**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.

Thank you for finally adding a disagree button!!!

1356

Comments

  • TerraTerra Posts: 7,995 ★★★★★
    edited June 2019
    I'm surprised there isnt more talk about this Guardian title in here. Sounds interesting
  • SiriusBreakSiriusBreak Posts: 2,156 Guardian
    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 😜.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,657 Guardian
    Drooped2 said:

    SlayerOfGods said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Cat_Murdock said:

    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.
  • V1PER1987V1PER1987 Posts: 3,474 ★★★★★
    Well at least we still have a like, agree, and awesome option. 3 different actions that all mean relatively the same thing.
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 20,983 ★★★★★
    SiriusBreak said:

    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.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,236 ★★★★★
    Demonzfyre said:

    SiriusBreak said:

    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.
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 20,983 ★★★★★
    edited June 2019
    Drooped2 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    SiriusBreak said:

    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.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,236 ★★★★★
    Demonzfyre said:

    Drooped2 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    SiriusBreak said:

    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.
  • SnizzbarSnizzbar Posts: 2,144 ★★★★★
    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.
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 20,983 ★★★★★
    TomBrady12 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    SiriusBreak said:

    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.
  • V1PER1987V1PER1987 Posts: 3,474 ★★★★★
    Snizzbar said:

    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.
  • Dexman1349Dexman1349 Posts: 3,060 ★★★★★
    Yay! 4* right out of the gates!
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 20,983 ★★★★★
    Snizzbar said:

    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
  • Noob2435Noob2435 Posts: 627 ★★★
    V1PER1987 said:

    Snizzbar said:

    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 :(
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 20,983 ★★★★★


    Case in point. What's to disagree with here?
  • GerbilGerbil Posts: 50 ★
    I agree
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,236 ★★★★★
    Snizzbar said:

    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.
  • iRetr0iRetr0 Posts: 1,252 ★★★★
    The points should be reset back, it's kinda unfair someone having -5k+ points getting 5k+ points instead
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,236 ★★★★★
    The_Unknown said:

    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.
This discussion has been closed.