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. 

[Sonder76]

First off.... i really had to fight the urge to "respectfully disagree" with the original post. For no other reason than the comedy of it.

 

However, i agree that down votes or even this forums Disagree button dont serve a true purpose. If somebody does disagree enough with a post and they want to contribute in some way to the thread then they should express that in a reply. 

 

23 hours ago, Brother Tyler said:

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,

 I get the sentiment but the forum isnt going anywhere and not instantly replying to a post you disagree with is usually a good thing anyway. Taking time to consider a reply normally smooths out the edges or even allows a person time to realise that they dont feel quite as strongly on an issue as their first reaction would have suggested. If they do still feel a reply is worth it then they can come back. The disagree button being used in this way is exactly what the original post is calling a driveby down vote button. Its a fire and forget reply.

If you dont agree with something but dont feel strongly enough to reply then just move on to the next post... slapping a grey circle with no context to why its been used defeats the point of a community forum. IMO. 

 

Edited October 4 by Sonder76

[Brother Tyler]

In principle, I agree that disagreeing with someone in a constructive discussion is best done by providing counterarguments via a [thoughtful] response. However, this is the Internet, not a venue where discussion actually tends to follow generally accepted rules for discussion or logical reasoning. By "rules for discussion" I am not alluding to our community rules. Instead, I am referring to guidelines/rules such as the Chatham House Rule or Robert's Rules of Order (among many others - use your favorite search engine or AI to research "rules of discussion"). For those who do not understand what I mean by "logical reasoning," a quick search on the Internet will yield information that is far more in-depth than I have time to provide. Most "discussion" here is really subjective, and too often it is simply opinionating, not inviting or being open to thoughtful discussion or logical reasoning. As a result, most "discussions" devolve into pointless bickering over issues that cannot and will not be resolved simply because they are based on opinion and not on provable fact. I can provide my opinion on, say, Lion El'Jonson's return and someone with an opposing viewpoint might provide their counterarguments, but the likelihood of anyone being persuaded to change their opinion (not just me and the member with the opposing view, but also those members that are observing the "debate") is extremely low. There are exceptions, of course, but these are few and far between. Most of the time, people simply start repeating themselves, and others pile in on one side or the other, but very little traction is made and things tend to go downhill until Godwin's law is realized.

 

Some members choose not to engage in debates for a variety of reasons. Some may feel that they are not equipped to engage in a debate. Others may feel that debating is pointless because they don't believe that the member(s) with the opposing viewpoints are willing to truly engage in a reasoned discussion. Sometimes, someone else provides well-reasoned counterarguments and there isn't a need to repeat what someone else has already said. It's very easy to chalk other members' decision to not provide counterarguments up to laziness, but often it is the result of experience and/or emotional intelligence. After all, what's the point of debating with someone if they're not open to other viewpoints and are unlikely to change their mind?

 

As for the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction not providing any value, that is demonstrably false. At the most basic level, it signals that some number of members disagree with something that someone has posted (or they find it offensive, though that is often left to inference). If I post a contentious opinion and twenty people assign the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction, I know that many people disagree with me, even if no one takes the time to post counterarguments. Naturally, the number and types of other reactions that my post receives also have to be considered, especially if some number of members assign the "Agree" reaction. If nobody assigns positive reactions (and we have to ignore the "HAHA" reaction in this instance since there are members that have weaponized that reaction as an abusive attack on other members), that is very different from fifteen members assigning the "Agree" reaction, 8 members assigning the "Like" reaction, and 2 members assigning the "Thanks" reaction (again, compared to 20 "Respectfully Disagree" reactions). And if one or more members do take the time to post counterarguments, evaluating the reactions that are assigned to their post(s) and the members who assigned them can give me insight into the contrasting arguments, how many members might fall into either/any of the camps, and how those members feel about the various arguments brought up on either side.

 

Regardless, there is no way that we can force people to submit replies that provide counterarguments to posts made by other members. The software can't do this mechanically, and I highly doubt that the Invision staff would even consider trying to code the software to try anything like this. Staff members can't force people to submit content. The time and effort required to even attempt such a (hypothetical) policy would be staggering. Keep in mind that every single staff member here is a volunteer and all time taken for work is time that they can't spend on the hobby or other things. No one is getting paid, and a handful of us (me and a few others who donate regularly) are spending money out of our own pockets to keep the site and the community up and running. Attempting to force members to participate in discussion following the rules of discussion and logical reasoning would require a full-time paid staff at least 5 times the size of the current staff. And all that would yield would be data about members who have assigned the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction without providing a well-reasoned response - we still wouldn't be able to force members to actually make the desired responses (so the time and effort would be for nothing - a complete waste of time). Any effort beyond encouraging members to engage in constructive discussion (which is where we currently sit via our community rules and occasional interventions) would be a Sisyphean task.

 

Removing the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction would simply deprive members of an easy tool to signify their disagreement with something that someone else said. It is extremely unlikely that members would feel compelled to provide their constructive counterarguments. A few might, sure, but the number of such members would likely be extremely low, perhaps even negligibly so. The more likely outcome is that more members would weaponize the "HAHA" reaction in an antisocial manner and/or there would be more of the bickering that we see all too often here. The "best" result we might reasonably expect, and that simply means the least bad result, is that there would be no change elsewhere and we would lose the registry of disagreement reactions.

 

Changing the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction to grant a reputation point to the member who posted the content that is being disagreed with would be counterintuitive, as discussed in my previous post. Similarly, changing any reaction to grant a reputation point to the member giving the reaction would simply incentivize spamming reactions, potentially reducing the responses that are submitted and very likely giving a false impression of the impact of content. Reactions are a form of engagement, however, so members earn achievements for assigning reactions to other members' content. Since reactions are very easy to give, however, and since they provide little in the way of understanding/enjoying the hobby (they are community-focused, not hobby-focused), the progression for achievements for giving reactions is extremely high. In fact, it is the highest progression. The requirement to earn the gold achievement badge for giving reactions is 20,000 reactions. With a limit of 100 reactions per day, it would take a member almost half a year to earn that badge if they maxed out. The last time I checked, no one was giving anywhere near that number of reactions per day.

 

Ultimately, all of the reactions, including "Respectfully Disagree" provide value in that they are a form of engagement. Yes, there are definitely times when thoughtful posts are better than reactions, and the two can be used in conjunction for best effect. By themselves, though, they are clearly better than nothing.

 

The first element of the proposal - changing the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction so that it grants a reputation point to the member who posted the disagreeable content - would be counterintuitive and imprudent.

 

The second element of the proposal - forcing/compelling members to post comments/replies instead of or in addition to giving the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction - is unfeasible.

[Indy Techwisp]

This is probably something that's already been considered, but the existence of a simple and easy to use "I disagree with this" reaction probably does more to prevent flame wars than people realise simply by reducing the number of users who feel the need to post arguments and rebuttals which could build up into a thread derailing argument.

 

Also if the Disagree reaction gives you a point then some people will start optimising posts to farm disagreement reactions while riding the line of what is allowed just because it's easy to find a topic that'll get people arguing (see basically any Marine thread for an example).

[apologist]

Interesting back and forth – and I find myself commenting because I agree with certain parts of Evil Eye's suggestion and disagree with others; but have an overall sense that it's a 'good post'... so in the end I responded with an 'agree' reaction.

 

Is it technically feasible to allow multiple reactions to be given? I've quite often found myself in the position that Evil Eye outlines – in that I disagree with the detail of a post but value other parts of it. In those cases I'd love to be able to put (say) a 'support' reaction alongside the 'disagree'. Likewise there are posts that I find funny and agree with – or I want to express thanks and laugh. Perhaps the most common is that I like the way a post is written and argued, even if I disagree with it.

 

Being able to combine reactions like that opens up a lot more nuance, and goes some way to soften and rehabilitate the 'respectfully disagree' reaction from a sense of being purely negative.

 

+++

 

Musing out loud, is it possible to customise the images of the reactions? Having themed reactions would be fun, particularly in combination – and replacing the universal 'minus of disapproval' with (say) a black purity seal for respectfully disagree – makes things more coded, and potentially less abrasive.

 

+++

 

... and a final note – is there coding that would disable reactions on a post that you're quoting? If I disagree with something, I can add a respectfully disagree reaction or reply. I don't need to do both; that seems overkill.

Edited Friday at 02:26 PM by apologist

[Brother Tyler]

No, there is no setting to allow members to assign more than one reaction to any content. This is a software limitation, not a setting that we can adjust.

 

The best advice I can give in this area is to give a Like reaction so that the member earns the reputation point and then (drumroll) post a well-reasoned response that identifies the elements of the content that you like/love, which make you laugh [with the member], which you agree with, which you disagree with, and which cause you to pledge your support for the member (it is doubtful that all of those will apply to a single post, but you never know ). This is also where you can use the flexibility of a comment/reply, especially with its emojis, to augment the single option of the reaction system.

 

As far as the images go, a very important issue to remember is that all reaction images have to work for both the dark theme and the light theme. This is why we've mostly (see below) avoided using either black or white backgrounds. Also, not only do we need each image to contrast with both themes, we also want each image to be distinct from the others in terms of the color as well as the iconography. This is intended to reduce confusion.

 

For the most part, we've tried to use reaction icons that are instantly recognizable, being familiar to most members based on common usage across the Internet.

 

Like , Love , and Haha  are intuitive and draw upon imagery and colors that can be found across the most popular social media platforms.

 

Agree  was a little different in that many agree icons incorporate either a checkmark on a green background, a handshake, or both. The checkmark on the green background was the easiest and most clear, so that won out.

 

Thanks  was different from the others in that there doesn't appear to be a standard/common icon. I found a variety of icons that spelled out "Thanks" or "Thank You" as well as a number that incorporated imagery of what appears to be clapping hands. Those options didn't work well at the size that our reaction icons typically display, so the white crux terminatus was chosen as a variation on a plus sign +, with purple selected as the background color for its distinctiveness from the colors of the other icons (orange was the other option, but the majority of those polled preferred purple).

 

Respectfully Disagree  was designed to be neutral. Most of my research found "Disagree" icons to use some combination of an X (often a red X or an X on a red background) and a thumbs down. We had already chosen red as the background for the Love icon and wanted to preserve that color combination (though pink was considered as an alternative). In addition, we wanted to make disagreement neutral rather than being a downvote (even though we knew all along that it would be used as a downvote). And while the Respectfully Disagree reaction doesn't remove reputation points, we felt that the flat line was more neutral than the X. We also named it "Respectfully Disagree" rather than just "Disagree" in hopes of mitigating the sting and reducing the chance of flare-ups. The grey background was chosen for the implication of neutrality as well as for its unprovocative nature (nobody "sees grey" when they're angry, after all).

 

Aside from the Thanks icon, the only reaction where we've used in-universe imagery was for Support , and that was only because it worked well. A common Support icon I found was two hands clasped in that manner. There were a few icons that incorporated a cog or a headset-wearing person, but those were all clearly for technical support rather than moral support. The clasped hands worked very well for the concept, and modifying the imagery to that of two Space Marine hands (that's clear, right?) was fairly simple and didn't overcomplicate the image. This is the one reaction that has a white background, largely because I wanted each of the gloves/hands to be a different color and having a third color for the background would overcomplicate things. It is still the most complicated of the reaction images that we have.

 

Something else to keep in mind is that each reaction icon has to be clear at 28 pixels by 28 pixels. The uploaded images are actually 120x120, and the master images are 480x480, but they display at 28x28 and have to be distinguishable at that size.

 

More themed reactions are unlikely. The few that we have are distinct while resembling more common variations found across the Internet, serving as reskins rather than distinct imagery that needs to be interpreted/explained.

 

We could change the Respectfully Disagree icon to a black background, and we could change the - imagery to an X .

 

The question, then, is: Does  provide any advantages over ?

 

Alternatively, whether using black or grey, we could simply have the circle without an image. This comes the closest to your purity seal idea (if we use black).

 

If we were to do that we would have  or . Would either/both of those convey the concept of disagreement to [new] members? Would they do so in a manner that is clearly superior to either the  or ? Would the lack of an image be less provocative? Which of the two is better?