=][= CHANGES TO REACTIONS =][=

[Brother Tyler]

TLDR: The Reaction system will be changing soon.

 

The software upgrade we underwent in June 2022 greatly expanded the options available to us. Where we previously had only the LIKE Reaction, the new software gave us the option to allow multiple Reactions, and to allow each to confer either +1, 0, or -1 Reputation points. Our starting batch of Reactions consisted of the default Reactions provided by the software, plus three others that the staff identified during testing, with the goal of providing members with a full range of options, though we determined that we wouldn’t have any Reactions confer -1 Reputation points based on our observation of the community over the last 20+ years. A concern we had with Reactions was that we wouldn’t be able to dictate to members how each should be used. While we might describe the intent behind each, we were fairly certain that some members would use some of the Reactions in other ways, often with the intent of belittling others – a practice that we had observed on other platforms and which the literature that we consulted described. We weren’t sure how much this would happen however, or of the magnitude of the inevitable problems that would result, so we decided to experiment. We quickly determined that one of the Reactions was used (misused would be the better word) in this way, and we got rid of MEH early on. As a result of suggestions from the community, we also added a few Reactions (LOVE and AGREE). There were a few other Reactions that we were concerned about, but we decided to develop a more holistic picture of the Reactions, including the recent additions, so we held off on any decisions for a while. We also consulted considerably more literature on the subject – academic studies of social media usage, the impact of emojis (of which our Reactions are a subset) on social media usage, cyberbullying, online toxicity, sentiment analysis, mental health, and a range of other subjects related to Reactions. We also discussed various options available to us.

 

In my perfect world we could have a wide range of Reactions, people would give them in a meaningful and constructive manner, and people would accept the Reactions they were given with dignity, understanding the intent with which they had been given. This would be a much more liberal option and would allow for things like DISAGREE and DISLIKE (which we previously ruled out). Unfortunately, while the majority of us appear to use the Reactions as intended, a small but active group has taken to using them in an abusive manner. Naturally, this creates problems with those that are on the receiving end of the Reactions, especially since it’s patently obvious that the Reactions are meant as insults. And then there are times when members mistake some of the Reactions for such abuse even though they might not be intended as such. Whether the Reactions are deliberately abused or mistakenly interpreted as such, problems inevitably result. The result is that the Reactions, intended to increase constructive engagement among members of the community, have created opportunities for toxicity and discord.

 

At the opposite extreme are those that advocate for no (emoji-based) Reactions whatsoever, or that option’s close cousin of just reverting to the LIKE Reaction. The concept with both of these options is that we would encourage people to participate in constructive discussion in order to engage with members of the community. The drawback with this option, however, is that some of the Reactions only appear to result in positive engagement and don’t always require discussion for the concept to be expressed. More importantly, just because Reactions aren’t available to express a concept doesn’t mean that members will engage in constructive discussion. We’ve all seen enough instances of posts that provide little or no value, or which actively destabilize the environment, to know that we can’t compel constructive discussion.

 

We also discussed a range of other options in between, including such things as disciplinary action, lowering caps on Reactions per day, making all options confer Reputation points, etc. (including combinations of various options). In the end, we decided on a hybrid option that we hope supports the site’s mission statement by promoting constructive discussion and sharing of content so that we can all better understand and enjoy the hobby.

 

The changes to the Reaction system will be implemented on Friday, 28 April. The details of the changes will be provided at that time.

[MARK0SIAN]

I certainly feel like the ‘confused’ reaction has basically become a pseudo ‘dislike’ reaction (it’s very often given to posts that are not particularly confusing, just contrary to others opinions) and so I hope this change takes care of that.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

I feel like this will just leave a space for negative written posts in the absence of a relatively neutral way to convey confusion or even mere exasperation at a post.

 

I'd much rather have a negative reaction to this post than an unnecessary, antagonistic, and unconstructive reply.

 

None of us are universally popular, and taking offence at people not liking your opinions by marking them with a less than friendly smiley is the sort of thing that others would call "snowflakey."

 

Please feel free to be openly confused, amused or even bemused by this post, that is your prerogative.

 

Edited April 22, 2023 by Sword Brother Adelard

[MARK0SIAN]

19 minutes ago, Sword Brother Adelard said:

I feel like this will just leave a space for negative written posts in the absence of a relatively neutral way to convey confusion or even mere exasperation at a post.

 

I'd much rather have a negative reaction to this post than an unnecessary, antagonistic, and unconstructive reply.

 

None of us are universally popular, and taking offence at people not liking your opinions by marking them with a less than friendly smiley is the sort of thing that others would call "snowflakey."

 

Please feel free to be openly confused, amused or even bemused by this post, that is your prerogative.

 

The thing is, it doesn’t always follow that if they can’t make a negative reaction they will instead make a post. If people were willing to make a post they’d probably have done so in addition to the reaction anyway. 
 

I think you’re also downplaying the confused option. It’s a very dismissive gesture, implying the post makes no sense when in reality you just disagree with it. The whole point of this forum is to foster constructive discussion, this reaction on its own with no follow up post does nothing to further that goal.

Edited April 22, 2023 by MARK0SIAN

[burningsky25]

I suppose; no details on what this change entails? I can understand how improvements could be made or hoped for, but difficult to give a real reason either for or against such a change in a vacuum, or meaningfully discuss it in light of that.

 

Thanks for clearly putting both work and thought into tackling these items though, not always easy decisions.

[Doctor Perils]

2 hours ago, Brother Tyler said:

Unfortunately, while the majority of us appear to use the Reactions as intended, a small but active group has taken to using them in an abusive manner. Naturally, this creates problems with those that are on the receiving end of the Reactions, especially since it’s patently obvious that the Reactions are meant as insults.

 

Perhaps I've only been consulting calmer areas of the forum, but I haven't seen the phenomenon you describe of members abusing Reactions, let alone being used as insults. Could you show us an example of this behavior, please?

 

EDIT: I'll also add that _if_ Reactions are indeed being used in this manner, perhaps they're being used mostly on posts that are being written in an argumentative manner, or posts that are so clearly off topic that they have been hidden from most members. Perhaps the people getting such Reactions used on them should take it as a lesson to post in a manner more befitting of the welcoming atmosphere we like to encourage here?

Edited April 22, 2023 by Doctor Perils

[Arkangilos]

57 minutes ago, Sword Brother Adelard said:

I feel like this will just leave a space for negative written posts in the absence of a relatively neutral way to convey confusion or even mere exasperation at a post.

 

I'd much rather have a negative reaction to this post than an unnecessary, antagonistic, and unconstructive reply.

 

None of us are universally popular, and taking offence at people not liking your opinions by marking them with a less than friendly smiley is the sort of thing that others would call "snowflakey."

 

Please feel free to be openly confused, amused or even bemused by this post, that is your prerogative.

 

Well, to give an example of the criticism of the confusion react:

 

Ive spent time making posts giving my opinion on why something was important or not. One particular user constantly used the confused react, but gave no follow up posts. So I was sitting there wondering what was confusing about it. I thought it made sense, but just because I thought it did doesn’t mean it did. Eventually I asked, and he said it was seemingly antagonistic. I had no idea my posts he reacted to were antagonistic. The more he added the confusion reacts, the more I would put emphasis on certain parts to try and make it less confusing, which made him think it was more antagonistic.

 

The confusion reacts in no way contributed to the conversation, and made me appear more antagonistic as I tried fixing the confusion part, which then made me frustrated, which caused frustration to bleed in, which then made it seem like a self fulfilling prophecy. I had no desire to come off that way, but the perception “became the reality”. 
 

The angry and other negative reacts are different, though. They convey an unambiguous reaction to something that can’t be misinterpreted.

12 minutes ago, KrakenBorn said:

I think this is a step in the wrong direction; the problem is with people being unable to handle others disagreeing with their opinions without taking it as a personal attack.

 

I'm sure those snowflakes would rather see 2 or 3 confused emojis rather than a doggy pile of people telling them why they're wrong. Maybe people need some obstacles to grow as people; or as they say "If you can't handle the heat then stay out of the kitchen".

It is because when people see someone say they are confused they don’t think “wrong” they think, “what did I say that was confusing?”

 

Confused does not mean you think they are wrong. It means you are confused about what they wrote. Like, “I don’t understand.”

Edited April 22, 2023 by Arkangilos

[MARK0SIAN]

17 minutes ago, KrakenBorn said:

I think this is a step in the wrong direction; the problem is with people being unable to handle others disagreeing with their opinions without taking it as a personal attack.

 

I'm sure those snowflakes would rather see 2 or 3 confused emojis rather than a doggy pile of people telling them why they're wrong. Maybe people need some obstacles to grow as people; or as they say "If you can't handle the heat then stay out of the kitchen".

I genuinely wouldn’t prefer that. If someone posts ‘confused’ on a statement then I waste my time trying to think what it was that was confusing about it when in reality they just disagreed with me. I’d much rather they just explained. I’m fine with people disagreeing with me, but do it in a constructive way by explaining why you disagree rather than post ‘confused’ when you’re not genuinely confused. And if you are genuinely confused then ask for clarification or explain why it was confusing. 
 

You say people are taking people disagreeing with them as a personal attack. They are not. The use of the ‘confused’ reaction with no follow up post is just the equivalent of someone shouting ‘wrong!’ At you without explaining why they think you’re wrong. 
 

The site has already decided and explained why they do not want a ‘dislike’ reaction and if another one is just filling the same role then it is subject to the same reasoning that is used to say we don’t need a ‘dislike’ reaction. 
 

I also don’t understand why people would even want a ‘confused’ reaction for situations where they were genuinely confused and then not follow up with a post. I just think they are a really non-constructive feature. Note, I’m not advocating for the removal of the ‘angry’ reaction because the meaning is clear and doesn’t require a follow up post to explain it, even though I would still consider it a non-constructive reaction.

[phandaal]

30 minutes ago, KrakenBorn said:

I think this is a step in the wrong direction; the problem is with people being unable to handle others disagreeing with their opinions without taking it as a personal attack.

 

I'm sure those snowflakes would rather see 2 or 3 confused emojis rather than a doggy pile of people telling them why they're wrong. Maybe people need some obstacles to grow as people; or as they say "If you can't handle the heat then stay out of the kitchen".

 

The confused-face thing is just pathetic more than anything though. I have taken to mocking its use, because while it is clearly meant as a dig, it really comes across as a perpetual state of confusion. Obviously that is more of a statement about the confused person than the individuals who have the misfortune to have that confusion expressed at them.

 

The counterpoint to the other favorite - "I AM ANGERY" - is that making a grumpy face at someone to express your opinion is something that children do.

 

And yes, it should be easier to leave a positive reaction than a negative one. This is a hobby forum, not an arena.

[Maritn]

Might be OT, but I'm once again amazed at the level of care and thought that goes into managing this forum by the admins and mods. Great job.

[Arkangilos]

42 minutes ago, phandaal said:

The counterpoint to the other favorite - "I AM ANGERY" - is that making a grumpy face at someone to express your opinion is something that children do.

That’s actually why I love and use the angry reaction. 
 

Its more of a joke react from me. Like for example, Inquisitor Lensoven and I had a debate on Aggressors, where he is in favor and I’m not, and I respect his opinion and there have been some good examples put forth by him, but sometimes when he talks about how he likes them I do the angry face jokingly. I do the same on some posts about xenos. Or “imperium being bad guys”.

I never use it in a serious manner like I do with the Positive Emotes, though. Which I guess is actually part of the problem 

Edited April 22, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Kastor Krieg]

I've often used the Confused emoticon to have it mean "Eh? What? Seriously? Why would you say that / do that / be like that?", as it seemed to be the Other Negative Reaction - not Sad, not Angry, just Confused, perplexed with the statements of another person.

It didn't necessarily mean to me that I didn't get the gist of the post itself, just the reasoning behind it or how one could arrive at such an opinion.

[Doctor Perils]

14 minutes ago, Kastor Krieg said:

I've often used the Confused emoticon to have it mean "Eh? What? Seriously? Why would you say that / do that / be like that?", as it seemed to be the Other Negative Reaction - not Sad, not Angry, just Confused, perplexed with the statements of another person.

It didn't necessarily mean to me that I didn't get the gist of the post itself, just the reasoning behind it or how one could arrive at such an opinion.

From the generalised usage here and on TGA, I genuinely thought this was what the emote meant, a "what are you even talking about?" kind of thing. Which is a useful feature if it does indeed lead people to think about what and how they've written it. I think @Arkangilos your example where you had to think about how you wrote your responses when someone posted a "confused" is actually a good example, as you were then able to express your thoughts in a different way, which might have helped other readers, even if they didn't post reactions themselves.

 

These reactions are a good indicator of not just the _content_ of a post but also the _form_ of a post. If someone is posting in an antagonistic fashion or in an off topic fashion, but doesn't _quite_ reach the "report" threshold, a Confused reaction feels like a good indicator to get a member back on the right path to me

 

But then, I also don't feel personally attacked when someone puts a little yellow face under one of my posts...

[Subtleknife]

This seems to be overthinking the issue imo.

 

People should be free to disagree with other people's ideas and be prepared to have their ideas disagreed with in turn.

 

The best disagree emoji I've seen on a forum is one that had a "respectfully disagree" emoji. I think that is the best option imo.

[Khornestar]

59 minutes ago, Subtleknife said:

This seems to be overthinking the issue imo.

 

People should be free to disagree with other people's ideas and be prepared to have their ideas disagreed with in turn.

 

The best disagree emoji I've seen on a forum is one that had a "respectfully disagree" emoji. I think that is the best option imo.

I like that idea. 
 

But really @Brother Tyler, disciplinary action for emoji use? That seems quite above and beyond. 
 

Sometimes things are funny. Not intended to be funny, and yet other people find them funny. It’s okay to laugh. It’s okay to use a laughing emoji. I realize we all have degrees of resilience but I’m afraid offense over an emoji is not something I’m compelled to be super sympathetic about. I suppose that makes me not the nicest person in the world, but that’s where I’m at on this.

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

I hope that the reading done into this topic took into account how poor many of the studies on this subject have been. It's a relevant issue with the potential to make a lot of people money, and also tied up into contentious political arguments that have taken place over the past decade or so. Which is to say, source your literature from as many varied studies as you can and build your own conclusion, as a lot of them have adjendas attached.

 

Seems like a silly thing to have to say about Emoji usage, but it really has been a market worth manipulating for some time now. And studies look very good on paper when you're trying to pitch an idea. Personally I doubt that any change we have on this forum will be that big a deal. Hell, I still can't even really use any reaction other than Like anyway. But if the justification is Research, then the best rout of discussion is said research. Otherwise it's just waiting to see what happens.

[Arkangilos]

1 hour ago, Doctor Perils said:

. I think @Arkangilos your example where you had to think about how you wrote your responses when someone posted a "confused" is actually a good example, as you were then able to express your thoughts in a different way, which might have helped other readers, even if they didn't post reactions themselves.

The problem is that isn’t the result it got. 
He continued to express the same emoji so all that ended up happening was frustration. It’s stupid, served no real purpose, and accomplished nothing other than an *increase* in hostility. It legitimately became a self fulfilling prophecy. He perceived hostility, and rather than address it he made there be *real* hostility.

Edited April 23, 2023 by Arkangilos

[Rain]

The confused emoji has pretty clearly taken the role of the “thumbs down”, but that’s kind of to be expected. Not everyone agrees with every opinion, so with any reaction system if you remove an explicit “I disagree” reaction, some other reaction will take its place in practice.

 

It’s the same with policing of language in general, where euphemisms will just take the place of verboten terms, often with an additional sardonic edge for having to resort to the euphemism.

 

Honestly I feel like there should either be no emoji responses at all, or keep it to thumbs up, thumbs down, and laugh to connote amusement. Hell, I’d welcome a thumbs down on some of my posts from certain people. Disagreement by certain people is a great way to know that one is onto something 

Edited April 23, 2023 by Rain

[Bryan Blaire]

Sometimes it’s best to just ignore the Reactions/emojis, or even set them to be ignored from certain users and just move on.

[Grotsmasha]

2 hours ago, Khornestar said:

But really @Brother Tyler, disciplinary action for emoji use? That seems quite above and beyond. 

 

There's plenty more that could be said now, but the Rules already cover disrespectful behaviour, and some are regularly using emoji's disrespectfully.

[Arkangilos]

1 hour ago, Bryan Blaire said:

Sometimes it’s best to just ignore the Reactions/emojis, or even set them to be ignored from certain users and just move on.

Agreed, the hard part is that before you know that and are thinking it is part of an honest discourse.

[Sea Creature]

“ counterpoint to the other favorite - "I AM ANGERY" - is that making a grumpy face at someone to express your opinion is something that children do.”

Adults get angry as well. Not everybody can easily suppress their feelings either. I would much rather see an emoji than have to read another diatribe.

[Malakithe]

I like to picture my emojis in a tuxedo tshirt. It says I want to be formal but im here to party and I like my emojis to party.

 

 

Or sometimes just to stir the pot 

[Captain Idaho]

I agonised over whether I should post this and decided I should because I know there are others who feel the same and I feel they needed to see there might be others who feel that way.

 

Talking purely as a Frater and not for the board, my experience is there are Frater who deliberately target other members with harassment, laughing at their posts when it is clear they've not said anything funny and are trying to contribute to the conversation. This is done to deride the opinion of others usually.

 

There are times it's clearly malicious and whilst some members of the board are ok with others treating them that way, there are others who aren't. What's more there are some people who see the treatment of others and consider the whole situation as a discouragement to participate, much like a group of people on Facebook where many opinions are suppressed by individuals because "they're not the right ones." (Note I'm not talking policy or macro here, I'm talking on an individual basis of people feeling they can't express what they might want to say - please don't take this as politics as it decidedly isn't my intent at all. The only good politics is between the Imperium!)

 

As I mentioned this isn't a representation of board policy but my personal interpretation of the situation. People are free to disagree and of course that's the whole point - no one should be made to think their opinion isn't valid just because a group of people who "speak loudly" appear to control the narrative.

Edited April 23, 2023 by Captain Idaho

[Sea Creature]

Well said Idaho.