Laughing at others instead of with them is never funny

[6ix]

9 hours ago, Paul said:

Hi all,

You may have noticed that we've removed the ability to "laugh" as a reaction to posts. We had some folks reach out privately today regarding this change, and wanted to share with everyone our rationale for this difficult decision.

After receiving a number of messages from various participants in the community, we were alerted to an issue that some individuals were frequently using that reaction to laugh at someone, instead of with someone. Often, these individuals would see something posted that they didn't agree with and use the "haha" reaction on those posts. For example, in an instance where someone was discussing infidelity and knowingly being in a relationship with a person in a committed, monogamous relationship (an affair), participants would use the "haha" reaction as a way to scoff at, or laugh at people for things that were not intended to be funny, but simply contradicted their perspective on the matter. We also saw this happening when people expressed a political viewpoint that was different than their own.

After carefully considering the various reactions available, we saw that the "haha" reaction was the one that stood out the most as giving people the ability to be abused in such a way. We discussed this, reviewed its recent usage, and saw that it was being used more for bad than good. As such, it's been disabled for now.

I'd encourage you instead to write out your thoughts or use the "like" reaction when you encounter something where you want to express your appreciation for some humorous moment and appreciate your understanding. While we know that most of the people here are well intentioned, unfortunately it was too easily and frequently abused and too difficult to prevent through monitoring.

We appreciate your understanding and are happy to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Best,
Paul

To add to Paul’s original post, we have reports of people using the “haha” emoji to harass other members dating back to at least mid-May. We had hoped the first reports were identifying an isolated issue and that it would be a one-off situation, so we ignored it at the time, but as more members discovered it could be used this way, more members started doing it. It was being abused as a quick, backhanded way to insult and disrespect other members.

Picture yourself in the real world, at a party or a coffee shop, trying to help someone that has requested your advice, only to be laughed at and mocked by someone nearby, overhearing your conversation. How would you feel? This is how the “haha” emoji was being abused. 

As Paul mentioned, it was given serious thought and only removed when it became too much of a problem. I don’t think anyone was anticipating an emoji, of all things, to cause such strife. 

[SincereOnlineGuy]

"Laughing at others instead of with them is never funny"

 

I predict that Covid's future evolution wll render the above statement inaccurate.

 

It may prove a (mental) survival necessity for these long, solitary months inside to follow.

 

And getting the completely clueless to laugh at themselves with others should not be a burden put upon the smart and sensible people.

 

 

[CautiouslyOptimistic]

One (or more) bad apple(s) ruin(s) the whole bunch! 

🍎🙄

A good decision if some of us can't practice self control!  We'll have to do the work of looking up the emojis on our own and posting an actual response I guess.

[basil67]

28 minutes ago, SincereOnlineGuy said:

And getting the completely clueless to laugh at themselves with others should not be a burden put upon the smart and sensible people.

Smart and sensible people know that laughing at others isn't a way to help them laugh at themselves.  

[elaine567]

I do not believe the odd HaHa in response to a serious post is a problem, we are adults we can take it.
But  a concerted targeting of a member's posts to register disapproval all over the forum is a problem and needs to be reported and said member spoken to, as it can be considered bullying.
Also nasty inappropriate posting ie
"My Grandfather just died" - HaHa
"His funeral is on  Friday" HaHa.
My grandmother is now sick too" - HaHa
Needs severe moderation...

I think the forum would be a sadder place without the emojis actually.
I like all the emojis including the laughing one.   

 

[preraph]

How about this , the old fashioned (I hate the new ones) classic smiley.  It's nothing but friendly and I've never seen it abused.  And it still says "that makes me happy."  If someone did post it with bad intent, I think it would still be hard to interpret as such.  It's not laughing.  

[Cornholio12]

Personally, that emoji doesn't offend me. Nor any. But as the old saying goes, 'If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.' That's my take. 

[d0nnivain]

I use the sad face to signify that what somebody said is upsetting, like I have empathy but it's not a good thing.  For example in the my friend is dating a rapist thread, somebody responded that the friend may become a victim. Thus I am sad nit because I disagree with the response but because I fear it's true.  

[Piddy]

People can get around this by just quoting the post and using whatever emoji fits their sentiment.  There's plenty of laughing emojis to choose from.  So, depending on how funny I thought the post was I could give it a little snarky smile , or give it a rolling on the floor laugh 🤣.  

Much ado about nothing IMO.  I agree with the post by Anonymous1.  Don't be so thinned skinned.  After all nobody knows anybody for real here anyway.   It's not like message board life is like real life. 

Edited June 29, 2020 by Piddy

[Emilie Jolie]

6 hours ago, Piddy said:

Don't be so thinned skinned

I don't think it's about being thin skinned on the receiving end; it's more about the intent of the user on the 'giving' end, even if you yourself are not offended.

I've had it happen to me and not reported it, because as you say, it's not a big deal - but I've also seen it used by a group of posters (very often the same) targeting one imdividual poster as a 'mob'. Even when the individual poster isn't offended, it's just childish (I think). 

I agree it's much better to use the bank of reactions in the body of of the texts themselves anyway.

[FMW]

16 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

I don't think it's about being thin skinned

I agree.  It also derails or diverts the conversation to something that is generally not helpful.  It also might silence some who have something to add to the discussion.  Even if in their personal life someone likes having sharp edged conversations, this is a forum for a broader audience. Save the punches for people you actually know.  

[poppyfields]

On 6/28/2020 at 4:28 PM, basil67 said:

Those emojis while well intended were always going to be misused.  I support the changes.  I'd also be happy to go back to a single 'like' 

Agree basil, I'd personally like to see only the like and thanks. 

The issues I noticed with HAHA was that it was sometimes used to mock and even bully.  I've had that happen to me by one particular poster, two actually, and that's how I felt. 

Like I would post a well thought out, sensitive, serious response to a post and instead of responding with words, the poster(s) would use the HAHA emoji on the side. 

This started happening with virtually all my posts.  I knew this poster didn't care for me (and I knew why), and my feeling was it was his passive aggressive way of retaliating, by laughing at me and mocking me.  

I'd respond "what did you find so hilarious about my post?" which went ignored.  Poster is no longer here.  Both posters are now gone actually.. 

Emojis can be great as a way to "add to" a post, but the ready-made emojis can be ambiguous and often hurtful if it's the only way they're responding.

With the confused emoji, what happened to responding "I'm confused about X, can you clarify"?  

The  I often use and the end of my response, but again when it's the "only" way a poster responds, it can be interpreted in different ways and "can" feel like mocking in some instances. 

I dunno, perhaps I'm too sensitive about it, and I'm all for free speech and all that, but I'm glad it's gone, thanks Paul! 

 

[Fresh_Start]

21 hours ago, Piddy said:

People can get around this by just quoting the post and using whatever emoji fits their sentiment.  There's plenty of laughing emojis to choose from.  So, depending on how funny I thought the post was I could give it a little snarky smile , or give it a rolling on the floor laugh 🤣.  

Much ado about nothing IMO.  I agree with the post by Anonymous1.  Don't be so thinned skinned.  After all nobody knows anybody for real here anyway.   It's not like message board life is like real life. 

It's extra work that most people don't want to put in when it was previously very easy to simply click on the "laughing" reaction for a funny post.  I'm someone who enjoys making people laugh; I regularly crack jokes and one liners.  Imagine being at a comedy club where the patrons are prohibited from laughing at the comedians' material.  Eventually the comedian(s) will stop performing and the patrons will go elsewhere.  While I understand that this isn't a comedy lounge, I hope the analogy is understood.  

What I feel should have happened in lieu of removing the reaction altogether was for Paul to issue a public statement kind of like this one as a warning that the misuse of that (or any) reaction could result in a temporary suspension of posting privileges for a first infraction up to permanent banishment from the site with any additional infractions.  This would separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff and strengthen the community in the process by removing those individuals from it who are not mature enough to use the site's features responsibly while not penalizing the rest of us for the actions of a few.  Don't let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch, just throw them out.  

[poppyfields]

22 hours ago, Piddy said:

It's not like message board life is like real life. 

I think it is "real life."  It's real people, with real emotions, posting about real issues. 

There are laws again cyber-bullying, people have committed suicide over cyber-bullying.

I realize that is extreme, but one never knows how a poster is going to interpret it or react to it.

Just because one person doesnt think it's a huge deal, another might. 

Yes it's a message board, but that doesn't give anyone the right to be disrespectful or to mock or worst case, bully.

We're all "real" people. 

 

Edited June 30, 2020 by poppyfields

[6ix]

55 minutes ago, Fresh_Start said:

What I feel should have happened in lieu of removing the reaction altogether was for Paul to issue a public statement kind of like this one as a warning that the misuse of that (or any) reaction could result in a temporary suspension of posting privileges for a first infraction up to permanent banishment from the site with any additional infractions.  

This is a valid point. Unfortunately the problem outweighed our moderation capabilities too quickly. We just don’t have the time to give infractions to everyone abusing an emoji. 

 

55 minutes ago, Fresh_Start said:

Don't let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch, just throw them out.  

We tried this when the issue first appeared. It didn’t work. What we noticed were that well established, otherwise very civil, members were getting in on it. As mentioned before, we didn’t rush to eliminate it. Much deliberation was spent on it. 

[Piddy]

37 minutes ago, poppyfields said:

I think it is "real life."  It's real people, with real emotions, posting about real issues. 

There are laws again cyber-bullying, people have committed suicide over cyber-bullying.

I realize that is extreme, but one never knows how a poster is going to interpret it or react to it.

Just because one person doesnt think it's a huge deal, another might. 

Yes it's a message board, but that doesn't give anyone the right to be disrespectful or to mock or worst case, bully.

We're all "real" people. 

 

Evidently my rolling eyes emoji  didn't come across as intended.  Because sarcasm or facetiousness is sometimes not evident with just the written word.  😉 Of course it's real people talking on a message board anonymously.  I was being sarcastic.  Maybe we need a sarcastic / facetious emoji. 

I'm in agreement with you that bulling shouldn't be tolerated.   However, emojis are somewhat innocuous IMO.  Laughing (emoji) at someone whether being funny, sarcastic, facetious or irreverent is different than actually verbally bulling someone IMO.

If I put up a post that someone doesn't agree with and they sarcastically put up a laughing emoji,  I don't get my drawers in a knot over it.  BTW which has happened many times to me and I've done it as well.  No big deal.

For me it mainly happens in hot topic threads such as politics etc., where opinions run a little hotter than usual.  I have somewhat of a snarky sense of humor.  I don't think we should all act like Stepford Wives and take away peoples personalities here.

I never considered a sarcastic laughing emoji as a personal attack.  Here's how I differentiate a verbal or written personal attack.  If you write something that I strongly disagreed with and I called you an idiot, then that would be a personal attack IMO.

 If I said your opinion was idiotic then for me that is not a personal attack.  Some may see it as semantics, but I don't.  That's just my opinion.

In the end this web site is privately owned and he can do whatever he wishes.  It's his house so to speak.  There is no free speech on a privately owned web site.  The owner decides what is allowed and what isn't.  Which I understand and everyone else should also.  

 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Piddy

[Piddy]

9 minutes ago, 6ix said:

This is a valid point. Unfortunately the problem outweighed our moderation capabilities too quickly. We just don’t have the time to give infractions to everyone abusing an emoji. 

Yeah, I think that would be a bad idea.  Emojis after all are just a way to give a facial expression.  Giving infraction points or banning someone for giving a facial expression (emoji) seems a little extreme IMO.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Piddy

[Ruby Slippers]

I've also gotten the vibe a few times when someone has clicked the "confused" emoji on my posts that they were essentially saying: "You're crazy / full of crap." Then they tend to follow it up with commentary to that effect. But I don't really care. It's just an emoji 🤷‍♀️

[Fresh_Start]

39 minutes ago, Piddy said:

Yeah, I think that would be a bad idea.  Emojis after all are just a way to give a facial expression.  Giving infraction points or banning someone for giving a facial expression (emoji) seems a little extreme IMO.

I wasn't talking about emojis; I was talking about the "haha" reaction.  6ix inadvertently misrepresented what I said and now we have ourselves a strawman argument.  

Allow me to reiterate:

"What I feel should have happened in lieu of removing the reaction altogether was for Paul to issue a public statement kind of like this one as a warning that the misuse of that (or any) reaction could result in a temporary suspension of posting privileges for a first infraction up to permanent banishment from the site for any additional infractions." 

It was the "haha" reaction that was being misused; in this case to "laugh at" other members.  Any members who felt they were being "laughed at" could have reported it the same way they obviously did in order for the staff here to be aware of the problem.  If the entire site was subsequently put on notice that the misuse of the feature could result in disciplinary action then anyone who misused it after said notice was issued is guilty of violating a site policy.  At that point, it is not at all extreme to issue a temporary suspension of posting privileges to that individual followed by banishment after additional infractions. 

How is removing the entire history of the "haha" reaction from our posts as well as disabling the feature altogether less extreme than penalizing the individuals who misuse it? 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Fresh_Start

[Piddy]

7 minutes ago, Ruby Slippers said:

I've also gotten the vibe a few times when someone has clicked the "confused" emoji on my posts that they were essentially saying: "You're crazy / full of crap." Then they tend to follow it up with commentary to that effect. But I don't really care. It's just an emoji 🤷‍♀️

See, I just read Ruby's post above and thought it was funny.  I laughed at her saying she has gotten some confused emojis before and they're saying she's crazy / full of crap.  I'm still laughing.  So instead of giving her a laughing emoji I gave her post a like and I'll give her a rolling on the floor emoji here instead. 🤣  

 

[Piddy]

13 minutes ago, Fresh_Start said:

I wasn't talking about emojis; I was talking about the "haha" reaction.  6ix inadvertently misrepresented what I said and now we have ourselves a strawman argument.  

Allow me to reiterate:

"What I feel should have happened in lieu of removing the reaction altogether was for Paul to issue a public statement kind of like this one as a warning that the misuse of that (or any) reaction could result in a temporary suspension of posting privileges for a first infraction up to permanent banishment from the site with any additional infractions." 

It was the "haha" reaction that was being misused; in this case, to "laugh at" other members.  Any members who felt they were being "laughed at" could have reported it the same way they obviously did in order for the staff here to be aware of the problem.  If the entire site was subsequently put on notice that the misuse of the feature could result in disciplinary action then anyone who misused it after said notice was issued is guilty of violating a site policy.  At that point, it is not at all extreme to issue a temporary suspension of posting privileges to that individual followed by banishment after additional infractions.  That is how every reputable website on the internet works and I'm confident that this site issues disciplinary action to members who violate community guidelines as well -- starting with a warning, progressing to suspension, and finally to banishment. 

How is removing the entire history of the "haha" reaction from our posts as well as disabling the feature completely less extreme than penalizing the individuals who misuse it? 

Just to be clear.  I'm not in favor of any discipline being dished out because of someone using an emoji of any kind.  Haha etc..  That's a slippery slope IMO.  That includes writing the words haha or lol.   If someone thinks my opinion is full of crap and gives me some kind of emoji expressing that, I have no problem with it.

Maybe we need a flushing toilet emoji. haha  I'm in favor of more emojis, not less.   That's my snarky little smiley.  I like that one.  I had to retire him for awhile, but he's back.  🕺

Edited June 30, 2020 by Piddy

[Fresh_Start]

5 minutes ago, Piddy said:

Just to be clear.  I'm not in favor of any discipline being dished out because of someone using an emoji of any kind.  Haha etc..  That's a slippery slope IMO.  That includes writing the words haha or lol.   If someone thinks my opinion is full of crap and gives me some kind of emoji expressing that, I have no problem with it.

Maybe we need a flushing toilet emoji. haha  I'm in favor of more emojis, not less.

I'm right there with you for most of that and have been pretty outspoken thus far in opposing the decision to remove the feature because now discipline was "dished out" to the entire community rather than the individuals who misused the feature.  Unfortunately, there are always going to be members of a community who take offense to anything -- where nearly all of the like button tab reactions and emojis could be misconstrued (see my original post in the thread), but once we start down the path of removing our ability to react and respond to content in a certain way we have started down the path towards censorship.  Now we've come full circle back to my original argument. 

So that I'm clear as well: I disagree with the decision to remove the "haha"/laughter reaction from our posts for the reasons that I have given.  However, I also don't condone anyone misusing the features of this or any site to stalk, harass, or bully other members.  Therefore, my position is that the "haha" reaction should have been kept in place and that the individuals who used it to stalk, harass, or bully others should have faced disciplinary action that was up to the discretion of the site's staff.  Removing the reaction isn't going to remove the bullies so ultimately, and in my opinion, the removal of the reaction is just a band-aid solution for a larger problem that simultaneously penalizes those of us who did nothing wrong. 

[Emilie Jolie]

52 minutes ago, Fresh_Start said:

Removing the reaction isn't going to remove the bullies so ultimately, and in my opinion, the removal of the reaction is just a band-aid solution for a larger problem that simultaneously penalizes those of us who did nothing wrong. 

From what I gather from previous posts from Paul and 6ix, it's a temporary solution due to both technical and staffing limitations - I agree it would be cool to have it back at some point when technology allows, but I think suspending its use this is better than letting the misuse situation fester.

[Piddy]

1 hour ago, Fresh_Start said:

I'm right there with you for most of that and have been pretty outspoken thus far in opposing the decision to remove the feature because now discipline was "dished out" to the entire community rather than the individuals who misused the feature.  Unfortunately, there are always going to be members of a community who take offense to anything -- where nearly all of the like button tab reactions and emojis could be misconstrued (see my original post in the thread), but once we start down the path of removing our ability to react and respond to content in a certain way we have started down the path towards censorship.  Now we've come full circle back to my original argument. 

So that I'm clear as well: I disagree with the decision to remove the "haha"/laughter reaction from our posts for the reasons that I have given.  However, I also don't condone anyone misusing the features of this or any site to stalk, harass, or bully other members.  Therefore, my position is that the "haha" reaction should have been kept in place and that the individuals who used it to stalk, harass, or bully others should have faced disciplinary action that was up to the discretion of the site's staff.  Removing the reaction isn't going to remove the bullies so ultimately, and in my opinion, the removal of the reaction is just a band-aid solution for a larger problem that simultaneously penalizes those of us who did nothing wrong. 

We're in agreement except for the disciplinary action.  Simply putting a haha / laughing emoji on a post with nothing else is subject to speculation.  What did the person mean?  Like Ruby said, she's gotten the confused emoji and assumed it was telling her she was crazy / full of crap etc., but was followed up by a post confirming her assumption.

But what if they didn't follow up confirming what they meant?  Now it's subjective as to what they meant.  When I first came here I was posting away and I'd get a message saying I had been given points that could result in disciplinary action.  I had to PM others and ask what that was all about.  Had no idea what I was doing wrong.   So I'm not a fan of discipline unless it's clearly over the line.

 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Piddy

[eleanorrigby]

1 hour ago, Fresh_Start said:

 Unfortunately, there are always going to be members of a community who take offense to anything -- where nearly all of the like button tab reactions and emojis could be misconstrued (see my original post in the thread), but once we start down the path of removing our ability to react and respond to content in a certain way we have started down the path towards censorship.  Now we've come full circle back to my original argument. 

 

IMO it's not removing our ability to react and respond to posts, it's limiting our ability to do chickensh*t "haha" and run reactions to posts. I manage a forum with an anonymous posting feature that started to be abused. People would go anon to snark on other forum members. We put a rule in place that the anon poster would be revealed if they used the feature in that way.  The say it to my "face" rule.