How should RPGWatch handle emote reactions going forward?

[Taluntain]

I'm creating this poll in response to certain valid issues raised in the Rules on Emote reactions? thread. Advance disclaimer: I will be looking at the results of the poll to help me implement clear rules on the use of reactions going forward, but will not necessarily strictly follow the "winning" poll choice, especially if the results will not be hugely in favour of a single choice.

To explain the poll options a bit more as the poll fields are short and I can't put much text there:

1) Any user can use any reaction with no restrictions whatsoever
^-- This is probably self-explanatory and would mean that reactions would not be subject to any moderator action whatsoever. This means that even if someone kept targeting a single or multiple users' posts with the mildly negative "rolleyes" and "unamused" reactions that we currently provide, the only advice to the reaction recipient would be to simply put such a trolling user on ignore.

2) Recipients of too many* negative reactions from a single user have the option to request mod. action
^-- Choosing this option would mean that every user who felt that they were on the receiving end of too many of the mildly negative "rolleyes" and "unamused" reactions, would have the option to request the staff to revise their reaction history. If the staff determine that there is a pattern of a user (or users) repeatedly targeting another user's posts with negative reactions, they would instruct the reaction-giver(s) to stop negatively reacting to the affected user's posts.

What would be considered by the staff would be both the volume of negative reactions given as well as the duration over which the reactions were dished out.

*What is "too many" negative reactions is entirely subjective as some users won't be bothered even when receiving 50 negative reactions, whereas others could be very upset by the time they receive 5. The staff (preferably both mods and admins) will internally review and discuss each user on a case by case basis.

3) Remove the "rolleyes" and "unamused" reactions
^-- The "nuclear" choice of RPGWatch removing all the mildly negative reactions altogether, despite only an extremely small minority of users overusing them.

--

Voting is anonymous and the poll results can't be viewed without voting, as I want to get as many clear responses as possible. Feel free to ask if anything is unclear.

 

[bkrueger]

Theoretically I would prefer a fourth option: Whenever you give a negative reaction to a post, you need to write an answer explaining your position on the topic.

However, this would probably produce much work for the moderators, when people don't follow that rule. Therefore I vote for option 3), removal of negative reactions. This will automatically force users to write an answer, if they want to object to a post.

 

[num4!vr34umu5t4r!]

Remove all
All this emote stuff is bs anyway

 

[JFarrell71]

Whatever you may think of option 1, options 2 and 3 aren't good options imo.

Option 2 require far too much subjective guesswork from the mods. I doubt any of them want to interrogate users on how many eye rolls per post they can handle, or just what X user meant by that unamused emoticon.

If you're going to do Option 3, you may as well remove all emotes. If Arthureloi (or anyone) starts putting an "informative" emote on each of Lackblogger's (or anyone's) posts, would anyone be confused into thinking he suddenly had a change of heart and now finds LB's posts fascinating? Any emote could be weaponized, so to speak, in such a fashion.

 

[Taluntain]

Just to chime in on this; no matter what the results of this poll will be, removing reactions completely is not something that I would consider as I don't think that there is any reason to remove the positive and/or neutral reactions. Personally, I would prefer to keep the mildly negative ones as well because misuse so far has been so rare that I don't really see any reason to remove them over that as long as there is an alternative offered in the form of staff action.

 

[bkrueger]

If you're going to do Option 3, you may as well remove all emotes. If Arthureloi (or anyone) starts putting an "informative" emote on each of Lackblogger's (or anyone's) posts, would anyone be confused into thinking he suddenly had a change of heart and now finds LB's posts fascinating? Any emote could be weaponized, so to speak, in such a fashion.

I don't see this as a risk at all.

 

[JFarrell71]

I don't see this as a risk at all.

You have tremendous faith in humanity.

 

[Arkadia7]

I voted for the second one, that if someone feels bothered or targeted by another rpg member, they can petition for moderator action.

This allows the most freedom in that it doesn't change much in terms of current options. But on the other hand, I think the third choice (remove all negative reactions) also makes sense. Would I start to find it annoying if a member was constantly doing negative reactions to my posts? Yes, eventually I would (in the long term, however in short term, I would ignore it). So that is my basic reasoning for my answers.

 

[Couchpotato]

I see certain members whining has finally got their desired action. Emotes have never bothered me as already said we have an ignore option that stops notification.

Sheesh we had the same members bitching when we just had a like and dislike button. Want to piss off the members bothered allow downvote again like Reddit.

My opinion is still making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[largh]

Why can't adult people just behave?

I would feel ashamed to make a moderator to waste their time by reviewing my reactions to someone's posts. It's easy: use the reactions with moderation. Spare those negative reactions to the worst posts by a user who gets on your nerves. Do not spam every single post. Save everyone's, not the least @Taluntain's time - behave. The same goes to the other side: getting negative reactions can't be as bad as it sounds from the other thread which started this discussion, and as @Couchpotato pointed, there's often a reason for reactions you get.

I don't think this should be an issue and hence voted for the first option.

 

[JFarrell71]

Why can't adult people just behave?

I would feel ashamed to make a moderator to waste their time by reviewing my reactions to someone's posts. It's easy: use the reactions with moderation. Spare those negative reactions to the worst posts by a user who gets on your nerves. Do not spam every single post. Save everyone's, not the least @Taluntain's time - behave. The same goes to the other side: getting negative reactions can't be as bad as it sounds from the other thread which started this discussion, and as @Couchpotato pointed, there's often a reason for reactions you get.

Sure. But that's why moderators exist in the first place. We wouldn't need any on forums if people were that faultless in their behavior.

 

[largh]

Sure. But that's why moderators exist in the first place. We wouldn't need any on forums if people were that faultless in their behavior.

Right, but this thing is just weird behavior from both sides. "Manchild hell" as Vaelith put it Moderators are needed to put out flame in some debates, which become personal, and to kill spam bots. Better save their time and energy for those tasks.

 

[purpleblob]

Right, but this thing is just weird behavior from both sides. "Manchild hell" as Vaelith put it Moderators are needed to put out flame in some debates, which become personal and to kill spam bots. Better save their time and energy for those tasks.

Wouldn't mind if that particular manchild to go away permanently.

 

[Leoking]

I voted for option 2 because it's the least bad of the three options, barring the potential annoyances it could cause the moderation to resolve, however, I still feel baffled about why this had to be an issue in the first place.

It's a reaction to a post on an internet forum, it's not worth complaining about or disturbing moderators as a call to action.
If you think a user is attempting to troll you by persistently reacting negatively to your posts, the best course of action wouldn't be to post a thread immediately giving them the attention they seek, Ignoring it would not only be the mature choice, but also the one that results in the least headaches in the long run.

 

[lackblogger]

I voted for option 3. Remove negative emotes.

Because RPGWatch needs to have an identity.

The whole point about the Codex is to be negative and troll-like. A troll is even their mascot. It's their USP.

RPGWatch was (is?) always about the positivity, always trying to encourage people to be positive about other people's opinions and tastes. It's our USP.

In reality, the two sites aren't that different when it comes to discussing RPGs and hysteria during invented drama, but the ideals are (were?) different, and that's why there's all that fun stuff in Divinity Original Sin about the opposing forces of the two sites.

Trying to stave off the negativity is our USP, even if we fail at it sometimes, or even regularly.

As I said in the other thread, if this site is just going to be a pound-shop codex then... what... is... the... point.

 

[Couchpotato]

It's an issue because one member who starts flame wars or derails threads with agressive posting got what he deserved, and caused fake outrage to get attention.

I've seen this many times when I was a site mod and was very ban hammer.

You warn them and they start threads proclaiming their innocent.

 

[Leoking]

I think removing negative posts outright is too radical of a move to take, especially for an issue as rare as this one (react spam).

 

[Qayto]

It's an issue because one member who starts flame wars or details threads with agreesive posting got what he deserved, and caused fake outrage to get attention.

I've seen this many times when I was a site mod and was very ban hammer.

You warn them and they start threads proclaiming their innocent.

You may not like this particular poster and feel it's just desserts, but would you feel the same if it was some one you liked and enjoyed exchanging views with?

 

[Couchpotato]

Look I hate that member that started this as he personally attacked me many times over the years. So I'm biased and I'm glad others show we don't like his opinions.

Now once again the ignore option is available to mute the notification if necessary.

 

[purpleblob]

You may not like this particular poster and feel it's just desserts, but would you feel the same if it was some one you liked and enjoyed exchanging views with?

But what about those who doesn't like particular posters? Are they not allowed to voice it whether it be via posts or emoji? I've seen many posts go down the similar path when arguing with certain users, sometimes you just simply want to show your opinion using emoji rather than going in circles.

I don't think removing emoji is a fair solution - second poll option seems fair - that's how we treat the posts as well.