Laughing at others instead of with them is never funny

[Fresh_Start]

19 minutes ago, Piddy said:

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.

Did you not read Paul's post?  This isn't about simply using the "haha" reaction in a way that could be subjectively interpreted.  It's about very clear-cut misuses that are reported by the person who felt they were being mocked or laughed at.  For example, if someone were to make a post talking about how their entire family just died in a plane crash and someone else adds a "haha" reaction to it that would be a flagrant misuse of the reaction.  The OP would still have to report it first though before any action could be taken because the staff of a site with this level of activity do not have the time nor the inclination to read every single post that gets posted here throughout the course of any given day.  Those are the types of reactions that Paul is specifically referring to, not just someone using the "haha" reaction in a way that is open to interpretation and unceremoniously getting smacked with the ban hammer for it.  

[Piddy]

1 minute ago, Fresh_Start said:

Did you not read Paul's post?  This isn't about simply using the "haha" reaction in a way that could be subjectively interpreted.  It's about very clear-cut misuses that are reported by the person who felt they were being mocked or laughed at.  For example, if someone were to make a post talking about how their entire family just died in a plane crash and someone else adds a "haha" reaction to it that would be a flagrant misuse of the reaction.  The OP would still have to report it first though before any action could be taken because the staff of a site with this level of activity do not have the time nor the inclination to read every single post that gets posted here throughout the course of any given day.  Those are the types of reactions that Paul is specifically referring to, not just someone using the "haha" reaction in a way that is open to interpretation and unceremoniously getting smacked with the ban hammer for it.  

Yeah, I read it.  Pretty extreme example you used there.  I doubt the posts in question were that offensive as somebody laughing about losing their family in a plane crash.  My point is it's still subjective because I might not be offended to the same degree that you are etc.. 

Again, for me it's no big deal.  Not losing sleep over it.  In my one example since it's been gone I gave a person a like and quoted her post and gave her a rolling on the floor laugh instead.  It's all good.  We'll adapt. 

[Fresh_Start]

21 minutes ago, eleanorrigby said:

IMO it's not removing our ability to react and respond to posts,

I never said it was.  We have not lost the ability to react and respond to posts.  I'm not a fan of misrepresentations and strawmen because they steer the discussion into addressing irrelevant points like I'm doing right now.  What I said was: "...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."  That's quite a bit different than saying we've lost our ability to react and respond to posts.

39 minutes ago, eleanorrigby said:

it's limiting our ability to do chickensh*t "haha" and run reactions to posts.

No, it's limiting a small percentage of the total number of members here from using the "haha" reaction in a chickensh*t way while taking it away from the larger majority of us who have not misused it and who enjoyed it as a way to quickly acknowledge a funny post in the same manner that we can quickly use any of the other reactions.  Removing our ability to react to certain content in a certain way (that is generally not negative) is heading into perilous waters.  

26 minutes ago, eleanorrigby said:

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.

That was a poorly contrived feature in the first place that your site's owners/administrators should have been able to anticipate with a little bit of common sense and foresight.  Please don't take that as an insult.  I owned a music-related message board, of which I was the head administrator of, for 5 years before I sold it to the highest bidder (for chump change -- I had a business to run and was too busy to dedicate as much time to it as I used to) so I'm stating these things based on my own experience and expertise.   

[Fresh_Start]

34 minutes ago, Piddy said:

Pretty extreme example you used there.

Extreme examples serve their purpose well in illustrating a point.

35 minutes ago, Piddy said:

We'll adapt. 

We will, but the "bullies" are still here so the actual problem was not resolved.  Where there's a will there's a way and trust me that these same individuals will find other ways to misuse the features of this site.  What happens then?  How about for the next iteration of "abuses" after that and so on and so on?

Slippery slopes, my friend.  Slippery slopes.  That's all I'm saying. 

[eleanorrigby]

3 minutes ago, Fresh_Start said:

I never said it was. ....

I don't think your point is irrelevant, you've clarified what you mean to say,  I wasn't attempting to misrepresent or strawman your post. I meant specifically what I said, it's not limiting our ability to respond or react to posts, it's limiting our ability to use the "like" system in an abusive way.  

I put the anonymous feature on the site and it works. Adding the rule that abuse of the anonymous system will result in a removal of being anonymous in those posts worked like a charm. Everyone inclined to fight immediately reverted back to fighting without the "mask".  Forums are as different as people,  what works for some won't work for others but at the end of the day our free speech on any of them is only as free as the site owner and moderators deem it to be.

[Fox Sake]

Can’t say I have ever used them out of context. If something was genuinely funny and made me chuckle then I laughed. 
If I was wowed or educated  , then the correct emote was used. And thanks is given to those that expand on or make a good point. 
 

Still a good idea tho to get rid of them tho as some people clearly can’t control themselves or come up with a suitable debate. 
 

As far as a disagree emoji goes, if someone can’t convey that in words then why are they even here .... 

[Realitysux]

On 6/30/2020 at 11:24 AM, 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. 

 

Very damaging. I had it happen to me and it affected me to the point I was suicidal. I was humiliated and I felt horrible. I was already alone and new to a city. I was already struggling. It hasn't even ended yet and I'm desperate for it to. I always try to move on and accept it but it comes back and the wounds are always being opened. It's affected my jobs and my life. I met this man and I want to go out with him but I'm scared to ask him out. I'm afraid of these people being aware of the rejection. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Realitysux

[Fox Sake]

I’m noticing the point of this thread more so today. 

There is an overt use of the shocked and also confused reaction, that given the substance of what’s said , it’s being used out of context and far too often for it to come across as anything else but derogatory  
 

So I now think there should just be a like , thanks , and a hug reaction. 

[Paul]

44 minutes ago, Fox Sake said:

a hug reaction

What a great idea!

[elaine567]

Note date.

On 1/20/2020 at 10:45 PM, elaine567 said:

I would like a "hugs" emoji

[Fox Sake]

33 minutes ago, elaine567 said:

Note date.

Kudos goes to you then  it was probably missed by wording it as  “emoji” instead of “reaction” . Easy mistake to make ! 

[Paul]

2 hours ago, elaine567 said:

Note date.

We'll call it "the fox-saaaay elaine."

Edited July 2, 2020 by Paul
Added a bit of fox