Laughing at others instead of with them is never funny

[preraph]

2 minutes ago, elaine567 said:

I agree.
However there is no "I disagree" emoji for those who would want to use it.

I understand why there's not, but there are times I wonder if the ability just to put a "thumbs down" to show you disagree might not prevent the repetitious circular discussions and put an end to at least some of them, having given the disgruntled party closure of sorts as having gone on the record.

Edited June 28, 2020 by preraph

[Emilie Jolie]

I'd personally prefer to only have a heart or thanks.

I've had a couple of 'angry' faces that were used in agreement of 'angry' (for lack of a better word) contents of my posts, after I asked for clarification, not in anger at my posts. 

Keeping only positive emojis would be good, I feel.

A good addition could be the 'cool' 😎 emoji, maybe?

[Cornholio12]

32 minutes ago, K.K. said:

Erased my smiley which could be seen as ‘offensive’ maybe? 

No offense here. Maybe to others since it seems to take very little but not me. 

[Fresh_Start]

Hi Paul.  I just replied to you via the general site feedback form and will add a few of those points to the public discussion. 

I disagree with the decision that was made.  By removing it completely you have essentially removed some of our reactions and interactions with one another, eliminated a way to show appreciation for certain types of content and interactions, and eliminated a vital component to impersonal communication (that being laughter and the exchange of laughter).  The system you had in place here was very good.  It gave us all multiple ways in which to react to or show our appreciation for one another's contributions as well as show our enjoyment of certain content.  It's unfortunate that certain members here have chosen to abuse that system, but should we all have to face the consequences over the actions of a few?

All of these features can be misused and abused.  Posts can still be "scoffed at" with the laughing emojis; some people could interpret the "sad" reaction as an insult or use it as one to make the person feel like a crybaby or a whiner; the shock reaction can cause confusion; the mad reaction and confused reaction could be misused or taken the wrong way; and there is still a huge library of emojis that can all be misused and abused by the wrong person.  Should we then remove all of them?  That is how censorship starts and I've seen it happen on other forums. 

In another thread, you stated: "We are a venue for open and frank discussions, in the hope that we will all grow and learn from each other. This is a community where we celebrate the ability to openly and willingly be exposed to and accept the insights and perspectives others have from their life experiences to inform our own personal journey and understanding of the greater world beyond us."  A part of being open and frank as well as the ability to openly and willingly be exposed to and accept the insights and perspectives of others are the ways in which we react and respond to it.  I see the removal of the ability to "laugh" at funny posts (and the removal of any reaction) as running contrary to that policy.  Penalize the individuals who misuse the features of this site, not the entire community. 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Fresh_Start

[Ellener]

Maybe we could have a new categorisation such as 'tell me more?/explain please', 'sorry', 'sending you encouragement' ,'that annoys me' or 'I find that amusing' ....I don't know the exact definitions since it's not my website, but I do think the 'instant response' buttons are useful features to stop long-winded people ( like myself ) taking over threads! @Paul et al

 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Ellener
add person link

[major_merrick]

Well I hardly ever used the laugh face....I never found it sarcastic enough.   But in general I find a reduction in the ability to express myself or the increase of censorship to be a negative thing.  Seems to be part of a trend where LS is getting more restrictive. 

[alphamale]

i post on a HUGE forum based out of England.  they let you post almost anything including naked pics of yourself.  but it really shines when it comes to world politics and current events.

[preraph]

4 minutes ago, alphamale said:

i post on a HUGE forum based out of England.  they let you post almost anything including naked pics of yourself.  

See, right here is where I would use the green sick face.  

[Paul]

1 hour ago, preraph said:

I trust you've made sure none of the complainants are ever disrespectful to people in other ways, not just emoji use.  

Yes, in fact, we wrote up some Community Guidelines long ago! You'll see them referenced quite a bit.

[Paul]

1 hour ago, preraph said:

I understand why there's not, but there are times I wonder if the ability just to put a "thumbs down" to show you disagree might not prevent the repetitious circular discussions and put an end to at least some of them, having given the disgruntled party closure of sorts as having gone on the record.

There's no thumbs down because we think, unlike agreeing with someone, disagreeing with someone here, at a place where we have a very specific purpose, simply stating that you don't agree is not demonstrative of your being a willing participant in a joint effort to grow and learn from each other.

We want to encourage people that disagree to discuss the points they disagree on, in an effort to learn how other people in the world think about things, and to clear up misconceptions.

1 hour ago, Fresh_Start said:

A part of being open and frank as well as the ability to openly and willingly be exposed to and accept the insights and perspectives of others are the ways in which we react and respond to it.  I see the removal of the ability to "laugh" at funny posts (and the removal of any reaction) as running contrary to that policy.  Penalize the individuals who misuse the features of this site, not the entire community. 

We agree wholeheartedly, yet despite our best intentions in providing this additional facility to share certain common emotional reactions, in the current climate and in looking at how it had been used predominantly to harass others, we made the difficult decision to turn it off. Had there been an option to keep the previous reactions "visible" yet disallow future reactions, we would have done so, yet that's a technical limitation of the platform. Had there been a technical option to restrict misbehaving people from using the reactions system, we would have taken that approach instead. Are we looking into having those features brought to the community? Yes. Do they exist today? No.

We have addressed those who have abused the system privately, yet seeing that a significant number of people were using this particular reaction in a backbiting, underhanded sort of way, we thought we'd make it just a little less easy to be disrespectful to others. As @Emilie Jolie pointed out earlier in this thread, she used the "confused" reaction to say much more than "confused." We should strive to share with each other fully, rather than take or hide behind shortcuts. Those who want to express an opinion of "I disagree so much with the idea that <insert idea here>, that I'm laughing in disbelief" need to use their words instead of making faces.

Remember, we are not a platform for free and unfettered discussion about anything and everything without consequence and disregard for others. We have a specific purpose, and provide this community as a platform for a very specific reason. Allowing people to easily mock things they don't agree with flies directly in the face of our primary directive. We intentionally set standards here that aren't found on in other places on the internet, and we believe those standards support our mission of interpersonal growth.

[introverted1]

41 minutes ago, alphamale said:

i post on a HUGE forum based out of England.  they let you post almost anything including naked pics of yourself.  but it really shines when it comes to world politics and current events.

Just to clarify:  my use of the "shocked" emoji was legitimate shock, as I contemplated a site where people would be posting naked pics of themselves (outside of porn sites).

I have never used the "laughing" emoji except when someone said something funny.

[preraph]

I usually use the shocked emoji ironically, being silly.  

[Paul]

Based on what has been shared here (how folks are using these reactions to mean different things), we're discussing if we should remove all reactions except for "thanks" and "like." The added reactions were a bit of an experiment when we performed the last major update, and it's clear that those little buttons mean a lot more to many than was intended.

I appreciate the candor those of you have shared so far, and for voicing your thoughts and opinions. Our thought was that the laughter reaction was the clearest offender in terms of "this is what I think about you as a person," which is contrary to our guideline that we should all criticize ideas and not people.

Alternatively, maybe we could rephrase the words used to describe some of the reactions. "The ideas you expressed confused me" instead of "confused," as an example.

[preraph]

I think the "shocked" one is basically harmless.  The laughing one and the shocked one brings levity to the posts, I think.  We all like if we make someone laugh.  But I mean, we can still do it in the text of the post, except not everyone writes answers and just likes to "like" things with emojis.

[Happy Lemming]

Didn't the old software just have a "like" button?? We seem to do just fine with that...

As for being confused, if I'm confused... I'll trim down the quote to the part that confuses me and ask the poster to clarify/explain.

If I would like to thank a poster... typing @Paul "Thank you" doesn't seem like too much effort.

Maybe I'm too old to understand all this emoji stuff, I like words better.

[Paul]

1 hour ago, major_merrick said:

But in general I find a reduction in the ability to express myself or the increase of censorship to be a negative thing.  Seems to be part of a trend where LS is getting more restrictive. 

I think an analogy to this is being able to go to your town square and hold up a picket sign that you wrote a message on and share your opinions with the world, vs. having a box of picket signs with an offensive gesture pre-written on them waiting for you when you arrive. No one is saying that you can't express that you found something was humorous through the words of your post, we just don't think it's a good idea to make it so easy as to offer a pre-printed t-shirt that says "I laugh at everything about you."

Could the same argument be made because we don't offer a reaction emoji of an extended middle finger? Is that reflective of censorship because you don't have a handy "this is what I think of your idea" button? An extended middle finger has a connotation to it, and providing that button makes it too easy to have people not understand what you're trying to convey with a little graphical icon. The same can be said for a laughing face. There's no context as to what you're laughing at, and laughter is not a universally good thing without that context.

[Foxhall]

I thought the haha button was a good feature,

acknowledging some of alphamales one-liners and so on.

[Paul]

32 minutes ago, Foxhall said:

I thought the haha button was a good feature,

acknowledging some of alphamales one-liners and so on.

So did we! Yet, the only way technical way we can presently stop someone from "laughing" at posts they disagree with is to restrict them entirely from the forum. This seems too harsh. We're looking for better technical solutions, yet those will take time to develop.

1 hour ago, Happy Lemming said:

Didn't the old software just have a "like" button?? We seem to do just fine with that...

As for being confused, if I'm confused... I'll trim down the quote to the part that confuses me and ask the poster to clarify/explain.

If I would like to thank a poster... typing @Paul "Thank you" doesn't seem like too much effort.

Maybe I'm too old to understand all this emoji stuff, I like words better.

Yes, prior to the upgrade, we only had "like." Adding additional options was something we thought would be a nice thing to try out. For the most part, I think they're good, however there's no measured capability in the system to stop people who are set on abusing it from doing so. I'd agree that words are more meaningful, yet for some expressions, it's nice to have shortcuts.

[basil67]

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' 

[Paul]

5 hours ago, K.K. said:

Erased my smiley which could be seen as ‘offensive’ maybe? 

I thought it was funny, in the context of this thread. 😆

I also daydream about a slew of random icons we could add as a reactions. How about a pug, dressed in rollerskates? Or the symbol representing the artist formerly known as Prince, but in a color other than purple? Maybe a happy compromise is a bunch of reactions that have no meaning whatsoever.

[preraph]

I think the one group of members who might most miss an emoji are those who aren't comfortable writing but will just hit the emoji button.  Plus it's quick and easy.  Some days that's all I've got time for as well, but hey, up until 2 years ago, except on here the like button, I'd never used an emoji because I'm old, so what do I know?

[major_merrick]

@Paul  OK, you make an interesting analogy about the "pre-printed signs" so I'll give you that point. 👏  I'm highly sensitive to any form of censorship these days, since I find the whole trend of modern society excruciatingly objectionable. 

Since you mention a middle-finger icon....I like that idea.  It is one of my favorite gestures in real life...can I have one?  Please?  Pretty please?  😇 

[preraph]

A "yum" emoji, if there is such a thing for the cooking thread would be nice.

[Fresh_Start]

2 minutes ago, major_merrick said:

@Paul  OK, you make an interesting analogy about the "pre-printed signs" so I'll give you that point. 👏  I'm highly sensitive to any form of censorship these days, since I find the whole trend of modern society excruciatingly objectionable. 

Since you mention a middle-finger icon....I like that idea.  It is one of my favorite gestures in real life...can I have one?  Please?  Pretty please?  😇 

🖕

Ask and you shall receive.

[Emilie Jolie]

4 hours ago, Paul said:

As @Emilie Jolie pointed out earlier in this thread, she used the "confused" reaction to say much more than "confused." We should strive to share with each other fully, rather than take or hide behind shortcuts

I mean, I did use the confused reaction because I was confused, which I assumed was the purpose of it. 🤷‍♀️ I guess that'll teach me not to use emojis, and not to be too candid publicly.