Remove the ability to 'like' content on the forums.

I would like to see some of the information you're basing the premise of this thread on. I mean, you've mused that you hope that providing the evidence wasn't necessary, but if you're asking for change, then I'd like to see the quantifiable reasons to go through the ensuing drama when you remove forms of expression from the forums.

I like posts when they resonate with my opinion, and I do so rather then posting a comment paraphrasing the very same idea. If the idea's already expressed, then endorsing it with a 'Like' is easy and a low bar to community participation.

Forgive me if I am misreading this as well, but your OP states that a concern is that people are 'farming' likes and posting more then 'required' to get high like numbers and therefore high levels of posting is bad. Later in this thread it's expressed that the 'Like' button demotivates people from posting and then the developers lack Data because no one is posting and that too is bad.

That's counter intuitive to me. I get the argument that you may perceive repeated criticisms are not helpful, but when it's feedback, quantity tells a story as much as quality. I'm fairly confident most of us are capable of active reading and seeing the helpful messages beneath the passion and frustration most of the time.

Overall, I think the forum is a little too highly moderated when it comes to disagreements on the forums with this being the only place in two decades of internet use where I have had a post deleted. Based on the low threshold for deletions and post locking that Portalarium enforce, I think that sends the message that the items they do decide to leave open for discussion are useful to them in whatever way they decide to interpret them.

Looking to perform some social engineering to try and adjust the current tone of the forums will just result in the same expressions being undertaken in whatever ways the new system allows.

 

@Superbitsandbob I've stated several reasons why I think it's at least worthy of a trial run. It's not like you have anything to lose here, my friend.

You'd still be able to berate players ideas with your opinion without the like button. There's no censorship.

 

You stating it I am afraid is not good enough. I could state something and ask for the removal of something but have no basis for it.

You also didn't answer my point about players paying to be involved in development and that influence on Port.

 

You can disagree with one reason for doing this, and agree with another reason. That's fine. It's also fair to say that my primary reason for suggesting this is indeed as a tool to help curb some trolling while not censoring, which is related to another topic that helped derive the idea.

What is your opinion when you weigh the different reasons for this suggestion out? Considering of course how easy it is to switch and then switch back after a period of time that allows everyone to see for themselves, and not just conjecture the idea to death. Do you think it's worth a trial run, or not?

Given what you've written, it does seem like there is a hex on making changes around here. If we just don't change anything ever, won't that just make the game worse? I disagree wholeheartedly that fear of a barrage of upset players over a change is ever a good reason not to make one, because everything, literally every change can always be changed back.

 

Because I don't want to derail the topic. It has literally nothing to do with the subject at hand. You're acting like I need your specific permission for this to be implemented. All you're really entitled to do is state your opinion, which really doesn't hold a ton of weight with no data on the subject available.

And furthermore, I have posted plenty of basis for making this change. It's your choice if you want to ignore it, but please don't try to derail the thread.

 

I think the topic is related but ho hum (players influence on the devs for the better or worse). Accusing me of derailing the thread for calling you out for not having any evidence that I and some others can see is kind of my point. My posts would be deemed as those trolling ones I guess?

 

Removed my Name and Shaming.

Thx jammaplaya.

and out i am.

Please remove it also in your Quote.

 

Change for change's sake, when arguably so little is at stake over a 'Like' button seems risky to me. People are naturally risk averse so if a change is presented as an opportunity, it would be well if the potential benefits are clear and quantifiable to justify the risk of disenfranchising a portion of the community.

However, before we even discuss the benefits of changing the 'Like' system after so many years, there is the problem of, well.... the problem.

I don't see what you see in the forums right now. I don't see needless negativity or criticism. I don't think 'repeated' posts are to farm likes, but to try and feel heard because it's very easy to not feel heard in these forums as very few people ever meet in the middle and choose to understand each other's point of view, even if they disagree.

When I have posted feedback, or disagreed with someone's conduct, never does the argument become an exercise in beneficial contention of ideas. It derails into a nitpicking dance of who can find the most superficial flaws in maliciously misquoting or marginalizing the other player.

To me, this is the real problem on the forums, although it is a universal problem and not a specific one. Too quickly discussion becomes about the people, not the ideas and there is a reliance on marginalizing terms like 'whale' or 'troll' to dismiss someones attempts to participate in the community.

All these attempts to to 'fix' the community lately and the only real solution is for the prolific contributors to attend a higher standard of interaction with each other. I personally try to never refer to the respondent I am writing to, or refer to their status or experience. Take out the cliches like 'Troll', 'Whale', 'WoW lover' or '********' and talk to the ideas, not the person bringing them.

That last piece of advice goes double well for those of you reading this that participate outside of this forum.

 

Hey! "Where did my "like button go?" Did you steal my like button Jammaplaya? OMG I've been robbed

 

I never quoted it, I tagged you. I'm not that way, pahlese.

 

There has even been times when I have felt as though I hadn't been heard on subjects that seemed pretty reply worthy.

Like my suggestion to add an 'order' skill tree that was PvM buff based, in contrast to the Chaos skill tree which is PvP based, which I felt would solve many issues including player frustration. But the idea never really got much if any replies. I chalked it up to the fact that maybe it was already in the works, so the certain people who paid for special access privileges weren't able to talk about it.

To me that's totally fair. Dev+ access was introduced at the same time the game was. I knew it existed before I became a backer, so I don't think it would be right for me to complain about it. I don't even see it as a problem because those Dev+ people are more likely to be doing the testing and giving constructive feedback to protect their investment now, which works in favor of this crowdfunded game.

This isn't a change just for changes sake at all. It's not intended just to 'shake things up' because it's stale or boring. Every change certainly is going to have some that are in favor, and some that oppose, but that's no reason not to change things. Extreme changes are justified in this stage of the games development, and more direct reasoning behind player opinion is a valuable asset right now as well.

It brings me back to what I had originally said about how for decades people allowed lead to be mixed into gasoline despite the theory being brought up that it was harmful to the population, and the reason it went on so long is because of an intelligent person who made the choice to oppose the change because he was profiting from it when he definitely knew better.

That said, you seem like a pretty smart guy. People here are generating followings based on their content and positions, and it creates the possibility for said followings to goad certain activity which causes threads to become exercises in beneficial contention of ideas, which does indeed often derail into ''a nitpicking dance of who can find the most superficial flaws in maliciously misquoting or marginalizing the other player.''

So I wonder, is the nature of Xenforo allowing the generation of followings or in other words, gangs, and the tools that come with it, such as liking posts, working against us in alpha or not? You might disagree that it is, and we're just going to have to agree to disagree for now if that's the case, but only until we gather some more data.

Xenforo is really the only way to go these days, it's like not having Xenforo makes people think the developers aren't doing a good job or spending their money properly. At least the tools exist already so that we can find a good feel for SotA forum without any real effort, other than the endless debating of weather or not we should or shouldn't for every single change.

 

Expressing sympathy by other means then writing text - especially in a foreign language - is an important part of an international board. We can discuss if "like" is enough and we shouldn't introduce "dislike" as well but this may lead to troubles. The more that the board-software is not produced by Porta ..

Right now it is ok as far as I'm concerned.

 

They could still post a simple +1, but then if they can read it, they should be able to reply a little more in depth than that.

Language is simply a tool to get your point across, which is usually pretty easy despite the language barrier because of the context of the topic. Personally I never get on anyone's case about posts, but I might if it's in a signature or something being misquoted that alters the quote from it's intended message.

If we take away their ability to like, it might just be the push on the swing they need to get in here and bring some of their ideas to light.

 

OP seems super nice and your posts often make me smile but why attack fun? What's next? Petition to outlaw dancing? We need Kevin Bacon in here to help keep us footloose.

 

+1

 

You didn't quite get it. Lets show you ...

Ich drücke mich gerne am besten in meiner Muttersprache aus. Da kann ich präzise sein und genau das aussagen, was ich explizit sagen will. Wenn ich nun in englisch mit jemandem rede, dann hat der den Vorteil seiner Muttersprache und meine Sätze wirken unbeholfen. In diesem Fall ist es immer gut, wenn man seine Meinung etwas durch optische Eindrücke, Zusatzbuttons oder ännliches unterstützen kann. Es ist auch ein Rettungsanker, um manchem Streit aus dem Weg zu gehen. Daher sollte man den Like-Button stehen lassen.

So - what now? I got my point across. You didn't understand the whole part or only a part of it (maybe with a internet-translater). If you understood only a part you may answer it - but are you right? Are you answering to the cause or just staggering around like a fool? Showing with an icon or a like-button is helping to express and underline the context. Personally I think the topic is through now - you don't want it - others do. Porta is the keeper of the software and tells us what they hand us to improve the community. So far I'm happy with it.

 

-1

Enjoy your future.

 

I would definitely petition to outlaw Kevin Bacon. There'd be no holding me back then. But yes I like to think I am nice and I do try to inspire fun, I'm not really in the business of trying to end fun. Just trying to put a damper on those who seem to be taking the fun out of things for others. At least I think I am, but won't know until it gets put to the test.

@Last Trinsic Defender I think google translate pretty much says it all. If there is a substantial following for any particular language it might benefit them to have their own section, but I do oppose the idea of forcing segregation over something like that in this age of technology.

I'll try. hehe

 

I didn't say it was a baseless opinion. I said it was subjective conjecture.

I get subjective conjecture from my management all the time, they also base it on subjective conjecture like anecdotal evidence just like your "a quote from someone". Usually it is from someone high up in management on the customer side.
Which is why people like me step in and check the data and the metrics and see that "a quote from someone" never tells the whole story and that "a quote from someone" should always be followed with data and evidence.

I couldn't even begin to count the amount of times I have saved projects by showing that those who are the most affected by proposed changes are usually not the target audience of the change.
Like in your proposal, you are trying to stop ~trolls getting encouraged by likes~ to which you have no evidence that your change would actually affect their behavior, but we know based on actual research that your proposed change would instead definitely negatively affect two key user groups whom has very little to do with trolls and which is very much key to keeping the community going and profit flowing into the business.

Since you didn't even acknowledge the challenge and only presented a quote from an unknown source, your own anecdotal experience and didn't even try to come up with a counter argument to the points presented I think that we can easily see where this is going.

So to give you some equally "worthy" datapoint I could say that I was part of a very successful website+forum revamp for one of the largest industrial companies out there. (I was not one of the key stakeholders, just a cog in the wheel). One of the key metrics tracked was not just the active users but very much the passive users and seeing their behavior change (or not) over time due to changes made. One of the biggest changes measured on Lurkers in the whole revamp launch was when we changed from just a 'Like' button to add those I mentioned above. 'Agree' 'Helpful' Thank you' and 'Disagree'. The biggest measured change for Active users was adding an achievement system tied to those buttons.

But neither your story nor my story is any evidence in themselves since they could be doomed by the old causation versus correlation dilemma, hence why I requested published research.


So thank you for proving my point about you and your "I'll ask that we please let our focus for this discussion be based on the merit of supporting our opinions with factual information and proper information gathering."
If you don't then isn't it hypocritical to demand that others do?

 

For general background.