Thank you for finally adding a disagree button!!!

X_Factor_Agent

You don't know how badly i wanted this

Comments

Terra

I'm surprised there isnt more talk about this Guardian title in here. Sounds interesting

unknown

This content has been removed.

SiriusBreak

So basically what @Drooped2 and @TomBrady12 are proposing is basing the star system on your points in relation to the number of posts. That seems a bit more logical than points on their own. It is true that someone with a greater number of posts will inherently have a greater potential for points simply by sheer numbers. Whereas someone who doesn't post as often could potentially gain a number of points equal too, or greater than their number of posts... yet as it stands, they're a lower star tier simply due to a lack of posts. Eh, the more agreeable input you give, the more stars regardless I guess. Brady laid it out pretty well though.

Indeed quality over quantity would make a bit more sense in this case. Well... at least I think so anyway. If people were to strive for more stars, they would likely in turn try to be more objective and levelheaded about what they say. Truthfully, you can't please everyone, but the majority will typically see your point (provided you have one in the 1st place, lol). So yes, I agree upon aforementioned subject matter that doesn't necessarily pertain to the introduction of the disagree button. Feel free to disagree 😜.

DNA3000

The stars are a flawed system. There are people with 5 stars whose rating doesn't not reflect the quality of their contributions.
They're based on positive reactions. Which means other people agreed with their contributions somewhere along the lines.
Then how is your star-age that good?

They removed the negative anyone over 3k points is a 5 duped seems badly planned

For one brief moment this morning I checked my profile and wondered what super brilliant thing I said on Friday that six hundred people decided to agree with.

V1PER1987

Well at least we still have a like, agree, and awesome option. 3 different actions that all mean relatively the same thing.

Demonzfyre

So basically what @Drooped2 and @TomBrady12 are proposing is basing the star system on your points in relation to the number of posts. That seems a bit more logical than points on their own. It is true that someone with a greater number of posts will inherently have a greater potential for points simply by sheer numbers. Whereas someone who doesn't post as often could potentially gain a number of points equal too, or greater than their number of posts... yet as it stands, they're a lower star tier simply due to a lack of posts. Eh, the more agreeable input you give, the more stars regardless I guess. Brady laid it out pretty well though.

Indeed quality over quantity would make a bit more sense in this case. Well... at least I think so anyway. If people were to strive for more stars, they would likely in turn try to be more objective and levelheaded about what they say. Truthfully, you can't please everyone, but the majority will typically see your point (provided you have one in the 1st place, lol). So yes, I agree upon aforementioned subject matter that doesn't necessarily pertain to the introduction of the disagree button. Feel free to disagree 😜.

In a perfect world yes but there's many, many forum users who like to flag or LOL just because its certain users on here regardless of how quality a post or comment is. The first post of this thread already has almost 30 disagrees as I write this. If it doesn't deduct points I guess its ok. I don't think its going to have the effect they want.

unknown

This content has been removed.

GroundedWisdom

So basically what @Drooped2 and @TomBrady12 are proposing is basing the star system on your points in relation to the number of posts. That seems a bit more logical than points on their own. It is true that someone with a greater number of posts will inherently have a greater potential for points simply by sheer numbers. Whereas someone who doesn't post as often could potentially gain a number of points equal too, or greater than their number of posts... yet as it stands, they're a lower star tier simply due to a lack of posts. Eh, the more agreeable input you give, the more stars regardless I guess. Brady laid it out pretty well though.

Indeed quality over quantity would make a bit more sense in this case. Well... at least I think so anyway. If people were to strive for more stars, they would likely in turn try to be more objective and levelheaded about what they say. Truthfully, you can't please everyone, but the majority will typically see your point (provided you have one in the 1st place, lol). So yes, I agree upon aforementioned subject matter that doesn't necessarily pertain to the introduction of the disagree button. Feel free to disagree 😜.
In a perfect world yes but there's many, many forum users who like to flag or LOL just because its certain users on here regardless of how quality a post or comment is. The first post of this thread already has almost 30 disagrees as I write this. If it doesn't deduct points I guess its ok. I don't think its going to have the effect they want.

Nor should it. The suggestion is asking for the very thing that was removed, with the added effect of bringing someone's Points down. Lol.

BenLucas

Now, can we get a “troll” button?.... just asking....

Demonzfyre

So basically what @Drooped2 and @TomBrady12 are proposing is basing the star system on your points in relation to the number of posts. That seems a bit more logical than points on their own. It is true that someone with a greater number of posts will inherently have a greater potential for points simply by sheer numbers. Whereas someone who doesn't post as often could potentially gain a number of points equal too, or greater than their number of posts... yet as it stands, they're a lower star tier simply due to a lack of posts. Eh, the more agreeable input you give, the more stars regardless I guess. Brady laid it out pretty well though.

Indeed quality over quantity would make a bit more sense in this case. Well... at least I think so anyway. If people were to strive for more stars, they would likely in turn try to be more objective and levelheaded about what they say. Truthfully, you can't please everyone, but the majority will typically see your point (provided you have one in the 1st place, lol). So yes, I agree upon aforementioned subject matter that doesn't necessarily pertain to the introduction of the disagree button. Feel free to disagree 😜.
In a perfect world yes but there's many, many forum users who like to flag or LOL just because its certain users on here regardless of how quality a post or comment is. The first post of this thread already has almost 30 disagrees as I write this. If it doesn't deduct points I guess its ok. I don't think its going to have the effect they want.
I don't see any real effect except.everyone piling points that are meaningless.

Its an overall flawed system. More so with this forum in particular. I never cared about any of the buttons or used them except in rare cases. Theres generally only one unwritten accepted view point on here, if you don't have that, people are going to "disagree" on purpose.

GroundedWisdom

So basically what @Drooped2 and @TomBrady12 are proposing is basing the star system on your points in relation to the number of posts. That seems a bit more logical than points on their own. It is true that someone with a greater number of posts will inherently have a greater potential for points simply by sheer numbers. Whereas someone who doesn't post as often could potentially gain a number of points equal too, or greater than their number of posts... yet as it stands, they're a lower star tier simply due to a lack of posts. Eh, the more agreeable input you give, the more stars regardless I guess. Brady laid it out pretty well though.

Indeed quality over quantity would make a bit more sense in this case. Well... at least I think so anyway. If people were to strive for more stars, they would likely in turn try to be more objective and levelheaded about what they say. Truthfully, you can't please everyone, but the majority will typically see your point (provided you have one in the 1st place, lol). So yes, I agree upon aforementioned subject matter that doesn't necessarily pertain to the introduction of the disagree button. Feel free to disagree 😜.
In a perfect world yes but there's many, many forum users who like to flag or LOL just because its certain users on here regardless of how quality a post or comment is. The first post of this thread already has almost 30 disagrees as I write this. If it doesn't deduct points I guess its ok. I don't think its going to have the effect they want.
I don't see any real effect except.everyone piling points that are meaningless.
Its an overall flawed system. More so with this forum in particular. I never cared about any of the buttons or used them except in rare cases. Theres generally only one unwritten accepted view point on here, if you don't have that, people are going to "disagree" on purpose.

Same. The Points have never been a focus for me. Especiay when the Flags were abused so much. It was never a focus of mine. The Points on my Profile were given genuinely based on what I've said, but up until this point, I've never paid attention to it. It's never had a purpose. Nor will I start commenting just to increase them. If people agree with me, great. If not, that's fine. What I don't agree with is opening others up to being able to affect them in a negative way. Not only does it invite abuse, it undermines the purpose of constructive and positive conversation.

unknown

This content has been removed.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Snizzbar

I think all the reaction scores should be reset to zero. Then from now on, if people post interesting or informative things then they'll have a high score, and if they post drivel it will soon show in the disagrees.

V1PER1987

I think all the reaction scores should be reset to zero. Then from now on, if people post interesting or informative things then they'll have a high score, and if they post drivel it will soon show in the disagrees.

Hey man don’t take away my stars.

Demonzfyre

So basically what @Drooped2 and @TomBrady12 are proposing is basing the star system on your points in relation to the number of posts. That seems a bit more logical than points on their own. It is true that someone with a greater number of posts will inherently have a greater potential for points simply by sheer numbers. Whereas someone who doesn't post as often could potentially gain a number of points equal too, or greater than their number of posts... yet as it stands, they're a lower star tier simply due to a lack of posts. Eh, the more agreeable input you give, the more stars regardless I guess. Brady laid it out pretty well though.

Indeed quality over quantity would make a bit more sense in this case. Well... at least I think so anyway. If people were to strive for more stars, they would likely in turn try to be more objective and levelheaded about what they say. Truthfully, you can't please everyone, but the majority will typically see your point (provided you have one in the 1st place, lol). So yes, I agree upon aforementioned subject matter that doesn't necessarily pertain to the introduction of the disagree button. Feel free to disagree 😜.
In a perfect world yes but there's many, many forum users who like to flag or LOL just because its certain users on here regardless of how quality a post or comment is. The first post of this thread already has almost 30 disagrees as I write this. If it doesn't deduct points I guess its ok. I don't think its going to have the effect they want.
Obviously there would be some outlier flags but is someone is posting mostly quality then they'll have a good score even with the outliers.

No one gets "singled out" or "ganged up on" by accident or for no reason.

They do. Regardless of what the post is about. I made a thread the other day about the new AW map. 5 or so comments in it stopped being about the map and about how "finally a Kabam sympathizer disagrees with something". It quickly devolved and got shut down. Like I said, if you don't have that unwritten view point, you will get singled out.

Dexman1349

Yay! 4* right out of the gates!

Demonzfyre

I think all the reaction scores should be reset to zero. Then from now on, if people post interesting or informative things then they'll have a high score, and if they post drivel it will soon show in the disagrees.

But I like my Duped 5*'s lol

Noob2435

I think all the reaction scores should be reset to zero. Then from now on, if people post interesting or informative things then they'll have a high score, and if they post drivel it will soon show in the disagrees.
Hey man don’t take away my stars.

I should at least be a 4 star

Dexman1349

I think all the reaction scores should be reset to zero. Then from now on, if people post interesting or informative things then they'll have a high score, and if they post drivel it will soon show in the disagrees.
But I like my Duped 5*'s lol

I'm only 34 likes away from my first duped 5* as well...

Demonzfyre

Case in point. What's to disagree with here?

Dexman1349

Case in point. What's to disagree with here?

Maybe they don't like duped 5*?

#dunno

Gerbil

I agree

GroundedWisdom

I think all the reaction scores should be reset to zero. Then from now on, if people post interesting or informative things then they'll have a high score, and if they post drivel it will soon show in the disagrees.

Why should the Points be any less valid before now? If people were given them before it was a thing, their comments are no less deservant. The fact that there's a focus on what other people have just solidifies the reasoning not to allow people to affect others negatively IMO.
People we don't agree with are going to have Points.

Savio444

Noob2435

So basically what @Drooped2 and @TomBrady12 are proposing is basing the star system on your points in relation to the number of posts. That seems a bit more logical than points on their own. It is true that someone with a greater number of posts will inherently have a greater potential for points simply by sheer numbers. Whereas someone who doesn't post as often could potentially gain a number of points equal too, or greater than their number of posts... yet as it stands, they're a lower star tier simply due to a lack of posts. Eh, the more agreeable input you give, the more stars regardless I guess. Brady laid it out pretty well though.

Indeed quality over quantity would make a bit more sense in this case. Well... at least I think so anyway. If people were to strive for more stars, they would likely in turn try to be more objective and levelheaded about what they say. Truthfully, you can't please everyone, but the majority will typically see your point (provided you have one in the 1st place, lol). So yes, I agree upon aforementioned subject matter that doesn't necessarily pertain to the introduction of the disagree button. Feel free to disagree 😜.
In a perfect world yes but there's many, many forum users who like to flag or LOL just because its certain users on here regardless of how quality a post or comment is. The first post of this thread already has almost 30 disagrees as I write this. If it doesn't deduct points I guess its ok. I don't think its going to have the effect they want.
Obviously there would be some outlier flags but is someone is posting mostly quality then they'll have a good score even with the outliers.

No one gets "singled out" or "ganged up on" by accident or for no reason.
Oh, they do.
No, they don't.

People earn the respect or disrespect they deserve from others. I'd be almost impossible for hundreds of anonymous people on a board would all band together against another anonymous poster for no reason.

This.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Savio444

How about whoever gets to 1000 disagrees first,
Gets a rank down ticket,
profile pic?

DrBruceWayne

The points should be reset back, it's kinda unfair someone having -5k+ points getting 5k+ points instead

GroundedWisdom

The points should be reset back, it's kinda unfair someone having -5k+ points getting 5k+ points instead

It's not unfair. All they did was remove the negative Points from Flags. People earned (somewhat earned through their contributions) whatever they have. You can't take back someone's positive vote.