Possible change to "Respectfully Disagree"

[Evil Eye]

This may or may not be a terrible idea, so please don't take this as anything more than a mild hypothetical "would this work?" but I'm wondering if a change to the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction might be justified. At present, it seems to be used primarily as a drive-by "I don't like this post" button, rather than an actual expression of disagreeing respectfully. I have been guilty of doing it myself a few times, though more recently I try and reserve it for "I hear what you're saying, but..." or "I see where you're coming from but I don't share that view".

 

Now obviously nobody likes passive-aggressive "downvotes". Personally I don't entirely agree with the concept of a downvote on a community forum at all; if someone doesn't agree, they can just say as much, and if something's really awful then it can be reported, whilst a quick reaction of "yeah, I like this!" is obviously far less of an issue.

 

Now, that said I think there is a place for the Respectfully Disagree reaction, but not in its current form. Assuming it should stay (and I think there's arguments that it should) I'd say the best solution would be to make it actually give reaction points to the receiver as with the other "positive" reactions. This would serve two purposes:

1: Encourage use of it as a constructive reaction. "I think X model would look good in Y colour! What do you think?" might get a few of 'em with the intention of saying "I don't think that would work" in a genuinely helpful way, rather than any kind of snide or unpleasant undertones.

2: Discourage it from being used as the Dreaded Grey Circle of Disapproval, as it is being used at present. If someone really doesn't like a post, they can either say why they don't like it, or ignore it completely and just not engage- a drive-by "I disagree but I see your point" is going to give the poster extra points, after all, so if a post really ruffles their feathers enough they feel the need to express their dislike for it, they're considerably less likely to drop a silent "downvote"- they can just say why they don't like the post, or not say anything at all.

 

Just a thought, anyway.

[Brother Tyler]

If I'm interpreting your suggestion correctly, it comes down to: change the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction so that it grants 1 reputation point* (as opposed to 0, which is the current setting). Is that correct?

 

* For clarity, there are only three options regarding the number of reputation points a reaction can confer: -1, 0, +1. This is a limitation within the software, not a policy that we have created. The only extent of our "policy" is determining which of those three options that we select in the settings.

[Evil Eye]

3 hours ago, Brother Tyler said:

If I'm interpreting your suggestion correctly, it comes down to: change the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction so that it grants 1 reputation point* (as opposed to 0, which is the current setting). Is that correct?

 

* For clarity, there are only three options regarding the number of reputation points a reaction can confer: -1, 0, +1. This is a limitation within the software, not a policy that we have created. The only extent of our "policy" is determining which of those three options that we select in the settings.

Yes, that's correct.

[Brother Tyler]

Okay, let's walk the dog on this...

 

The intent behind the reactions is to provide members with another method for engaging with members of the community. Reactions are a very easy method for engaging, but provide little in the way of real content, generally indicating some sort of favorable response to the content that the other member submitted (agreeing with them, liking the content, thanking them, etc.). Those favorable reactions award a reputation point as an indicator that the content is favorable in some way. Currently, the only exception to this is the Respecfully Disagree reaction, which neither awards a reputation point nor takes reputation point away. Under the current settings, it is intended to be a neutral response. Yes, members often use it in a way that replicates a "downvote" as may be found on other sites (in much the same way that "Like" and the others might be considered a form of "upvote"), but where the other reactions confer a reputation point (making them more closely resemble and "upvote"), this reaction doesn't remove a reputation point (making it look much less like a "downvote").

 

Practically speaking, it's also important to consider the fact that members don't always have the time to compose replies to all the content they find in our community, whether providing detailed descriptions of things they like, identifying points with which they disagree, etc. Nor should such responses always be a requirement - reactions are always decent indicators of what members think about content without people needing to spend time composing or reading lengthy replies. If someone says something funny, I can use the HAHA reaction without having to post a comment/reply that I think the content was funny - the reaction is sufficient. If I had to take the time to compose replies, even short ones, to all of the content that I see here, I wouldn't have time for other things. In this, the reactions provide a level of efficiency for all involved without burdening them (or scaring them away) with an artificial requirement to compose replies to everything.

 

The one area where we hope that members will take the time to compose a reply, however, is when they disagree with something that someone else says. Disagreement is inevitable, especially given the diversity of issues and tastes. Engaging in respectful discussion helps members of the community to understand the differing viewpoints of other members of the community. Many members, however, do not engage in such discussion for a variety of reasons, and it would be impossible for us to force them to do so. This is an alternative that has been proposed in the past, but it has always failed because it is completely unenforceable. If a member doesn't want to compose a comment/reply, or if they don't have the time, there is no way that they can be forced to do so, nor should they. So the Respectfully Disagree reaction provides members with a time-efficient method for indicating their disagreement without having to compose a [lengthy] reply.

 

Your suggestion is for a member who submits content to receive a reputation point any time someone else disagrees with them. Such reputation points contribute to a member's reputation level, allowing them to progress through the levels based on other members' responses to their content (i.e., the more [positive] reactions that a member receives, the higher their reputation level will be).

 

Note that members are already earning achievements through submitting content. So any time a member creates a topic, posts a comment/reply, submits an image, etc., the system logs the behavior and their rank can improve as a result. In this, rank can be construed as a measure of a member's contributions to the community whereas reputation can be construed as other members' reactions to those contributions.

 

So what happens if someone says something with which others disagree? Take this further - what happens if someone says something that others perceive as ridiculous or offensive? While some members might respond in kind, potentially leading to a flame war, hurt feelings, etc., members can signify their disagreement with the content through the simple expedient of the Respectfully Disagree reaction; and if they believe that the content violates the community rules, they should also REPORT the content to the staff so that we can evaluate it and take appropriate action. Under your suggestion, the member contributing the disagreeable/ridiculous/offensive content would also have their reputation advanced. Keep in mind that the member contributing the disagreeable/ridiculous/offensive content is already racking up achievement points for the content.

 

Let's say that I post some topic suggesting that only people that share my views should be allowed to play the game. Other players would likely disagree with that; and if I were to phrase my suggestion in a way that's offensive (belittling other viewpoints/people, for example), it might be considered a violation of the community rules. The basic method by which members might "voice" their disagreement would be by using the Respectfully Disagree reaction. Under your suggestion, I would also earn a reputation point. Does that outcome seem right to you?

[Evil Eye]

I see your point, 100%; my suggestion was to try and encourage the use of "Respectfully Disagree" with emphasis on the Respectfully part, though in hindsight that, maybe, isn't the best way to achieve that. I do understand that not everyone has time to type a full response to everything (and reactions like the laugh are definitely preferable to a thousand "That's funny!" replies clogging a thread!), my issue is that if someone says something and someone else disagrees with it, if they really feel the need to express that, they should take the time to reply- whether it's an actual possibly strong disagreement ("How DARE you advocate for including the Space Gorillas in the Badab War!") or an entirely civil divergence of opinions ("I think the Space Gorillas don't make sense in Badab given their specialism in Xenos hunting, and Badab being a Marine-on-Marine conflict, so they probably wouldn't have gone to the other side of the galaxy to participate."), the least you can do is explain why you disagree. A simple commentless reaction that amounts to "I like this" or "this post is funny" are less abrasive than a drive-by "I don't like this and will let you know as much but can't even be bothered to explain why".

 

I'll definitely admit that perhaps having RD as a +1 reputation point reaction might not be the best idea ever, or indeed a good idea at all. I just feel like there is a slight issue at present with the react being used in ways counter to how it should be and potentially causing undue friction (sometimes by complete accident- text over the internet lacks intonation!).

 

That said, there is one thing I do (respectfully) disagree with you on.

1 hour ago, Brother Tyler said:

what happens if someone says something that others perceive as ridiculous or offensive? While some members might respond in kind, potentially leading to a flame war, hurt feelings, etc., members can signify their disagreement with the content through the simple expedient of the Respectfully Disagree reaction; and if they believe that the content violates the community rules, they should also REPORT the content to the staff so that we can evaluate it and take appropriate action.

Whilst I see your point that a simple RD rating can possibly avoid a shouting match, I'd also make the argument that if someone is regularly and intentionally posting offensive/ridiculous content (not just posts that are, within the context of our hobby, merely "controversial"- such as "The old plastic Warbuggy was the best one") that hints at a deeper problem with that user's posting habits. And on the flip side, if users are genuinely unable to respond to posts they disagree with without resorting to personal attacks or whatever, or for that matter cannot resist either rising to bait from obvious troll posts or for that matter obvious, harmless jokes, that is also a problem that the RD reaction can't fix.

For instance, in the first case- Poster A says "Raven Guard are the best and anyone who likes the other Chapters better is a big dumb meatball-head!" and does not stop the aggressive posting of their disdain for fans of Marines that aren't Raven Guard. If they get a kick out of doing this, no amount of grey reacts or shifts in reputation points are going to stop them; it will require the digital equivalent of a clip round the ear.

 

Now let's suppose Poster B sees Poster A doing his (incredibly annoying) thing, is unable to restrain himself and gets mad, posting a long screed insulting the poster's taste in Marines, moral integrity, virtuousness of parents/siblings/pet hamster etc. Whilst obviously it is unfair to discipline Poster B to anywhere near the same extent as Poster A (unless they go way too far- "I hope someone makes you assemble a Forge World Hierophant, recast out of pewter, with no pin vise!"), ESPECIALLY if Poster A is intentionally anatagonizing Poster B, they have still done the wrong thing, and that's obviously not great either. This case is a bit more complicated as it's a less than desirable but understandable reaction to terrible posting, and very case by case, but nonetheless a reaction system being used as a sticking plaster to try and avoid confronting actual community issues is not ideal.

 

However, let's suggest Poster C is a bit of a joker. He says something "contentious" but very obviously in jest ("Oh wonderful, the Night Scythe got a buff, I can't WAIT for the endless parade of croissants to make their way to my FLGS, I love patisserie!") but Poster D, who really likes the Night Scythe, takes this very much the wrong way and perceives Poster C is insulting their beloved flyer. Poster D may either cut straight to the point and snap at Poster C in a very uncalled for manner, or may leave a RD reaction- possibly leading the entirely well-meaning Poster C to feel slightly upset and wonder what they said wrong. A RD is definitely better than a nasty comeback, but neither is really great; realistically, Poster D needs to learn to recognize good-natured banter.

 

Finally, let's introduce Posters E, F, G and H. Poster E says something meant purely as a discussion point- possibly mildly controversial, possibly not, but meant entirely in good faith and in no way confrontationally. Posters F, G and H form something of a loose clique and vehemently disagree with this poster, despite the very, very, very mild-mannered way he's conducting himself. F, G and H dogpile E and may either make snide, passive-aggressive or condescending posts effectively telling E that they think he's stupid, or may simply drive-by RD. They do this repeatedly- every time E posts something that even remotely alludes to the opinion they disagree with so fiercely, the catty posts or grey reacts come out. After a while, the grey reacts can be just as disheartening, irritating and generally abrasive as actual insulting posts, however they also provide a difficult "grey area" (no pun intended) in that it's much harder to determine when someone's being a bully or unpleasant just by their use of the reaction system. After all, FGH can bombard E with grey reacts every time he as much as breathes and feign innocence, hiding behind the barrier of "Well we're just voicing our disagreement via the reaction system, we've done nothing wrong!" whereas without that to hide behind, any malice would be forced into the open where it could be swiftly dealt with. Conversely, a poster could just use the grey react with good intentions, simply wishing to "bite his tongue" and not say anything unfortunate, and it get mixed up and misinterpreted as the above.

 

To round off, I suppose my main point is that I feel like as it currently stands the RD reaction is an indirect cause of trouble, both by being abused as a form of "stealth flaming" and by causing community disagreements to be bottled up rather than actually being directly addressed.

 

I should finish up by saying, however, that on the whole I think the B&C's moderation is absolutely stellar and it is one of the best-run forums I've ever had the good fortune to partake in. I'm in no way attempting to backseat-mod or even criticize the moderation in any way. This is simply my entirely subjective opinion on an issue I personally percieve could cause trouble and I'm more than happy to admit I might be wrong...or to be respectfully disagreed with.