Thanks System Referendum.

[Tennyo]

I've been meaning to post in here, but for some reason didn't. I guess I'm not sure where I stand? Thanks can be nice, yes. But I can understand a few of the different perspectives in here, yes.

Sometimes it's hard being the unpopular opinion in a thread, seeing all the other posts get a million thanks while yours gets none. On the other hand, when you are the popular opinion in the thread it allows you to show your support without making yet another post rehashing what has already been said. So really it all balances out if I'm being honest.

I guess it's the little things I notice more, though? Like in the member pic thread. Some people get all the likes, some people get no likes. I always feel bad when someone posts a picture and doesn't have many likes. I guess I'm like, does that make them feel bad? Does that make them not want to post in that thread anymore? Does that make them not want to post on TLS anymore?

If it stays I'm down with it but if it was gotten rid of I can't say I would be devastated, either. I guess whatever happens happens.

But yeah, a trial period of not having it is the obvious solution.

 

[Starling]

So, are we actually going to talk about general debate problems and determine whether or not messing around with the thanks system is even necessary to begin with or not?

 

[Lex]

Can I just say that if people have recently complained about the thanks system, staff have heard none of it. Ghost made the thread in the staff section and subsequently made one publicly. I don't know if people have been mentioning they have a problem with it directly to him or what, but if people are wondering why nobody's speaking out about this or whatever, my take on this situation is that Ghost has simply decided to have a discussion about it XD.

I mean I have no eggs in any basket here, I don't care how this goes one way or the other as long as members feel comfortable. I'm just saying I don't think anyone is actually scared to speak out or feel the need to be white-knighted for or whatever so much as Ghost had a thought and decided to make a thread. Certainly there hasn't been a single whiff of discontent with the thanks system to any staff member that I'm aware of.

Just to be clear and all that, since there's a lot of assumptions being made in this thread

 

[lithiumkatana17]

This whole 'thanks' system is starting to reek of Facebook likes. And highschool.

If you make a post in a thread, regardless of whether someone thanks it or thanks the reply someone made to it, you still made your opinion known, and people still read it. Whether it not it's 'thanked' shouldn't enter into it.

Anyways, it's looking like this system is becoming a slow burn for some serious drama, so even if people want to keep it, maybe the best idea would be to get rid of it altogether.

 

[Dawnbreaker]

eehhh yup, officially confused now. :/

There is discontent; there isn't discontent. People have talked to staff about said alleged discontent; people haven't talked to staff about said alleged discontent. The Thanks system is being abused; the Thanks system isn't being abused. People want to talk about what's going on in the debates section; people don't want to talk about what's going on in the debate section.

Seriously, I'm totally lost now, up in the trees with the squirrels. xD

Smry plz.

 

[Starling]

The confusion over whether or not there's an issue is why I feel it's too soon to start taking measures to deal with it. It's also why think it's important we should have a broader discussion pertaining to debates in general and how that relates to the thanks thing. I also brought up the matter of communication, since that's part of the problem too. Pretty much every argument on this thread has a counterargument and no one seems to be sure which one is the more accurate perception of what's going on or whether or not the problem would be solved by doing a particular thing.

 

[Ghost X]

Can I just say that if people have recently complained about the thanks system, staff have heard none of it. Ghost made the thread in the staff section and subsequently made one publicly. I don't know if people have been mentioning they have a problem with it directly to him or what, but if people are wondering why nobody's speaking out about this or whatever, my take on this situation is that Ghost has simply decided to have a discussion about it XD.

I'm not sure if you read my last post or not Lex. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't, as I was pretty clear about the bold part. Also, yes, this is not a staff thing, and I've never stated such in either of my posts. Conflating me with staff, when I am only a member of staff, is called an association fallacy . If it was a staff thing, I would've been explicit.

I think what people think as a whole is quite clear, rather than confusing. Most are happy with the way things are, a significant amount think there should be restrictions in the debate section, a minority think the thanks system should be banned completely. The discussion seems to have led to the idea of having some kind of opt out system and/or trial thing. My perceptions appear to have been an over estimate, but at least something come out of it.

I also don't understand why we have to White Knight this situation and people cannot say why they feel the way they feel or even identity themselves (I cannot say I like what that implies...) but again, whatever.

@Dawn: For future reference, I know you have a thing against anonymity, but I think you're ignorant as to why people remain anonymous, and/or perhaps conflate abuse of anonymity with those who remain anonymous for legit reasons. Anonymity can actually be good and productive, and is important for free and fair polls as well as free and fair societies in general, especially if intimidated minorities are involved, who would otherwise not voice their opinion. So when you insult or insinuate anything about a person for remaining anonymous in this regard, you are basically shouting downward, and thus come across as a bit of a dick .

 

[Jason Tandro]

I also don't understand why we have to White Knight this situation and people cannot say why they feel the way they feel or even identity themselves (I cannot say I like what that implies...) but again, whatever.

@Dawn: For future reference, I know you have a thing against anonymity, but I think you're ignorant as to why people remain anonymous, and/or perhaps conflate abuse of anonymity with those who remain anonymous for legit reasons. Anonymity can actually be good and productive, and is important for free and fair polls as well as free and fair societies in general, especially if intimidated minorities are involved, who would otherwise not voice their opinion. So when you insult or insinuate anything about a person for remaining anonymous in this regard, you are basically shouting downward, and thus come across as a bit of a dick .

Ghost, I know you have good intentions here but I find it hypocritical for you to be championing a cause meant to insure people don't find themselves under attack for their opinions while slandering (even if only half-seriously) another member for expressing theirs.

Edit: In fairness to you, I can see the conversation seems to have turned against this idea and it probably feels like you're getting backed into a corner with some of the recent posts, though I still think you have nailed the situation as it stands on the head.

Would it be possible to have some people anonymously leave a message in some way shape or form (say maybe by PMing you?) and have their thoughts posted here. I think the reason some members are resistant to this idea is that basically we have nothing to go off of. It's hard to address a problem without a clear understanding of what it is. I feel like that would help a lot.

 

[Ghost X]

...define slander

 

[Jason Tandro]

...define slander

Define define

 

[Octo]

Would it be possible to have some people anonymously leave a message in some way shape or form (say maybe by PMing you?) and have their thoughts posted here. I think the reason some members are resistant to this idea is that basically we have nothing to go off of. It's hard to address a problem without a clear understanding of what it is. I feel like that would help a lot.

I actually like this idea. I totally get why people wouldn't want to post their thoughts directly here - given that that is the whole problem of minority opinions feeling ganged up on, but it'd be good to have their input - that is the people who would prefer to scrap thanks entirely.

For example I'd like to see what they think of the proposed ideas of either trialing it or using adblock to hide thanks?

Is it for sure just the debate section thats the problem? Or just thanks in general. I'm not clear on that.

And regarding the debate section, it's not like we've ever had a proper formal debate about anything. IIRC what happens is discussions of news items end up being back and forth 'debates' but they just sort of evolve that way.

So maybe we should just say an informal discussion is just that - discussion. And a debate would be something entirely different, where two people have their proposed arguments and then go at it without input from others? Or however 'formal' debates are properly done - I have no idea

Off course, I am of the opinion that debating on the internet is an exercise in futility, most of the time both sides have their minds made up already

 

[Ghost X]

@JT: I'm certainly not slandering her by any kind of definition. That's why I asked you to define it. I'm not even calling her a dick, as I highly doubt that's her intent. All I'm saying is she comes across that way.

Nor do I feel "backed into a corner" because things "didn't go my way". I don't care either way how this thing goes . I'm only speaking at length because I feel there's misrepresentation that needs to be addressed. I feel my goal is being completely misinterpreted here. As a member of staff, I believe it is important to represent all members, including "the little guy" like members who have been here for two seconds, looking for ways to make this place more inclusive, etc. I'm no dictator though, the community can decide what sort of members they want to attract here.

I said in the very first post of this thread that I was wondering how deep the resentment goes based on some observations of mine. If I wanted to end the thanks system, would you think I'd put it up for a democratic vote? Maybe I would if I were playing three dimensional chess or doing a bit of reverse psychology, etc. Maybe I'm a triple agent O_O. I was voted most likely to be TLS pantomime villain or something at some stage, anything is possible.

I'll PM the person who I was in a conversation with that set this ball rolling, who hasn't yet commented, if they choose to do so, but they were basically saying what has already been said and has been argued against: "Why does such and such get a wall of thanks, while I don't." It is entirely possible they haven't seen this thread. Others who I have seen commenting on the thanks system have likely voted for the restricted option, and have already commented.

Again, I suspect a majority of complainants are not here any more, and have left. It was like a handful at most, and I don't even remember their names. All I'm asking here is if people (ie: current members) are sympathetic to them (and potential future members that may also have such complaints), and think that it may be an iceberg thing, like I do. I can't say it any simpler . If I'm failing at English, I could attempt this in Dutch, but that scares Yop.

@Octo: Whether it is just the debate section that's the problem or just thanks in general is what is up for public vote . Most people don't see a problem, some would like restrictions (as well as that opt out thing). I think that's what we should work with. I'll ask Mr/Mrs Anonymous () whether they are for trialing it when I PM them, etc, but they are just one person, and their opinion should be weighted as such.[/threedimensionalchess... oh, shi-]

 

[Shademp]

As the topic went on I decided to vote for the "Yes, but be restricted in certain sections (Discuss)." option.

The way I see it, even if resentment is very rare and low, having a one-month trial period where Thanks are no longer available in the debate section is a worthwhile experiment. By not having what is essentially a Points system (fortunately a way less toxic one than the upvote-downvote system on imgur and reddit) the debates can remain solely about the text, and not about the "Reward Points" you get or don't get.

Though seeing here how the poll is turning out, the end result will be that the majority doesn't think a 'Thanks Restriction Experiment' is worth the time. The majority decides (I assume).

 

[Octo]

Personally I'd be for a trial for the whole forum. Sure, maybe this person in question has a problem with the debate section only, but I know from way back when that this was something felt all over by 'the outgroup' So who knows how future new members might feel about it? I don't see what we've got to lose.

I've been doing my own personal trial for the past couple of days, I have to say it feels weird, and unless someone has directly responded to a post I've made I feel none the wiser to whether or not it has been read or acknowledged or anything, kinda feels like sticking a post-it note on a board in a busy university hallway

But it's only been a few days, and it's only a one-way thing, so I'd kind of like to see how it effects the whole forum dynamic.

 

[Shademp]

I don't see what we've got to lose.

From my post on the first page of this thread:

If not for the Thanks system, I would not have been nearly as motivated to continue with my research threads. My Dirge of Cerberus research thread in particular would have been painful without the acknowledgement from Tres, hito, and the few others who joined the Thanking. I know I am in the minority to even care about this game's existence, but the Thanks system has given me a sense of joy when learning more about Dirge of Cerberus.

It also pleases me that we are able to show our support for works such as those of DynamixDJ, even though our response simply boils down to "Cool!". The same is true for any newly published frontpage article, which has the benefit of its corresponding forum thread getting Thanks and thus showing much deserved appreciation to the publisher.

If the Thanks system were to disappear for the whole forum, I will be sincerely sad and way less motivated to do FFVII research.

 

[Octo]

I mean by doing a trial

 

[Fangu]

I don't see what we've got to lose.

From my post on the first page of this thread:

If not for the Thanks system, I would not have been nearly as motivated to continue with my research threads. My Dirge of Cerberus research thread in particular would have been painful without the acknowledgement from Tres, hito, and the few others who joined the Thanking. I know I am in the minority to even care about this game's existence, but the Thanks system has given me a sense of joy when learning more about Dirge of Cerberus.

It also pleases me that we are able to show our support for works such as those of DynamixDJ, even though our response simply boils down to "Cool!". The same is true for any newly published frontpage article, which has the benefit of its corresponding forum thread getting Thanks and thus showing much deserved appreciation to the publisher.

If the Thanks system were to disappear for the whole forum, I will be sincerely sad and way less motivated to do FFVII research.

^ What he said

^ Second

^ This




See what I did there

 

[Jason Tandro]

@Ghost: Fair enough, though I still think saying "[x] sounds like a dick" is a touch much considering the whole point of this is to foster discussion. I wouldn't want people in Dawn's position to feel unwelcome to share their opinion because they're going to fear that they're "coming across as a dick".

Hopefully some people are willing to share some personal insight.

Just to clarify my position since you clarified yours, I have a personal opinion about this which falls in line with the "grow thicker skins" crowd.

However my personal opinion rarely reflects what is in the best interest of the forum as a whole, and for me losing some utility is worth it in the long run if it can make the boards seem like a more welcoming place.
But I know many people are passionately invested in the Thanks system and I feel it's pretty poor to repay the long-term members for their service to the community by stripping away a major site utility based on the opinions of a few people.

What remains to be proven at this point is that removing the Thanks system will improve anything vis a vis how we are perceived by new or prospective members, to which a trial might actually be a solid solution.

 

[Joe]

I can't get into a lengthy post (at work... grrr ) but I just wanted to clarify that there isn't one anonymous person that has an issue with the Thanks system in the Debate section. I for one have been very vocal about it, and a handful of others on this thread have been too.
I know most probably know that, but a few of the recent posts are citing a single anonymous member and the lack of clarity of that one person's opinion seems to be the basis for confusion.
This problem isn't felt by one particularly quiet member (nor are they AT ALL required to break anonymity by speaking up) and there's at least a couple very vocal members in this thread with a clear explanation for their problems.

So long as the Thanks themselves don't disappear permanently then I feel moving forward with a trial run (in that section) is our best solution.

 

[Jason Tandro]

^ I'm sure you're about to edit that, but I just want to say for the Debate system sure. I mean hell I am fine with it being knocked off in that subforum, but Thanks as a whole?

 

[Joe]

Yeah I pressed send before I finished that. Did I mention I'm on my phone and my fingers are fat?

I would hate for Thanks to leave the forum altogether, even for a trial. I love Thanks, in general.
I think Shad put it best in the last page when he likened it to a points system. I just don't think that has a place in the debate section, or around discussions where criticisms of opinions are heavy.

 

[Ghost X]

@JT:

I have a personal opinion about this which falls in line with the "grow thicker skins" crowd.

I wouldn't want people in Dawn's position to feel unwelcome to share their opinion because they're going to fear that they're "coming across as a dick" thin-skinned.

I wouldn't want people in Dawn's Jason Tandro's position to feel unwelcome to share their opinion because they're going to fear that they're "coming across as a dick" in an state of ideological super position.

I wouldn't want people in Dawn's Ghost X's position to feel unwelcome to share their opinion because they're going to fear that they're "coming across as a dick" in an state of .

Couldn't resist, I do apologise .

@Joe: I might be mistaking what you're saying. I figure you are not denying there is "one anonymous person", as if they don't exist. You were in the conversation I have been citing, and said person hasn't spoken yet (at least I couldn't find them in my search ). From my recollection, they were talking about the entire board, not just the debate section. I have PM'ed them, for those playing at home.

 

[Joe]

Oh yeah I'm aware of the discussion, and that member's views. I just intended to clear up any belief that the choice of removing it from the Debate section was a result of that one person. It seems like some definitely inferred that from your mentioning. Or at least it looked that way.

 

[Jason Tandro]

@Ghost: I don't fear being in a state of ideological superiority. I thoroughly enjoy my state of logical superiority though.

To say nothing of illogical superiority... now if you'll excuse me I have to go strain spaghetti on a turtle while Careless Whisper plays.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Since there isn't an option for it in the polls, I am genuinely curious about how the folks who're bothered by the Thanks system feel about having the capability to disable it for themselves, since Octo was kind enough to show that it is a thing that can be done.

I want to know if that's a viable option for them, and if not, why not. Anonymously is fine, but I think that that's something REALLY important to know at this point, since the Thanks system in general is strongly favoured to remain in place.

Obviously, there's still the question of the Debate section trial run that exists outside of the GENERAL issues with the Thanks system, since that's a more specific thing. Even then, I think only a small handful of threads in that section even merit that, since the NEWS type threads don't seem to need a bias removal.

If anything, I think that the Debate section should have a SRS DEBATE BZNS subsection where Thanks is disabled, and we can move threads into it as needed, so that those discussions can specifically be had in a vacuum of sorts.


Thoughts?




X