It absolutely happened - I saw many a "Why was my post called Off-Topic?" exclamation. Even from a few posters who state that they only want to hit a button with no explanation. Curious, no?
My favorite new thing will now be to laugh at the people who will quote an entire post and put "disagree" after it. Because you know - everything in a post is something that can actually be disagreed with. "We breathe air! I like breathing air! Breathing air is like eating chocolate!" - Disagree! On really? So we don't breathe air? Whackos.
It all boils down to this: much like the Man of Steel thread, if you're more interested in winning than discussing, you're boring. Because that's what the reaction posts were all about: "I don't like what that person wrote so I'm going to disagree/etc. That'll show 'em!".
But by all means - keep making it about gut reactions and not having time. 8-}
Frankly, I'd much prefer an ignore button. I used that quite heavily on other forums. Helps to weed out the thin skinned and the easily offended.
I will respectfully disagree. The full spectrum of feedback responses allows one to get a relative level of feedback regarding qualitative elements of a post or series of posts and potentially allow for a little bit of self reflection on whether or not there is behavior that should be changed in order to fit into the community. It's something of a means of engaging a troll without actually feeding it.
I'll less respectfully dislike your comment regarding gut reactions. Hardly surprising, I'm sure. Also, hardly likely to have any impact whatsoever, but when has social feedback ever been effecting in addressing megalomania?
I will, however, agree with you about an ignore button. But then, I wouldn't have responded to this post.
It absolutely happened - I saw many a "Why was my post called Off-Topic?" exclamation. Even from a few posters who state that they only want to hit a button with no explanation. Curious, no?
My favorite new thing will now be to laugh at the people who will quote an entire post and put "disagree" after it. Because you know - everything in a post is something that can actually be disagreed with. "We breathe air! I like breathing air! Breathing air is like eating chocolate!" - Disagree! On really? So we don't breathe air? Whackos.
It all boils down to this: much like the Man of Steel thread, if you're more interested in winning than discussing, you're boring. Because that's what the reaction posts were all about: "I don't like what that person wrote so I'm going to disagree/etc. That'll show 'em!".
But by all means - keep making it about gut reactions and not having time. 8-}
Frankly, I'd much prefer an ignore button. I used that quite heavily on other forums. Helps to weed out the thin skinned and the easily offended.
I will respectfully disagree. The full spectrum of feedback responses allows one to get a relative level of feedback regarding qualitative elements of a post or series of posts and potentially allow for a little bit of self reflection on whether or not there is behavior that should be changed in order to fit into the community. It's something of a means of engaging a troll without actually feeding it.
I'll less respectfully dislike your comment regarding gut reactions. Hardly surprising, I'm sure. Also, hardly likely to have any impact whatsoever, but when has social feedback ever been effecting in addressing megalomania?
I will, however, agree with you about an ignore button. But then, I wouldn't have responded to this post.
I'm a little confused; so if I give my opinion on, say why Man of Steel was a great & refreshing new take on the character, and I get 5 disagrees (and 3 misused dislikes), I should self reflect my opinion?
IF that's what you're getting at, I don't know that I would think about changing my opinion based on the anonymous feedback. I probably wouldn't change my opinion if someone told me why they disagreed either...but I would be open to their thoughts.
I was doing it just to F with Matt, he is always in control and controls all variable, this drove him nuts and I just sat back and smiled, I cannot take credit for all the dislikes but a lot were me B-)
I was doing it just to F with Matt, he is always in control and controls all variable, this drove him nuts and I just sat back and smiled, I cannot take credit for all the dislikes but a lot were me B-)
...and lets keep things in perspective here. We are adult grown men talking about funny books and action figures. Things we all love but let's face it, this not a UN summit. Lives are not hanging in the balance. By all means like what you like and have a good time doing it but let's not think that any of this is really fundamentally important.
It absolutely happened - I saw many a "Why was my post called Off-Topic?" exclamation. Even from a few posters who state that they only want to hit a button with no explanation. Curious, no?
My favorite new thing will now be to laugh at the people who will quote an entire post and put "disagree" after it. Because you know - everything in a post is something that can actually be disagreed with. "We breathe air! I like breathing air! Breathing air is like eating chocolate!" - Disagree! On really? So we don't breathe air? Whackos.
It all boils down to this: much like the Man of Steel thread, if you're more interested in winning than discussing, you're boring. Because that's what the reaction posts were all about: "I don't like what that person wrote so I'm going to disagree/etc. That'll show 'em!".
But by all means - keep making it about gut reactions and not having time. 8-}
Frankly, I'd much prefer an ignore button. I used that quite heavily on other forums. Helps to weed out the thin skinned and the easily offended.
I will respectfully disagree. The full spectrum of feedback responses allows one to get a relative level of feedback regarding qualitative elements of a post or series of posts and potentially allow for a little bit of self reflection on whether or not there is behavior that should be changed in order to fit into the community. It's something of a means of engaging a troll without actually feeding it.
I'll less respectfully dislike your comment regarding gut reactions. Hardly surprising, I'm sure. Also, hardly likely to have any impact whatsoever, but when has social feedback ever been effecting in addressing megalomania?
I will, however, agree with you about an ignore button. But then, I wouldn't have responded to this post.
I'm a little confused; so if I give my opinion on, say why Man of Steel was a great & refreshing new take on the character, and I get 5 disagrees (and 3 misused dislikes), I should self reflect my opinion?
IF that's what you're getting at, I don't know that I would think about changing my opinion based on the anonymous feedback. I probably wouldn't change my opinion if someone told me why they disagreed either...but I would be open to their thoughts.
M
Matt,
I didn't follow the MoS thread - missed it in theaters due to a variety of reasons and so have stayed away from the thread (and several podcasts after Pants' MASSIVE spoiler related to Star Trek: Into Darkness) - so I can't speak on what was occurring in that thread. However, my point is that a dislike can be about the tone, phrasing or attitude presented in a post which may or may not have been intentional on the part of the poster.
I for instance, snagged a number of dislikes related to a discussion on creators rights where I took an unpopular position. I'm OK with that. The position that I was arguing was not popular and, for many, disagreeing with it wasn't a strong enough piece of feedback. As those notifications came in, I looked at what I had written to see if it was particularly abrasive, insensitive or otherwise worthy of edit or retraction and determined that it was the concept itself that was being rejected.
I don't think that that's entirely dissimilar to standing up at a public speaking engagement and modifying a presentation based on the feedback that audience body-language is providing.
Now, the catch in all of this is that there are semantics that go with everything. In all honesty, why take exception to the dislikes vs disagrees but not take equal exception to what are likely similarly confused likes vs agrees vs awesomes?
Regardless of whether or not feedback is anonymous or public, if a post garners an overwhelmingly large number of hits one way or the other, one would think that it would trigger a bit of reflection regarding the quality of the post - "14 awesomes? Way to channel me some Mark Twain!" or "26 dislikes! Fantastic - I have secured my home under this bridge!" either way, it can serve as an avenue for refining post quality.
Perhaps, an alternative path would have been to provide a guideline or set of board definitions for what the house rules are for each. I know that I've frequently struggled over when to click LOL rather than Awesome.
It absolutely happened - I saw many a "Why was my post called Off-Topic?" exclamation. Even from a few posters who state that they only want to hit a button with no explanation. Curious, no?
My favorite new thing will now be to laugh at the people who will quote an entire post and put "disagree" after it. Because you know - everything in a post is something that can actually be disagreed with. "We breathe air! I like breathing air! Breathing air is like eating chocolate!" - Disagree! On really? So we don't breathe air? Whackos.
It all boils down to this: much like the Man of Steel thread, if you're more interested in winning than discussing, you're boring. Because that's what the reaction posts were all about: "I don't like what that person wrote so I'm going to disagree/etc. That'll show 'em!".
But by all means - keep making it about gut reactions and not having time. 8-}
Frankly, I'd much prefer an ignore button. I used that quite heavily on other forums. Helps to weed out the thin skinned and the easily offended.
I will respectfully disagree. The full spectrum of feedback responses allows one to get a relative level of feedback regarding qualitative elements of a post or series of posts and potentially allow for a little bit of self reflection on whether or not there is behavior that should be changed in order to fit into the community. It's something of a means of engaging a troll without actually feeding it.
I'll less respectfully dislike your comment regarding gut reactions. Hardly surprising, I'm sure. Also, hardly likely to have any impact whatsoever, but when has social feedback ever been effecting in addressing megalomania?
I will, however, agree with you about an ignore button. But then, I wouldn't have responded to this post.
I'm a little confused; so if I give my opinion on, say why Man of Steel was a great & refreshing new take on the character, and I get 5 disagrees (and 3 misused dislikes), I should self reflect my opinion?
IF that's what you're getting at, I don't know that I would think about changing my opinion based on the anonymous feedback. I probably wouldn't change my opinion if someone told me why they disagreed either...but I would be open to their thoughts.
M
Matt,
I didn't follow the MoS thread - missed it in theaters due to a variety of reasons and so have stayed away from the thread (and several podcasts after Pants' MASSIVE spoiler related to Star Trek: Into Darkness) - so I can't speak on what was occurring in that thread. However, my point is that a dislike can be about the tone, phrasing or attitude presented in a post which may or may not have been intentional on the part of the poster.
I for instance, snagged a number of dislikes related to a discussion on creators rights where I took an unpopular position. I'm OK with that. The position that I was arguing was not popular and, for many, disagreeing with it wasn't a strong enough piece of feedback. As those notifications came in, I looked at what I had written to see if it was particularly abrasive, insensitive or otherwise worthy of edit or retraction and determined that it was the concept itself that was being rejected.
I don't think that that's entirely dissimilar to standing up at a public speaking engagement and modifying a presentation based on the feedback that audience body-language is providing.
Now, the catch in all of this is that there are semantics that go with everything. In all honesty, why take exception to the dislikes vs disagrees but not take equal exception to what are likely similarly confused likes vs agrees vs awesomes?
Regardless of whether or not feedback is anonymous or public, if a post garners an overwhelmingly large number of hits one way or the other, one would think that it would trigger a bit of reflection regarding the quality of the post - "14 awesomes? Way to channel me some Mark Twain!" or "26 dislikes! Fantastic - I have secured my home under this bridge!" either way, it can serve as an avenue for refining post quality.
Perhaps, an alternative path would have been to provide a guideline or set of board definitions for what the house rules are for each. I know that I've frequently struggled over when to click LOL rather than Awesome.
I've tried to tell my wife that if you're going to lie, don't cave when the person seems confused. Rather then correct what you lied about, let the person tell you what they question. Chances are, it's not actually what you were lying about. This is also used in reverse-interrogations.
If I post something that garners a number of negative, anonymous feedback, I don't know what the issue was. Reviewing my post to try & figure it out 1 could drive me into an insecure state of mind, and 2 might have be adjusting something that wasn't even the issue. That's why I like the dissenting posts.
As for the MoS thread, I don't recall posting anything that generated a lot of negative feedback icons. It was just an example where there was a lot of differing opinions.
It absolutely happened - I saw many a "Why was my post called Off-Topic?" exclamation. Even from a few posters who state that they only want to hit a button with no explanation. Curious, no?
My favorite new thing will now be to laugh at the people who will quote an entire post and put "disagree" after it. Because you know - everything in a post is something that can actually be disagreed with. "We breathe air! I like breathing air! Breathing air is like eating chocolate!" - Disagree! On really? So we don't breathe air? Whackos.
It all boils down to this: much like the Man of Steel thread, if you're more interested in winning than discussing, you're boring. Because that's what the reaction posts were all about: "I don't like what that person wrote so I'm going to disagree/etc. That'll show 'em!".
But by all means - keep making it about gut reactions and not having time. 8-}
Frankly, I'd much prefer an ignore button. I used that quite heavily on other forums. Helps to weed out the thin skinned and the easily offended.
I will respectfully disagree. The full spectrum of feedback responses allows one to get a relative level of feedback regarding qualitative elements of a post or series of posts and potentially allow for a little bit of self reflection on whether or not there is behavior that should be changed in order to fit into the community. It's something of a means of engaging a troll without actually feeding it.
I'll less respectfully dislike your comment regarding gut reactions. Hardly surprising, I'm sure. Also, hardly likely to have any impact whatsoever, but when has social feedback ever been effecting in addressing megalomania?
I will, however, agree with you about an ignore button. But then, I wouldn't have responded to this post.
I'm a little confused; so if I give my opinion on, say why Man of Steel was a great & refreshing new take on the character, and I get 5 disagrees (and 3 misused dislikes), I should self reflect my opinion?
IF that's what you're getting at, I don't know that I would think about changing my opinion based on the anonymous feedback. I probably wouldn't change my opinion if someone told me why they disagreed either...but I would be open to their thoughts.
M
Matt,
I didn't follow the MoS thread - missed it in theaters due to a variety of reasons and so have stayed away from the thread (and several podcasts after Pants' MASSIVE spoiler related to Star Trek: Into Darkness) - so I can't speak on what was occurring in that thread. However, my point is that a dislike can be about the tone, phrasing or attitude presented in a post which may or may not have been intentional on the part of the poster.
I for instance, snagged a number of dislikes related to a discussion on creators rights where I took an unpopular position. I'm OK with that. The position that I was arguing was not popular and, for many, disagreeing with it wasn't a strong enough piece of feedback. As those notifications came in, I looked at what I had written to see if it was particularly abrasive, insensitive or otherwise worthy of edit or retraction and determined that it was the concept itself that was being rejected.
I don't think that that's entirely dissimilar to standing up at a public speaking engagement and modifying a presentation based on the feedback that audience body-language is providing.
Now, the catch in all of this is that there are semantics that go with everything. In all honesty, why take exception to the dislikes vs disagrees but not take equal exception to what are likely similarly confused likes vs agrees vs awesomes?
Regardless of whether or not feedback is anonymous or public, if a post garners an overwhelmingly large number of hits one way or the other, one would think that it would trigger a bit of reflection regarding the quality of the post - "14 awesomes? Way to channel me some Mark Twain!" or "26 dislikes! Fantastic - I have secured my home under this bridge!" either way, it can serve as an avenue for refining post quality.
Perhaps, an alternative path would have been to provide a guideline or set of board definitions for what the house rules are for each. I know that I've frequently struggled over when to click LOL rather than Awesome.
I've tried to tell my wife that if you're going to lie, don't cave when the person seems confused. Rather then correct what you lied about, let the person tell you what they question. Chances are, it's not actually what you were lying about. This is also used in reverse-interrogations.
If I post something that garners a number of negative, anonymous feedback, I don't know what the issue was. Reviewing my post to try & figure it out 1 could drive me into an insecure state of mind, and 2 might have be adjusting something that wasn't even the issue. That's why I like the dissenting posts.
As for the MoS thread, I don't recall posting anything that generated a lot of negative feedback icons. It was just an example where there was a lot of differing opinions.
M
I'm not sure how to respond to the whole never give in, never let them see you sweat swagger. However, that's just a style thing.
I get the idea of liking dissenting posts - it is, after all, a discussion board which necessitates discussion. There is little more frustrating than having all posts ignored.
It absolutely happened - I saw many a "Why was my post called Off-Topic?" exclamation. Even from a few posters who state that they only want to hit a button with no explanation. Curious, no?
My favorite new thing will now be to laugh at the people who will quote an entire post and put "disagree" after it. Because you know - everything in a post is something that can actually be disagreed with. "We breathe air! I like breathing air! Breathing air is like eating chocolate!" - Disagree! On really? So we don't breathe air? Whackos.
It all boils down to this: much like the Man of Steel thread, if you're more interested in winning than discussing, you're boring. Because that's what the reaction posts were all about: "I don't like what that person wrote so I'm going to disagree/etc. That'll show 'em!".
But by all means - keep making it about gut reactions and not having time. 8-}
Frankly, I'd much prefer an ignore button. I used that quite heavily on other forums. Helps to weed out the thin skinned and the easily offended.
I will respectfully disagree. The full spectrum of feedback responses allows one to get a relative level of feedback regarding qualitative elements of a post or series of posts and potentially allow for a little bit of self reflection on whether or not there is behavior that should be changed in order to fit into the community. It's something of a means of engaging a troll without actually feeding it.
I'll less respectfully dislike your comment regarding gut reactions. Hardly surprising, I'm sure. Also, hardly likely to have any impact whatsoever, but when has social feedback ever been effecting in addressing megalomania?
I will, however, agree with you about an ignore button. But then, I wouldn't have responded to this post.
I'm a little confused; so if I give my opinion on, say why Man of Steel was a great & refreshing new take on the character, and I get 5 disagrees (and 3 misused dislikes), I should self reflect my opinion?
IF that's what you're getting at, I don't know that I would think about changing my opinion based on the anonymous feedback. I probably wouldn't change my opinion if someone told me why they disagreed either...but I would be open to their thoughts.
M
Matt,
I didn't follow the MoS thread - missed it in theaters due to a variety of reasons and so have stayed away from the thread (and several podcasts after Pants' MASSIVE spoiler related to Star Trek: Into Darkness) - so I can't speak on what was occurring in that thread. However, my point is that a dislike can be about the tone, phrasing or attitude presented in a post which may or may not have been intentional on the part of the poster.
I for instance, snagged a number of dislikes related to a discussion on creators rights where I took an unpopular position. I'm OK with that. The position that I was arguing was not popular and, for many, disagreeing with it wasn't a strong enough piece of feedback. As those notifications came in, I looked at what I had written to see if it was particularly abrasive, insensitive or otherwise worthy of edit or retraction and determined that it was the concept itself that was being rejected.
I don't think that that's entirely dissimilar to standing up at a public speaking engagement and modifying a presentation based on the feedback that audience body-language is providing.
Now, the catch in all of this is that there are semantics that go with everything. In all honesty, why take exception to the dislikes vs disagrees but not take equal exception to what are likely similarly confused likes vs agrees vs awesomes?
Regardless of whether or not feedback is anonymous or public, if a post garners an overwhelmingly large number of hits one way or the other, one would think that it would trigger a bit of reflection regarding the quality of the post - "14 awesomes? Way to channel me some Mark Twain!" or "26 dislikes! Fantastic - I have secured my home under this bridge!" either way, it can serve as an avenue for refining post quality.
Perhaps, an alternative path would have been to provide a guideline or set of board definitions for what the house rules are for each. I know that I've frequently struggled over when to click LOL rather than Awesome.
I've tried to tell my wife that if you're going to lie, don't cave when the person seems confused. Rather then correct what you lied about, let the person tell you what they question. Chances are, it's not actually what you were lying about. This is also used in reverse-interrogations.
If I post something that garners a number of negative, anonymous feedback, I don't know what the issue was. Reviewing my post to try & figure it out 1 could drive me into an insecure state of mind, and 2 might have be adjusting something that wasn't even the issue. That's why I like the dissenting posts.
As for the MoS thread, I don't recall posting anything that generated a lot of negative feedback icons. It was just an example where there was a lot of differing opinions.
M
I'm not sure how to respond to the whole never give in, never let them see you sweat swagger. However, that's just a style thing.
I get the idea of liking dissenting posts - it is, after all, a discussion board which necessitates discussion. There is little more frustrating than having all posts ignored.
Actually, I wasn't trying to say to never give in (or that I have swagger), but that I would rather someone tell me what in my post they specifically disagree with and why. My wife will attest that I don't need everyone to see things my way, or that I will change my opinion with your explanation. I just like to see how you came to your conclusion. That's why the "gut reaction" response with no further information isn't something I can really get behind.
It absolutely happened - I saw many a "Why was my post called Off-Topic?" exclamation. Even from a few posters who state that they only want to hit a button with no explanation. Curious, no?
My favorite new thing will now be to laugh at the people who will quote an entire post and put "disagree" after it. Because you know - everything in a post is something that can actually be disagreed with. "We breathe air! I like breathing air! Breathing air is like eating chocolate!" - Disagree! On really? So we don't breathe air? Whackos.
It all boils down to this: much like the Man of Steel thread, if you're more interested in winning than discussing, you're boring. Because that's what the reaction posts were all about: "I don't like what that person wrote so I'm going to disagree/etc. That'll show 'em!".
But by all means - keep making it about gut reactions and not having time. 8-}
Frankly, I'd much prefer an ignore button. I used that quite heavily on other forums. Helps to weed out the thin skinned and the easily offended.
I will respectfully disagree. The full spectrum of feedback responses allows one to get a relative level of feedback regarding qualitative elements of a post or series of posts and potentially allow for a little bit of self reflection on whether or not there is behavior that should be changed in order to fit into the community. It's something of a means of engaging a troll without actually feeding it.
I'll less respectfully dislike your comment regarding gut reactions. Hardly surprising, I'm sure. Also, hardly likely to have any impact whatsoever, but when has social feedback ever been effecting in addressing megalomania?
I will, however, agree with you about an ignore button. But then, I wouldn't have responded to this post.
I'm a little confused; so if I give my opinion on, say why Man of Steel was a great & refreshing new take on the character, and I get 5 disagrees (and 3 misused dislikes), I should self reflect my opinion?
IF that's what you're getting at, I don't know that I would think about changing my opinion based on the anonymous feedback. I probably wouldn't change my opinion if someone told me why they disagreed either...but I would be open to their thoughts.
M
Matt,
I didn't follow the MoS thread - missed it in theaters due to a variety of reasons and so have stayed away from the thread (and several podcasts after Pants' MASSIVE spoiler related to Star Trek: Into Darkness) - so I can't speak on what was occurring in that thread. However, my point is that a dislike can be about the tone, phrasing or attitude presented in a post which may or may not have been intentional on the part of the poster.
I for instance, snagged a number of dislikes related to a discussion on creators rights where I took an unpopular position. I'm OK with that. The position that I was arguing was not popular and, for many, disagreeing with it wasn't a strong enough piece of feedback. As those notifications came in, I looked at what I had written to see if it was particularly abrasive, insensitive or otherwise worthy of edit or retraction and determined that it was the concept itself that was being rejected.
I don't think that that's entirely dissimilar to standing up at a public speaking engagement and modifying a presentation based on the feedback that audience body-language is providing.
Now, the catch in all of this is that there are semantics that go with everything. In all honesty, why take exception to the dislikes vs disagrees but not take equal exception to what are likely similarly confused likes vs agrees vs awesomes?
Regardless of whether or not feedback is anonymous or public, if a post garners an overwhelmingly large number of hits one way or the other, one would think that it would trigger a bit of reflection regarding the quality of the post - "14 awesomes? Way to channel me some Mark Twain!" or "26 dislikes! Fantastic - I have secured my home under this bridge!" either way, it can serve as an avenue for refining post quality.
Perhaps, an alternative path would have been to provide a guideline or set of board definitions for what the house rules are for each. I know that I've frequently struggled over when to click LOL rather than Awesome.
I've tried to tell my wife that if you're going to lie, don't cave when the person seems confused. Rather then correct what you lied about, let the person tell you what they question. Chances are, it's not actually what you were lying about. This is also used in reverse-interrogations.
If I post something that garners a number of negative, anonymous feedback, I don't know what the issue was. Reviewing my post to try & figure it out 1 could drive me into an insecure state of mind, and 2 might have be adjusting something that wasn't even the issue. That's why I like the dissenting posts.
As for the MoS thread, I don't recall posting anything that generated a lot of negative feedback icons. It was just an example where there was a lot of differing opinions.
M
I'm not sure how to respond to the whole never give in, never let them see you sweat swagger. However, that's just a style thing.
I get the idea of liking dissenting posts - it is, after all, a discussion board which necessitates discussion. There is little more frustrating than having all posts ignored.
Actually, I wasn't trying to say to never give in (or that I have swagger), but that I would rather someone tell me what in my post they specifically disagree with and why. My wife will attest that I don't need everyone to see things my way, or that I will change my opinion with your explanation. I just like to see how you came to your conclusion. That's why the "gut reaction" response with no further information isn't something I can really get behind.
M
YMMV. I just look at it as another form of feedback. Is it non-specific? Yes. Does it provide a general sense of approval or disapproval? Absolutely. Can I compare between posts that were received favorably or neutrally to see what might be different? Indeed.
Not perfect, but better than no feedback whatsoever.
Also, really disappointed, that I'm unable to mark the conversation associated with Man of Steel as Off Topic.
Yes. It's all about proving you right and not actually advancing the conversation.
There's that same megalomania that I mentioned earlier. You know, the same one where you did the drama queen departure declaring that you would be back in some new and transcendent form that would be advanced beyond mere podcasting?
Also, last I checked, you turned in your ID and are also just a mere forum poster.
Unfortunately, you seem to have caught me in your clever trap - refuse to rise to the bate and you'll declare yourself the winner of the internet due to a failure to show up. Rise to the bait and feed the troll.
Smug is an appropriate adjective for Peters behavior.
I think Hauberk and Matt are both sincerely trying to articulate their respective positions. Peter seems to want to just swoop in, say something smarmy, and then dash out again as if he has said something remarkably clever that wraps up the conversation.
Yes. It's all about proving you right and not actually advancing the conversation.
There's that same megalomania that I mentioned earlier. You know, the same one where you did the drama queen departure declaring that you would be back in some new and transcendent form that would be advanced beyond mere podcasting?
Also, last I checked, you turned in your ID and are also just a mere forum poster.
Unfortunately, you seem to have caught me in your clever trap - refuse to rise to the bate and you'll declare yourself the winner of the internet due to a failure to show up. Rise to the bait and feed the troll.
I get the idea of liking dissenting posts - it is, after all, a discussion board which necessitates discussion. There is little more frustrating than having all posts ignored.
To get serious (which is odd for me lately...) There are solid discussions on this site, and then there are people who just talk past each other and I prefer when there is give and take and we LEARN from what other people say. For example, (not on this site) someone claimed Howard the Duck was a lame, stupid character, but knew nothing about the Steve Gerber creation and 70's run. I gave them a copy of the Essential and they changed their mind.
Or, there are a LOT of smaller, indy books I dismiss because I know nothing about them and I can't read EVERYTHING, but people here will convince me of their worth.
The "dislike" or "disagree" buttons were something that, at first, I was annoyed by, thinking they were just a way for people to smack you without giving a reason. Then, I just ignored them.
I ignore the Likes, the LOLs, and all of the other buttons. Why? Because if you have something to say, SAY IT! If you disagree with someone Explain Yourself! Maybe you'll give them a new perspective or YOU will get a new perspective. Maybe BOTH of you will learn something.
It can be a positive experience.
Or, you can be a jerk, call people names and sit smugly in your chair that YOU SHOWED THEM!
Your choice. Every day, every post you make a choice.
And I am serious about, if your self worth comes from people clicking on a button to agree with you, you need to step away from the computer and get out in the world. We are all brothers and sisters in comics here, and sometimes, siblings fight. But if you just want to fight....well, that's what other boards are for.
For the record, my sun doesn't rise or set by the feedback responses. I DO get irritated (as Jamie pointed out) when people have a dissenting opinion and does not explain why. Those are the people I call out.
Its been a long time since I was scared of someone(s) not agreeing with me.
For the record, my sun doesn't rise or set by the feedback responses. I DO get irritated (as Jamie pointed out) when people have a dissenting opinion and does not explain why. Those are the people I call out.
Its been a long time since I was scared of someone(s) not agreeing with me.
For the record, my sun doesn't rise or set by the feedback responses. I DO get irritated (as Jamie pointed out) when people have a dissenting opinion and does not explain why. Those are the people I call out.
Its been a long time since I was scared of someone(s) not agreeing with me.
For the record, my sun doesn't rise or set by the feedback responses. I DO get irritated (as Jamie pointed out) when people have a dissenting opinion and does not explain why. Those are the people I call out.
Its been a long time since I was scared of someone(s) not agreeing with me.
For the record, my sun doesn't rise or set by the feedback responses. I DO get irritated (as Jamie pointed out) when people have a dissenting opinion and does not explain why. Those are the people I call out.
Its been a long time since I was scared of someone(s) not agreeing with me.
I am heartened by the debate removing the buttons generated. I thought I was alone in a crowd when I questioned the reasoning last week. It just felt like a small but vocal minority took their ball away from the rest of us. I'm glad it is being seen that way. I guess the next question is :(unless I missed it) who had it removed and why so quickly? I always maintain it is the Geeks' sandbox, we just play in it, but who made the call that the negative ones disappeared but positive ones stayed? And why? It was not that big of an issue until they were gone.
But in all actuality I really don't care I just want to find a thread where I can discuss how cool Hickman's run of the New Avengers. I just read the first trade and loved it. The Illuminati mind wiping Cap and blowing up Earths. That's what we should be discussing, not which forum members are smug narcissists looking for validation (or infamy) in a stupid button.
Comments
I will respectfully disagree. The full spectrum of feedback responses allows one to get a relative level of feedback regarding qualitative elements of a post or series of posts and potentially allow for a little bit of self reflection on whether or not there is behavior that should be changed in order to fit into the community. It's something of a means of engaging a troll without actually feeding it.
I'll less respectfully dislike your comment regarding gut reactions. Hardly surprising, I'm sure. Also, hardly likely to have any impact whatsoever, but when has social feedback ever been effecting in addressing megalomania?
I will, however, agree with you about an ignore button. But then, I wouldn't have responded to this post.
IF that's what you're getting at, I don't know that I would think about changing my opinion based on the anonymous feedback. I probably wouldn't change my opinion if someone told me why they disagreed either...but I would be open to their thoughts.
M
M
I didn't follow the MoS thread - missed it in theaters due to a variety of reasons and so have stayed away from the thread (and several podcasts after Pants' MASSIVE spoiler related to Star Trek: Into Darkness) - so I can't speak on what was occurring in that thread. However, my point is that a dislike can be about the tone, phrasing or attitude presented in a post which may or may not have been intentional on the part of the poster.
I for instance, snagged a number of dislikes related to a discussion on creators rights where I took an unpopular position. I'm OK with that. The position that I was arguing was not popular and, for many, disagreeing with it wasn't a strong enough piece of feedback. As those notifications came in, I looked at what I had written to see if it was particularly abrasive, insensitive or otherwise worthy of edit or retraction and determined that it was the concept itself that was being rejected.
I don't think that that's entirely dissimilar to standing up at a public speaking engagement and modifying a presentation based on the feedback that audience body-language is providing.
Now, the catch in all of this is that there are semantics that go with everything. In all honesty, why take exception to the dislikes vs disagrees but not take equal exception to what are likely similarly confused likes vs agrees vs awesomes?
Regardless of whether or not feedback is anonymous or public, if a post garners an overwhelmingly large number of hits one way or the other, one would think that it would trigger a bit of reflection regarding the quality of the post - "14 awesomes? Way to channel me some Mark Twain!" or "26 dislikes! Fantastic - I have secured my home under this bridge!" either way, it can serve as an avenue for refining post quality.
Perhaps, an alternative path would have been to provide a guideline or set of board definitions for what the house rules are for each. I know that I've frequently struggled over when to click LOL rather than Awesome.
If I post something that garners a number of negative, anonymous feedback, I don't know what the issue was. Reviewing my post to try & figure it out 1 could drive me into an insecure state of mind, and 2 might have be adjusting something that wasn't even the issue. That's why I like the dissenting posts.
As for the MoS thread, I don't recall posting anything that generated a lot of negative feedback icons. It was just an example where there was a lot of differing opinions.
M
I get the idea of liking dissenting posts - it is, after all, a discussion board which necessitates discussion. There is little more frustrating than having all posts ignored.
M
Not perfect, but better than no feedback whatsoever.
Also, really disappointed, that I'm unable to mark the conversation associated with Man of Steel as Off Topic.
There's that same megalomania that I mentioned earlier. You know, the same one where you did the drama queen departure declaring that you would be back in some new and transcendent form that would be advanced beyond mere podcasting?
Also, last I checked, you turned in your ID and are also just a mere forum poster.
Unfortunately, you seem to have caught me in your clever trap - refuse to rise to the bate and you'll declare yourself the winner of the internet due to a failure to show up. Rise to the bait and feed the troll.
Or is it just being smug?
Smug is an appropriate adjective for Peters behavior.
I think Hauberk and Matt are both sincerely trying to articulate their respective positions. Peter seems to want to just swoop in, say something smarmy, and then dash out again as if he has said something remarkably clever that wraps up the conversation.
I'd rather talk to the other guys.
Or, there are a LOT of smaller, indy books I dismiss because I know nothing about them and I can't read EVERYTHING, but people here will convince me of their worth.
The "dislike" or "disagree" buttons were something that, at first, I was annoyed by, thinking they were just a way for people to smack you without giving a reason. Then, I just ignored them.
I ignore the Likes, the LOLs, and all of the other buttons. Why? Because if you have something to say, SAY IT! If you disagree with someone Explain Yourself! Maybe you'll give them a new perspective or YOU will get a new perspective. Maybe BOTH of you will learn something.
It can be a positive experience.
Or, you can be a jerk, call people names and sit smugly in your chair that YOU SHOWED THEM!
Your choice. Every day, every post you make a choice.
And I am serious about, if your self worth comes from people clicking on a button to agree with you, you need to step away from the computer and get out in the world. We are all brothers and sisters in comics here, and sometimes, siblings fight. But if you just want to fight....well, that's what other boards are for.
Its been a long time since I was scared of someone(s) not agreeing with me.
M
Since changes are being made..
How about bringing signatures back?
Thanks.
8-}
just testing it out.
M
But in all actuality I really don't care I just want to find a thread where I can discuss how cool Hickman's run of the New Avengers. I just read the first trade and loved it. The Illuminati mind wiping Cap and blowing up Earths. That's what we should be discussing, not which forum members are smug narcissists looking for validation (or infamy) in a stupid button.