. Perhaps a few other people would also. Perhaps eventually your thread would "disappear" because it got downvoted into oblivion. Now your voice can no longer be heard. Meanwhile, the voices of all the "popular people" continue to clutter the forum pages, regardless of whether or not their threads have any merit or a single shred of original thought.
Let's try another example. Say we post a "what's your favorite alliance?" thread (yes, obviously this has been done before). Let's say AD outnumbers DC, and all the AD people decide to downvote everyone who posts DC. Then the DC posts mysteriously disappear, and all that is left is a bunch of pro-AD propaganda. Oh sure, the AD people might like that, but what if the roles were reversed? Then they might not like it so much.
I'm all for democracy, but not at the expense of marginalized minority groups. I refer you to the example of two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. As a wolf, I'd love to be able to eat the lamb. But if I were a lamb, I might find that policy to be a tad bit unfair.
I very much like that these forums only allow positive reinforcement, as downvoting itself is actually a method of trolling (kind of like when people accuse someone of "trolling" simply because they stated an opinion that differs from their own). By discouraging alternative viewpoints, you only encourage the formation of cliques and group-think. If you don't like somebody's opinion on something, you can either express your opinion against it, or ignore the post altogether.
0 -
Adernath✭✭✭✭✭Well, thanks all for the mixed feedback to the thread.GreyWolf_79 wrote: »No. Horrible idea.Nearly every day I see on the forum posts which I dislike or do not agree.
If I had a dollar for every time I read or heard something I disliked or disagreed with, I'd be the richest man on the planet. That doesn't give me the right to censor them (unless they are actually in violation of official policy, such as hate speech). The problem with censoring opinions that you don't agree with is that sometimes (or more likely oftentimes) people won't agree with yours. Double edged sword and all.
As an example? I would downvote your thread, if given the chance. Perhaps a few other people would also. Perhaps eventually your thread would "disappear" because it got downvoted into oblivion. Now your voice can no longer be heard. Meanwhile, the voices of all the "popular people" continue to clutter the forum pages, regardless of whether or not their threads have any merit or a single shred of original thought.
Let's try another example. Say we post a "what's your favorite alliance?" thread (yes, obviously this has been done before). Let's say AD outnumbers DC, and all the AD people decide to downvote everyone who posts DC. Then the DC posts mysteriously disappear, and all that is left is a bunch of pro-AD propaganda. Oh sure, the AD people might like that, but what if the roles were reversed? Then they might not like it so much.
I'm all for democracy, but not at the expense of marginalized minority groups. I refer you to the example of two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. As a wolf, I'd love to be able to eat the lamb. But if I were a lamb, I might find that policy to be a tad bit unfair.
I very much like that these forums only allow positive reinforcement, as downvoting itself is actually a method of trolling (kind of like when people accuse someone of "trolling" simply because they stated an opinion that differs from their own). By discouraging alternative viewpoints, you only encourage the formation of cliques and group-think. If you don't like somebody's opinion on something, you can either express your opinion against it, or ignore the post altogether.
I do not want to have individual control over someone else's post, nor that I want to let them 'dissapear' or a cencorship. What I mean is a way of community control for 'bad' threads by
1) Having a way of showing negative feedback
2) Automatically lock a thread after a reasonable amount of time for discussion, in cases that the majority of the community downvoted.
Please read my 2nd post in this thread which I already made clear that auto-remove is too much to ask for. But my main intention is to have a community control to end a discussion after a reasonable amount of time, if too many people don't want the thread in question. This can be after maybe one week time evaluation.
Let me give you an example instead: The German voting system. In that system, all parties who do not gain the favor of at least 5% of all eligible voters do not have a say in the parliament. Exactly this sort of control is the intention of my suggestion, with the difference that it applies to individual threads of negative content.
To make it clear: It is not a minority of a certain playerbase which I'd like to see locked, but a discussion in which a significant majority of the playerbase disagrees on its content. This is a significant difference, since everyone is free to create another thread, a more 'positive' or 'constructive' thread for example.
Perhaps this thread might receive a very mixed feedback with 50-50 positive or negative feedback. I also would accept if it gets locked, but I doubt that the relation between positive and negative feedback would be sufficient.
I still believe that a community can have a self-regulation of some sort, but I accept others opinions.
Something to add: Your 2nd example would require some sort of communication/organization of the DC forum users, which I hardly find realistic.
Edited by Adernath on August 1, 2017 10:05PM0 -
Crom_CCCXVI✭✭✭✭✭Agree with the OP...
although before One Tamriel, when people couldn't play multiple factions in the same campaign, this really wasn't a problem.0 -
CaffeinatedMayhem✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭BlazingDynamo wrote: »Dislike button would be nice. I can see it causing an issue with the sensitive though, so wont happen.
Or being abused, because ya know, that happens.0 -
ArchMikem✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Just like with the "NERF THIS NAO" threads, your OP demands too much. Your suggestions would create a system that would instill a sense of fear about creating new threads, especially in the people who are actually serious about their opinions, cause if there's one thing I've learned about Forums, is it's VERY easy for a Mob Mentality to form and come down hard on someone if what's said isn't in line with the opinions of the majority. Not to mention people are all too eager to label someone a Troll without any kind of hard proof that the post is indeed a Troll Post or not, and everyone else is far to eager to join the Bullies.
Allow the posts that conform. Destroy the ones that oppose. That's a crap system.CP2,100 Master Explorer - AvA Two Star Warlord - Console Peasant - Khajiiti Aficionado - The Clan
Quest Objective: OMG Go Talk To That Kitty!0
