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 😜.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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 😜.
Case in point. What's to disagree with here?
#dunno
People we don't agree with are going to have Points.
Gets a rank down ticket,
profile pic?