Trade Whispers - Starting Pitchers

[RagahRagah]

15 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

I don't know why this forum has anonymous likes/laughs/etc. Most forums I go to tell the users WHO liked/laughed at the post.

That would be a good forum upgrade IMO.

A lot of times I'm arguing/debating someone and they bring up a good point so I "like" their post and they might not know that I liked their post.

I liked your post. ?

[southsider2k5]

31 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

I don't know why this forum has anonymous likes/laughs/etc. Most forums I go to tell the users WHO liked/laughed at the post.

That would be a good forum upgrade IMO.

A lot of times I'm arguing/debating someone and they bring up a good point so I "like" their post and they might not know that I liked their post.

It is available to the admin staff to be able to observe if there are any issues, and that seems to work just fine. 

[fathom]

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

It is available to the admin staff to be able to observe if there are any issues, and that seems to work just fine. 

Crap, I can’t laugh at all your posts now 

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, fathom said:

Crap, I can’t laugh at all your posts now 

About that...

j/k

[iWiN4PreP]

9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

It is available to the admin staff to be able to observe if there are any issues, and that seems to work just fine. 

Yeah, conveniently the admins are the ones who like to anonymously laugh at posts as a form of ridicule. 

I prefer to know who likes my post, who is laughing at a joke, etc. it's a more intimate experience. As it stands the whole like/laugh concept of the forum serves no purpose other than to ridicule people. It does nothing positive. 

[Jose Abreu]

2 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

Yeah, conveniently the admins are the ones who like to anonymously laugh at posts as a form of ridicule. 

I prefer to know who likes my post, who is laughing at a joke, etc. it's a more intimate experience. As it stands the whole like/laugh concept of the forum serves no purpose other than to ridicule people. It does nothing positive. 

At least they got rid of the "confused" reaction. I'll always remember the great "Yoan Moncada is a bust" wars of 2018 where any post that was either very pro or anti Moncada got at least 7 of those reactions within 5 minutes

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, iWiN4PreP said:

Yeah, conveniently the admins are the ones who like to anonymously laugh at posts as a form of ridicule. 

I prefer to know who likes my post, who is laughing at a joke, etc. it's a more intimate experience. As it stands the whole like/laugh concept of the forum serves no purpose other than to ridicule people. It does nothing positive. 

Very, very rarely is it admins who use the laugh function unless it is actually funny.  For example in this recent string, not a single laugh react was from an admin.

The reason for anonymity is that is supposed to be a post feedback system.  If a person really wants to tell you that your post is stupid/funny/excellent, they can also respond.  if you look at it at a high level, if you keep getting the same kids of reacts, there is probably a reason for it.  That was the idea behind keeping this as a new feature with the upgrade a few years ago.

As an admin/mod group when we talked about it, the general feeling was that what was the upside to having that information out there?  So that the same posters who are complaining now can derail threads by tagging people and asking for a public explanation of why they posted the reaction that they did?  What good does that serve?  Do we really want to derail more threads so people with hurt feelings can get it all out?   We already got rid of most of the negative feedbacks, including the actual -1 stuff because of the way it was being used.  The laugh function does at least serve a purpose.

If you can make a compelling argument that it won't cause more harm than good we will listen, but trust me when I say we have talked about these things before.

[bmags]

funny story, all reactions that exist give you a "+1" to your reputation points. So there are no negative reactions. The confused one didn't even take away, it was just neutral. 

 

[southsider2k5]

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Very, very rarely is it admins who use the laugh function unless it is actually funny.  For example in this recent string, not a single laugh react was from an admin.

The reason for anonymity is that is supposed to be a post feedback system.  If a person really wants to tell you that your post is stupid/funny/excellent, they can also respond.  if you look at it at a high level, if you keep getting the same kids of reacts, there is probably a reason for it.  That was the idea behind keeping this as a new feature with the upgrade a few years ago.

As an admin/mod group when we talked about it, the general feeling was that what was the upside to having that information out there?  So that the same posters who are complaining now can derail threads by tagging people and asking for a public explanation of why they posted the reaction that they did?  What good does that serve?  Do we really want to derail more threads so people with hurt feelings can get it all out?   We already got rid of most of the negative feedbacks, including the actual -1 stuff because of the way it was being used.  The laugh function does at least serve a purpose.

If you can make a compelling argument that it won't cause more harm than good we will listen, but trust me when I say we have talked about these things before.

Also @fathom is now banned.  Nothing at all related to laugh reacts or anything like that.

[SoxAce]

2 minutes ago, bmags said:

funny story, all reactions that exist give you a "+1" to your reputation points. So there are no negative reactions. The confused one didn't even take away, it was just neutral. 

 

Yup. Certain posters here have alot of points, but I reckon half to most of their points are from the laughing reaction. 

[fathom]

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

Also @fathom is now banned.  Nothing at all related to laugh reacts or anything like that.

Now you’re just fishing for “thanks” reactions

[southsider2k5]

Just now, fathom said:

Now you’re just fishing for “thanks” reactions

Love reacts only.

[Quin]

11 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

Yeah, conveniently the admins are the ones who like to anonymously laugh at posts as a form of ridicule. 

I prefer to know who likes my post, who is laughing at a joke, etc. it's a more intimate experience. As it stands the whole like/laugh concept of the forum serves no purpose other than to ridicule people. It does nothing positive. 

You know this first part how exactly?

I only laugh react at genuinely funny stuff, since as bmags pointed out, it's positive reinforcement.

[SoxBlanco]

5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Very, very rarely is it admins who use the laugh function unless it is actually funny.  For example in this recent string, not a single laugh react was from an admin.

The reason for anonymity is that is supposed to be a post feedback system.  If a person really wants to tell you that your post is stupid/funny/excellent, they can also respond.  if you look at it at a high level, if you keep getting the same kids of reacts, there is probably a reason for it.  That was the idea behind keeping this as a new feature with the upgrade a few years ago.

As an admin/mod group when we talked about it, the general feeling was that what was the upside to having that information out there?  So that the same posters who are complaining now can derail threads by tagging people and asking for a public explanation of why they posted the reaction that they did?  What good does that serve?  Do we really want to derail more threads so people with hurt feelings can get it all out?   We already got rid of most of the negative feedbacks, including the actual -1 stuff because of the way it was being used.  The laugh function does at least serve a purpose.

If you can make a compelling argument that it won't cause more harm than good we will listen, but trust me when I say we have talked about these things before.

I think this line of thinking makes sense only if there were negative reactions. Nobody will get their feelings hurt with positive reactions, though. And if the "laugh" reaction is being used negatively to make fun of posts instead of actually thinking something is funny, then just remove the laugh option and allow people to see who reacted to their posts. That's what I would prefer. 

[ron883]

Fun fact - I am #14 in total reputation points on this forum

[Sleepy Harold]

1 minute ago, ron883 said:

Fun fact - I am #14 in total reputation points on this forum

Half of those points have to be laughing reactions to your Abreu taeks. 

[iWiN4PreP]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Very, very rarely is it admins who use the laugh function unless it is actually funny.  For example in this recent string, not a single laugh react was from an admin.

The reason for anonymity is that is supposed to be a post feedback system.  If a person really wants to tell you that your post is stupid/funny/excellent, they can also respond.  if you look at it at a high level, if you keep getting the same kids of reacts, there is probably a reason for it.  That was the idea behind keeping this as a new feature with the upgrade a few years ago.

As an admin/mod group when we talked about it, the general feeling was that what was the upside to having that information out there?  So that the same posters who are complaining now can derail threads by tagging people and asking for a public explanation of why they posted the reaction that they did?  What good does that serve?  Do we really want to derail more threads so people with hurt feelings can get it all out?   We already got rid of most of the negative feedbacks, including the actual -1 stuff because of the way it was being used.  The laugh function does at least serve a purpose.

If you can make a compelling argument that it won't cause more harm than good we will listen, but trust me when I say we have talked about these things before.

First, the reputation points system is pretty useless IMO. In theory it's a nice system to see who some of the best posters are, but on a site like this with such a tight knit long timers group it's really just a tiny ego booster for the few there at the top always and a small detriment to new users who want to join in on the posting. Honestly, I haven't even looked at it once.

I don't understand why there are so many different like features anyway. Who needs a laughing emotion, a love emotion, a fire, emotion. Why not just use one solitary 'like' to encompass it all. That solves the issue of the ridiculing easily.

I also still feel that they should not be anonymous either. It seems like you guys were worried about people 'ganging' up on the likes by tagging all their friends, but they can already do that with anonymousity as well.

I guess I don't understand why the system is more complex than it needs to be. As it stands, the 'laugh' emoji only serves the purpose to ridicule. I don't really care about it, but yeah, I've noticed it more than a few times on my posts when i'm genuinely trying to discuss things and it makes me momentarily upset.

[iWiN4PreP]

7 minutes ago, Quin said:

You know this first part how exactly?

I only laugh react at genuinely funny stuff, since as bmags pointed out, it's positive reinforcement.

I was wrong. I mistook it for long term members. My apologies. 

[turnin' two]

3 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

First, the reputation points system is pretty useless IMO. In theory it's a nice system to see who some of the best posters are, but on a site like this with such a tight knit long timers group it's really just a tiny ego booster for the few there at the top always and a small detriment to new users who want to join in on the posting. Honestly, I haven't even looked at it once.

I don't understand why there are so many different like features anyway. Who needs a laughing emotion, a love emotion, a fire, emotion. Why not just use one solitary 'like' to encompass it all. That solves the issue of the ridiculing easily.

I also still feel that they should not be anonymous either. It seems like you guys were worried about people 'ganging' up on the likes by tagging all their friends, but they can already do that with anonymousity as well.

I guess I don't understand why the system is more complex than it needs to be. As it stands, the 'laugh' emoji only serves the purpose to ridicule. I don't really care about it, but yeah, I've noticed it more than a few times on my posts when i'm genuinely trying to discuss things and it makes me momentarily upset.

I may be dense, but I use it when something makes me laugh, not as a way to indicate that I think that something was silly or ridiculous.  

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, iWiN4PreP said:

First, the reputation points system is pretty useless IMO. In theory it's a nice system to see who some of the best posters are, but on a site like this with such a tight knit long timers group it's really just a tiny ego booster for the few there at the top always and a small detriment to new users who want to join in on the posting. Honestly, I haven't even looked at it once.

I don't understand why there are so many different like features anyway. Who needs a laughing emotion, a love emotion, a fire, emotion. Why not just use one solitary 'like' to encompass it all. That solves the issue of the ridiculing easily.

I also still feel that they should not be anonymous either. It seems like you guys were worried about people 'ganging' up on the likes by tagging all their friends, but they can already do that with anonymousity as well.

I guess I don't understand why the system is more complex than it needs to be. As it stands, the 'laugh' emoji only serves the purpose to ridicule. I don't really care about it, but yeah, I've noticed it more than a few times on my posts when i'm genuinely trying to discuss things and it makes me momentarily upset.

That is a lot of consternation for someone who mentioned more than once they don't look at it, and don't care.  We have definitely altered the set of reactions over time to better fit what we wanted them for.  The idea was to have there be a little bit more personality within the site, and let's be honest, 98% of the time, they work and are utilized just fine.  The only time they get "noticed" in this manner is when someone is out on a limb and doesn't like being told so.  But at the end of the day, even knowing that there is some reaction to a post is a valid feed back.  Not everyone is going to like your posts, some might even find them ridiculous.  Having a way of giving that information without a personal confrontation isn't the same thing as just confronting someone every single time they are out of line.  Maybe it actually could serve as a reflection point to the person who receives the feedback?  Nah, the other person is the problem, who am I kidding in 2021.

[iWiN4PreP]

Just now, turnin' two said:

I may be dense, but I use it when something makes me laugh, not as a way to indicate that I think that something was silly or ridiculous.  

As do most normal/moral people, but often it is the source of minor frustrations or ridicule. 

 

PROS of Laugh emoji: So you can distinguish between a like and a laugh??? I guess

Cons of Laugh emoji: It is a use for anonymous ridicule. 

[SonofaRoache]

26 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

Yeah, conveniently the admins are the ones who like to anonymously laugh at posts as a form of ridicule. 

I prefer to know who likes my post, who is laughing at a joke, etc. it's a more intimate experience. As it stands the whole like/laugh concept of the forum serves no purpose other than to ridicule people. It does nothing positive. 

Oh you thought "palehose" was referring to pantyhose. 

[oneofthemikes]

I come back from lunch and see that the Trade Whispers thread is hot thinking something cool was happening and the whole crew is in here doing a deep dive on post reactions. 

[Soxbadger]

Just in case anyone is wondering, Ive never given any of you a post reaction.

Thanks for caring. 

[hi8is]

When did this place become Facebook?