@Boaster Yeah, I can see now that you disagreed with few of my posts, about 10 (even in Polish subforum) just because you didn't like what I wrote in one thread, just what I suspected
I like the new change as in it says who's whit you and who isn't (come on, a disagree isn't that bad after all. We have different opinions, no need to take it too seriously ) My only problem is that it is hard recognizable, I mean, the faces close to the avatar of the person. In both agree and disagree it almost resembles a perfect instead of and
Also, because it appeared close to the "flag" button, for a moment I thought someone flagged me XD
@paulsifer42 yeah thats exectly what I was afraid of.. I guess there are always Cons and Pros, The pro is that now people wont flag every comment they disagree with *ehm* *ehm* boaster *ehm* ( see Dualist thread as a prime exemple )
Yeah, on one side its nice to see who actually disagrees with you, but its going to be tiresome if people start demanding explanations for every disagree they receive.
@Boaster Yeah, I can see now that you disagreed with few of my posts, about 10 (even in Polish subforum) just because you didn't like what I wrote in one thread, just what I suspected
And I can see a lot of the disagree spamming people did on me, which is why I suggested Cameron implement it. And you're among them.
@Boaster Ok, to make things clear once and for all (sorry if it's annoying) I did it, because I didn't agree with you there, you did it, because I didn't agree with you. It's that simple. And you even disagreed with my posts in Polish. I wasn't checking your other posts just to click disagree, I agreed to some of your posts so I guess it's fair. As for Anomen, I didn't agree because in real life you also have some annoying characters and you have to deal with it - BG allows you to choose your own party, and I REALLY don't think we should turn every character to be more "likeable". As for gog.com, my opinion is that gog played it okay in the end and removed your content from the game and you were still unsatisfied with that. Maybe you could talk to them to mention you and Ascension64 in game description, that would be fair, as the content you create for the community is free anyway and they weren't making money out of this mod (the game's price is still the same) and they probably made your modification more popular, giving you a mention on the site would be fine. And believe me, legal teams who own rights to that game would smite them to the ground if they would sell a product without a contract with copyright owners. As you can see, I justified my point, so let's calm down and don't argue about it anymore
Right now I think the icons are very hard to distinguish from each other, and the lists of portraits of who agrees/likes/insightfuls looks messy; the portraits are too small to be able to tell who is who without mousing over and looking at the names.
Why two actions that basically mean the same thing? I don't get it. Also, although certain people were abusing the function (shakes fist), I do think that the disagree function should still be in there.
As for the gog.com thing. I really don't want to talk about it unless @Boaster does what @powerfulally says. And not charge money for free content. *shakes fist again*
Honestly, I believe it's better to not have a disagree button on these boards. People don't take negative criticism too well, even though they're always ready to hand it out generously. The moment flags and disagrees become a means to carry out some kind of personal crusade against another user, that's when things get out of hand. If it has to be like that, I'd rather not have a disagree button at all.
"Like" and "Agree" are slightly different, and there have been times when I would've wanted to have the "Like" button but had to resort to "Agree" instead. Nothing major, mind you, but I think it's fine to have both.
@AndreaColombo While I agree with you, I think it's sad that our community can't seem to handle a disagree function, either because they use it to harass, or see it as a personal slight.
I liked the function. I like being able to disagree with a post, not to annoy or insult, but just to say I disagreed. It's too bad it had to go.
I do like both the like and agree buttons though. There were plenty of times that I didn't want to 'agree' but did want to 'like.'
Honestly, I believe it's better to not have a disagree button on these boards. People don't take negative criticism too well, even though they're always ready to hand it out generously. The moment flags and disagrees become a means to carry out some kind of personal crusade against another user, that's when things get out of hand. If it has to be like that, I'd rather not have a disagree button at all.
"Like" and "Agree" are slightly different, and there have been times when I would've wanted to have the "Like" button but had to resort to "Agree" instead. Nothing major, mind you, but I think it's fine to have both.
Criticism is not inherently bad. It can be the way the critic comes across. There are two basic forms of criticism: constructive and destructive.
I will state that in my issue with another board member is that he was certainly willing to compare my ideas to things that stand in the game, yet without offering ideas of his own. That sort of thing is... not helpful, in my opinion.
Offering criticism without an alternative is like an Art teacher saying to a student "This isn't art. This is just scribbles." This is not helpful. The Art teacher would be best to offer advice. A critic without advice is the worst kind of critic. I suppose a critic such as this is only meaning to protect himself from criticism he might otherwise receive.
Perhaps the options to "Disagree" should be left to those who have achieved a certain number of "Agrees" of their own and to limit the ability to Disagree to once per hour.
Certain kinds of people will always see criticism as destructive, no matter how constructive it actually is. They simply doesn't take well to criticism of any kind.
The only problem I found with the disagree button is that sometimes you can both agree and disagree with someone, but it is hard to globally say on an argumentation if you agree or not. The matter of criticism is neither to impose our opinion or completely adopt another, but rather to have a deeper understanding and come to a more interesting answer.
Thus I'll probably like lot's of post even if they are against me
But it seems some people think more of it. Truth is, IRL you can never be in an agreement with everybody.
Honestly, I believe it's better to not have a disagree button on these boards. People don't take negative criticism too well, even though they're always ready to hand it out generously. The moment flags and disagrees become a means to carry out some kind of personal crusade against another user, that's when things get out of hand. If it has to be like that, I'd rather not have a disagree button at all.
Thus, disagreeing isn't really important over and all. If it only brings chaos and intimity on this forum then it shouldn't exist.
And I don't support half measures like @boaster proposed
Perhaps the options to "Disagree" should be left to those who have achieved a certain number of "Agrees" of their own and to limit the ability to Disagree to once per hour.
As far as I am concern, I don't really like elitism. It's not because you are older on a forum that you have more right to express yourself.
Damn, I just noticed now that the illuminati removed the disagrees. They reached the government, they reached youtube, now they've reached us!
The only good thing to come of the change is that it forces all disagreement to be constructive, or at least verbalised. But agreement doesn't have to be? I welcome disagreement. I say bring it on.
If hurt feelings are an issue (they weren't for me, and I think I had over 50 disagrees...? and I'm wielding Wussblade, -2 THAC0 and manliness) then there's a solution to that: why not preserve the disagree button but only have the results visible to mods and admins, and everyone else sees what they see now? If a post received 5 agrees, and 100 disagrees I think that is important information, if gleaning information for the devs is what it's all about, which has been said, but I wonder.
I'd censor all feedback results from the viewers except a 'n people responded to this post' and the feedback one gave, and just expose the buttons. This would encourage impartiality, and discourage diluting the forum in the pursuit of 'e-peen'. We're already enough addicted to points as RPG players, and I'd rather see a leaner forum with more substance.
(Hmm, then again, thinking of all the disagrees the above paragraph would earn me... muahahahaha what can you do now suckers!? It's like the forum version of the 'sanctuary' spell... it's going to look like everyone only agrees with me, to the extent that anyone does--how do you like it? Still glad you can't disagree with my post? Will we know the answer to that question without you having to post something?)
Take this as an example: As someone who disagrees with the OP, I feel like an unrepresented minority, here (or majority--how am I to know?). I just think if a person has to express themselves in words if they fall on one side of the fence, but can lazily click a button if they fall on the other, then that is unfair. And if you're trying to glean the REAL perception of a post with both sides represented, then you have to read through the entire thread to learn who disagreed and then could muster the effort to post their disagreement. It's still the same result in the end. I mean how far did you have to read through to learn this disagree existed? The corresponding point was earned as well.
Hopefully I've made my point, and maybe a case as the case may be.
I like the other changes to formatting such as the shrunken voodoo heads... I mean, mini avatars, amassed at the bottom of each post. Except that you have to hover over the post to see at a glance what kind of feedback the post actually got (it's almost impossible to decipher whether those smileys are agrees or disagrees for example). This might be extra work for little gain but I wouldn't mind seeing the mini avatars grouped into agree, disagree etc. columns adjascent to each other, each headed by the corresponding smiley and removing the redundant smileys pasted over the avatars.
"Like" is actually a good idea. And I don't support half measures like @boaster proposed
Perhaps the options to "Disagree" should be left to those who have achieved a certain number of "Agrees" of their own and to limit the ability to Disagree to once per hour.
As far as I am concern, I don't really like elitism. It's not because you are older on a forum that you have more right to express yourself.
It's not elitism, or even directly seniority, it's called active-contributor status
I have no idea how disagree was being abused but if it's gone it should be gone to everybody... And it makes it easier for people to speak their minds without fear of disagrees.
Comments
My only problem is that it is hard recognizable, I mean, the faces close to the avatar of the person. In both agree and disagree it almost resembles a perfect
Also, because it appeared close to the "flag" button, for a moment I thought someone flagged me XD
I'm very happy that it shows who agrees and disagrees.
It's good to know who's flagging my posts.
@mch202 want an example of what you mean? Here's a link: http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/1435/a-dragon-in-bg1/p3
Yeah, on one side its nice to see who actually disagrees with you, but its going to be tiresome if people start demanding explanations for every disagree they receive.
"Ugh, Anomen, where to start?"
"Please make a GOG.com release of BG(2)EE!!!"
But you weren't the only one
I did it, because I didn't agree with you there, you did it, because I didn't agree with you. It's that simple. And you even disagreed with my posts in Polish. I wasn't checking your other posts just to click disagree, I agreed to some of your posts so I guess it's fair.
As for Anomen, I didn't agree because in real life you also have some annoying characters and you have to deal with it - BG allows you to choose your own party, and I REALLY don't think we should turn every character to be more "likeable".
As for gog.com, my opinion is that gog played it okay in the end and removed your content from the game and you were still unsatisfied with that. Maybe you could talk to them to mention you and Ascension64 in game description, that would be fair, as the content you create for the community is free anyway and they weren't making money out of this mod (the game's price is still the same) and they probably made your modification more popular, giving you a mention on the site would be fine. And believe me, legal teams who own rights to that game would smite them to the ground if they would sell a product without a contract with copyright owners.
As you can see, I justified my point, so let's calm down and don't argue about it anymore
Right now I think the icons are very hard to distinguish from each other, and the lists of portraits of who agrees/likes/insightfuls looks messy; the portraits are too small to be able to tell who is who without mousing over and looking at the names.
I'm not 100% sure since I'm not an administrator, but I think the portrait thing came from a Vanilla forums update.
As for the gog.com thing. I really don't want to talk about it unless @Boaster does what @powerfulally says. And not charge money for free content. *shakes fist again*
http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=bgee&uio=OT10cnVlJjExPTQx30
"Like" and "Agree" are slightly different, and there have been times when I would've wanted to have the "Like" button but had to resort to "Agree" instead. Nothing major, mind you, but I think it's fine to have both.
I liked the function. I like being able to disagree with a post, not to annoy or insult, but just to say I disagreed. It's too bad it had to go.
I do like both the like and agree buttons though. There were plenty of times that I didn't want to 'agree' but did want to 'like.'
I will state that in my issue with another board member is that he was certainly willing to compare my ideas to things that stand in the game, yet without offering ideas of his own. That sort of thing is... not helpful, in my opinion.
Offering criticism without an alternative is like an Art teacher saying to a student "This isn't art. This is just scribbles." This is not helpful. The Art teacher would be best to offer advice. A critic without advice is the worst kind of critic. I suppose a critic such as this is only meaning to protect himself from criticism he might otherwise receive.
Perhaps the options to "Disagree" should be left to those who have achieved a certain number of "Agrees" of their own and to limit the ability to Disagree to once per hour.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/1373/kit-idea-gladiator-feedback/p1
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/1458/fighter-kit-duelist/p1
The only problem I found with the disagree button is that sometimes you can both agree and disagree with someone, but it is hard to globally say on an argumentation if you agree or not. The matter of criticism is neither to impose our opinion or completely adopt another, but rather to have a deeper understanding and come to a more interesting answer.
Thus I'll probably like lot's of post even if they are against me
But it seems some people think more of it. Truth is, IRL you can never be in an agreement with everybody. @AndreaColombo those were wise words !
Thus, disagreeing isn't really important over and all. If it only brings chaos and intimity on this forum then it shouldn't exist.
And I don't support half measures like @boaster proposed As far as I am concern, I don't really like elitism. It's not because you are older on a forum that you have more right to express yourself.
So overall... Yeah good changes I think.
The only good thing to come of the change is that it forces all disagreement to be constructive, or at least verbalised. But agreement doesn't have to be? I welcome disagreement. I say bring it on.
If hurt feelings are an issue (they weren't for me, and I think I had over 50 disagrees...? and I'm wielding Wussblade, -2 THAC0 and manliness) then there's a solution to that: why not preserve the disagree button but only have the results visible to mods and admins, and everyone else sees what they see now? If a post received 5 agrees, and 100 disagrees I think that is important information, if gleaning information for the devs is what it's all about, which has been said, but I wonder.
I'd censor all feedback results from the viewers except a 'n people responded to this post' and the feedback one gave, and just expose the buttons. This would encourage impartiality, and discourage diluting the forum in the pursuit of 'e-peen'. We're already enough addicted to points as RPG players, and I'd rather see a leaner forum with more substance.
(Hmm, then again, thinking of all the disagrees the above paragraph would earn me... muahahahaha what can you do now suckers!?
Take this as an example: As someone who disagrees with the OP, I feel like an unrepresented minority, here (or majority--how am I to know?). I just think if a person has to express themselves in words if they fall on one side of the fence, but can lazily click a button if they fall on the other, then that is unfair. And if you're trying to glean the REAL perception of a post with both sides represented, then you have to read through the entire thread to learn who disagreed and then could muster the effort to post their disagreement. It's still the same result in the end. I mean how far did you have to read through to learn this disagree existed? The corresponding point was earned as well.
Hopefully I've made my point, and maybe a case as the case may be.
I like the other changes to formatting such as the shrunken voodoo heads... I mean, mini avatars, amassed at the bottom of each post. Except that you have to hover over the post to see at a glance what kind of feedback the post actually got (it's almost impossible to decipher whether those smileys are agrees or disagrees for example). This might be extra work for little gain but I wouldn't mind seeing the mini avatars grouped into agree, disagree etc. columns adjascent to each other, each headed by the corresponding smiley and removing the redundant smileys pasted over the avatars.