Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm sorry but this is grossly reductive logic.
Not to sound like an A-hole, but why not get rid of the little descriptions that show up above the icons? A picture's worth a thousand words, so making the icons even more vague may actually help convey a wider range of emotions -- thereby eliminating a bulk of the issues we're dealing with. It would also enable the reintroduction of the Picard and WTF ratings. Now that they don't actually have names, they can be used to represent anything at all.
 
Not to sound like an A-hole, but why not get rid of the little descriptions that show up above the icons? A picture's worth a thousand words, so making the icons even more vague may actually help convey a wider range of emotions -- thereby eliminating a bulk of the issues we're dealing with. It would also enable the reintroduction of the Picard and WTF ratings. Now that they don't actually have names, they can be used to represent anything at all.

The purpose of the ratings is pretty much to convey people's reaction to posts in a way that does not require actual responses in posts. So removing the meanings that the ratings are meant to hold seems to be defeating the purpose.
 
The purpose of the ratings is pretty much to convey people's reaction to posts in a way that does not require actual responses in posts. So removing the meanings that the ratings are meant to hold seems to be defeating the purpose.
Not necessarily. The most accurate means of responding to a post without having to post at all would be to rate it in a way that most properly represents one's feelings on the subject matter at hand. However, because it is entirely possible to feel more than one emotion, and because the limited number of ratings restricts which emotions can be represented at all, the ratings come across as being half vague.

I suggest that the issue we are dealing with involving the ratings isn't simply that they are too vague, they are instead aiming for a middle ground between "certain with definitions" and "lacking any definitions". The icons do not necessarily represent what they are supposed to, and the wide spectrum of human emotion makes it so that an attempt to represent that emotion will inevitably lead to ratings that could be viewed as offensive.

However, if the definitions of the ratings were removed entirely, then the rating system's goal of representing the emotions of the people who are using them would be upheld. After all, each user would have their own individual understandings of the ratings.

Alternatively, the rating system and the system used for smiley faces in posts could be linked. In that way, you could rate a post with a ":cool:" icon instead of simply using the standard "Funny". This would massively expand utility of the ratings, I think.

In other words, devalue their definitions in favor of how they make people feel by offering a much wider variety. In doing so, it becomes much more obvious when someone is acting with intent to emotionally harm through their use of an emoji. It's very hard to misinterpret ":mad:", for example. The uncategorized smiles are more expressive than our current icons and can more accurately portray the full gamut of human emotion... for whatever it's worth.
 
However, if the definitions of the ratings were removed entirely, then the rating system's goal of representing the emotions of the people who are using them would be upheld. After all, each user would have their own individual understandings of the ratings.
I don't know how can you say this given how wonderfully it's worked for you so far. You actually had to speak with Jackie and clarify your meaning. It becomes kind of obvious that the recipient of your rating does not necessarily share your interpretation of said rating.

A way prevent this misundertanding would be by naming the ratings, so that when you rate something "insightful", the poster will correctly interpret that they were rated "insightful". This way, it becomes impossible for someone to look at the "funny" rating and confuse it with "smile" or "horror".

...

Oh wait.
 
Not to sound like an A-hole, but why not get rid of the little descriptions that show up above the icons? A picture's worth a thousand words, so making the icons even more vague may actually help convey a wider range of emotions -- thereby eliminating a bulk of the issues we're dealing with. It would also enable the reintroduction of the Picard and WTF ratings. Now that they don't actually have names, they can be used to represent anything at all.

Or people could not abuse them. Making them vague would just make it confusing.


Not necessarily. The most accurate means of responding to a post without having to post at all would be to rate it in a way that most properly represents one's feelings on the subject matter at hand. However, because it is entirely possible to feel more than one emotion, and because the limited number of ratings restricts which emotions can be represented at all, the ratings come across as being half vague.

I suggest that the issue we are dealing with involving the ratings isn't simply that they are too vague, they are instead aiming for a middle ground between "certain with definitions" and "lacking any definitions". The icons do not necessarily represent what they are supposed to, and the wide spectrum of human emotion makes it so that an attempt to represent that emotion will inevitably lead to ratings that could be viewed as offensive.

However, if the definitions of the ratings were removed entirely, then the rating system's goal of representing the emotions of the people who are using them would be upheld. After all, each user would have their own individual understandings of the ratings.

Alternatively, the rating system and the system used for smiley faces in posts could be linked. In that way, you could rate a post with a ":cool:" icon instead of simply using the standard "Funny". This would massively expand utility of the ratings, I think.

In other words, devalue their definitions in favor of how they make people feel by offering a much wider variety. In doing so, it becomes much more obvious when someone is acting with intent to emotionally harm through their use of an emoji. It's very hard to misinterpret ":mad:", for example. The uncategorized smiles are more expressive than our current icons and can more accurately portray the full gamut of human emotion... for whatever it's worth.

This is just way over-complicating it. The ratings are in support of the posting, not a replacement for it. If you have something more nuanced and complicated to say than simply indicating that you agree/like/support the message, then perhaps you should actually say so.
 
I'm sorry but this is grossly reductive logic. I could say this for example:

"People should just not get bent out of shape over a series of small runes in a particular arrangement." IE: Words.

Like words, the ratings and icons have meaning. Icon, by definition, imparts meaning. People that really want to will look for any way to berate or troll others, especially in an attempt to do so in a manner that tries to avoid violating rules against such behavior. This has already been demonstrated on SV (not just within this specific set of tribunal cases.) Making a blanket statement that no ratings should ever be eligible for infraction would give carte blanche for anyone to abuse it in such a manner.

I'm pretty sure I actually said that people that blatantly abuse them should be infracted?
I can see infractions given for "rating funny a suicide note", and rating stalking, where you just rate one person's posts, or all of an opposing viewpoints posts.
Yes, that was me, saying that thing. But again, one offs, no. At some point in time, people have to look at those funny faces and say, "I'm not going to let this get me down." Or alternately, say, "I received 20 funnys on what I thought was a dramatic, insightful, and completely serious post. I could report all of these people that did not see my genius for what it was and have thus made me sad, or... I could perhaps do with some deep introspection and try to figure out why they're not taking me seriously... HA I'm on the internet where's that report button?"

Secondly, yes, like words, the ratings and icons have meaning. Unlike words, the ratings and icons are singular. Generally a post has a few more than just one word, they usually are combined to form sentences, and those sentences create complex meanings... whereas the SMILEY FACE icon is a vague and uncertain beast linked to the word Funny. It's actual meaning is impossible to decipher without the additional context of a post. It could be used to imply smiling, happiness, laughter, or mockery. One finding a post funny, or finding the stance of an author funny, or finding the situation the author is writing about funny. It's an emotion paired with a picture, and while the picture may be "worth a thousand words", it doesn't come with a guide as to exactly which thousand words those are, they're all in the head of the person who accidentally tapped that rating button on mobile.
 
Last edited:
At some point in time, people have to look at those funny faces and say, "I'm not going to let this get me down." Or alternately, say, "I received 20 funnys on what I thought was a dramatic, insightful, and completely serious post. I could report all of these people that did not see my genius for what it was and have thus made me sad, or... I could perhaps do with some deep introspection and try to figure out why they're not taking me seriously... HA I'm on the internet where's that report button?"
I find it interesting to note that every time a new problem on this website crops up, none of our Councilors have ever proposed "Man, they should just get over it" or "It's the internet, people are oversensitive and overreact, and thus we should ignore it and do nothing" as a solution to anything that bothers people.

That's because it's not a solution.
 
Can we get the WTF rating back? But instead of WTF, it's just a Pineapple with a question mark in it. Something like this:


It's much better for expressing confusion and oddity, without the potentially insulting nature of WTF.
 
I find it interesting to note that every time a new problem on this website crops up, none of our Councilors have ever proposed "Man, they should just get over it" or "It's the internet, people are oversensitive and overreact, and thus we should ignore it and do nothing" as a solution to anything that bothers people.

That's because it's not a solution.

:Citation Needed:?
First, I'd like to direct you to just a few posts I've grabbed from the tribunal archives. (Emphasis added to a few of them)
Other Resolution - 2016-AT-14: Re: Infractions for Rating Use | Page 2
Quite honestly, I find it hard to care about people abusing the rating system. Yes, it can allow someone to engage a post without really engaging, but it's just a rating to me. Hardly something that should really be given attention.

People are going to use existing ratings sarcastically and mockingly. I see that as an inevitability. I see fighting it as a futile gesture, yet at the same time I realize the staff have standards they wish to enforce on this site.

So I feel that in this case, perhaps it would just be better if I
[X] Abstain
Upheld - 2016-AT-08: Staff and Polemarchos | Page 2
The problem I have with this as a reason for a ban in violation of MDP is that I think for anyone but Polemarchos', we'd just ignore this. Like, shit far stronger than "chattles" is thrown around in debates without anyone blinking twice. I realize that this is part of a pattern of behavior, but I really dislike how the pattern of behavior argument has basically sanded down our ability to discuss the infraction put in front of us.

If Polmarchos is in fact such a problem poster that he requires a three strikes and you're out warning system, then it shouldn't be any kind of a problem to find something a bit more substantive to be that third strike.
Reduced - 2016-AT-09: Staff and Jackie III | Page 2
So, yes. Perhaps I should be offended, but I'm not. Perhaps, it's because I grew up in an era before political correctness, which meant needing to watch your words to avoid offending people, where every little thing seems to offend someone somewhere.

Because this is where we are now on SV, where people get infracted on the basis that other people could get offended. Not because they're offended, well... I suppose someone or several someones were offended enough to report @Jackie and things rolled from there.

So, while what @Jackie said could be deemed offensive to some people (like me, but it didn't really), I do not feel that Jackie should be infracted 25 points for this. My peers in the @Council may feel otherwise. For now, I'll append this with my opinion

[X] Overturn the infraction.


Other Resolution - 2016-AT-04: Staff and Vaermina | Page 2
In the meantime, my opinion is to simply overturn the sentence. Insisting the sky is bright orange without descending into crass or uncouth language should not be infractable, no matter the exasperation it might bring others. The Ignore function exists for a reason, after all.
That's four different Councillors, in four different tribunals. So, yeah, sometimes they do.

And even having taken the time to point that out, I tend to agree with you, in that completely ignoring it is not a solution... because someone is clearly getting their feelings hurt.

I think the real solution would be to take the time to talk it out and get to the bottom of the aggrieved party's hurt, and find a way to console them, while determining if the offending party was actually intending to be offensive, whereupon if it was they should be penalized and/or provided counseling to help them understand why harming other people emotionally is a bad thing, and if it was not the aggrieved party needs to be counselled to understand that other people's emotional state and frame of mind may not match their own, and that while the situation did hurt, the meaning behind the message was not intended to, and how they can hopefully interpret those messages in the future, while also working with the offender to enable them to more accurately represent their intended message.

That's what I'd like to see.

But this is an internet forum, it's exceedingly hard to stage a useful intervention (not impossible, but as we've clearly seen, words on the internet are easy to misinterpret... taking something like this to Discord or Skype with video would allow for visual and audio cues and further cement both parties as actual people then as anonymous strangers) and quite frankly, my honest advice would be to close this browser window, open Youtube, and watch adorable cat videos if something over here makes a person has a sad. Because that's the beauty of the internet. You can just walk away. Hell, you can just sign out if you want to keep reading things, but avoid alerts and notifications. There's a wide variety of options to deal with sentiments a person doesn't like, and they don't all have to include staff action.
 
:Citation Needed:?
First, I'd like to direct you to just a few posts I've grabbed from the tribunal archives. (Emphasis added to a few of them)

That's four different Councillors, in four different tribunals. So, yeah, sometimes they do.

And even having taken the time to point that out, I tend to agree with you, in that completely ignoring it is not a solution... because someone is clearly getting their feelings hurt.

I think the real solution would be to take the time to talk it out and get to the bottom of the aggrieved party's hurt, and find a way to console them, while determining if the offending party was actually intending to be offensive, whereupon if it was they should be penalized and/or provided counseling to help them understand why harming other people emotionally is a bad thing, and if it was not the aggrieved party needs to be counselled to understand that other people's emotional state and frame of mind may not match their own, and that while the situation did hurt, the meaning behind the message was not intended to, and how they can hopefully interpret those messages in the future, while also working with the offender to enable them to more accurately represent their intended message.

That's what I'd like to see.

But this is an internet forum, it's exceedingly hard to stage a useful intervention (not impossible, but as we've clearly seen, words on the internet are easy to misinterpret... taking something like this to Discord or Skype with video would allow for visual and audio cues and further cement both parties as actual people then as anonymous strangers) and quite frankly, my honest advice would be to close this browser window, open Youtube, and watch adorable cat videos if something over here makes a person has a sad. Because that's the beauty of the internet. You can just walk away. Hell, you can just sign out if you want to keep reading things, but avoid alerts and notifications. There's a wide variety of options to deal with sentiments a person doesn't like, and they don't all have to include staff action.
You get an insightful for proving me wrong.

But your "advice" is nonetheless unvonvincing, and so were these arguments when they were brought up.

Because it violates three of the most basic principles of good governance.
(As formulated by me; not quite sure whether you will this anywhere else in this format.)

One, the person that is hurt without hurting others should not be the one that has to tolerate being hurt.

Two, your right to swing your arms ends where other people's noses are.

And three, if a person has been hurt and asks for help, you do not turn them away or make them hurt more.

I've had a long talk with a person that was bullied with ratings. It's all nice to ask people to make up.

But it's awful to ask victims to talk to people who bullied and harassed them. It's not a "real solution". In fact, it adds pain and discomfort to those who already suffer and who want to be rid of it.

We don't ask victims of harassment to make up with and forgive their harassers. It's absurd to suggest this is the "real solution" to this problem. Especially when ratings harassment is so easy.

EDITed for correction and minor additions.
 
Last edited:
One, the person that is hurt without hurting others should not be the one that has to tolerate being hurt.

That is certainly an ideal to strive for, but I don't think humanity is anywhere near the point that we could achieve that measurable goal, and won't be until sometime after the Skynet revolution succeeds in wiping us off the face of the Earth.

There are large hurts, and there are small hurts. The large should be stopped at the source. For the small, we should be as the reed, bending, but not breaking, and accept that in a world where others exist, so will ideas and comments that cause small pain. There are, and I submit as evidence way to many posts Twitter and Facebook, people on the internet who feel hurt when someone politely disagrees with them. We cannot allow their feelings to dictate our actions, and maintain an environment where productive discourse is encouraged. This does not mean we cannot express our sympathy towards them, or try to work with them to bring them emotionally to a better place.

Two, your right to swing your arms ends where other people's noses are.

I have been begging for the ability to punch people via TCP/IP since I started my career in tech support. :( Still can't.

And three, if a person has been hurt and asks for help, you do not turn them away.
But it's awful to ask victims to talk to people who bullied and harassed them. It's not a "real solution". In fact, it adds pain and discomfort to those who already suffer and who want to be rid of it.
We don't ask victims of harassment to make up with and forgive their harassers. It's absurd to suggest this is the "real solution" to this problem.

The whole point of my "solution" was that if the person who felt harassed was intentionally being harassed, then the bully gets punished, and the harassed gets shoulder to lean on. Only if the "bully" was not intending to cause harm should the two parties talk it out. At that point, if they never talk it out, there can be no understanding. And mind, one could use proxies between the parties if one could not bear to come face to face. Or internet person to internet person.

Especially when ratings harassment is so easy.

I sure hope there's not an equally easy solution to...

Well, I'll be. If one notices that they're easily offended by the like system... they can shut the window and stop listening to the critics.
 
people on the internet who feel hurt when someone politely disagrees with them
Rating a serious post in a way that implies that you're laughing at people for expressing their opinions, or that they are so ridiculous as to deserve your amusement, is not and has never been polite.

This is a ridiculously disingenous presentation of the way the ratings system is actually abused.
The whole point of my "solution" was that if the person who felt harassed was intentionally being harassed, then the bully gets punished, and the harassed gets shoulder to lean on. Only if the "bully" was not intending to cause harm should the two parties talk it out. At that point, if they never talk it out, there can be no understanding. And mind, one could use proxies between the parties if one could not bear to come face to face. Or internet person to internet person.
As soon as Xon has developed the staff- and CC-only mindreader add-on, I'll be certain to use "intent" as the only measuring stick when looking at infractions.

Until then, I'll also be using "negligence" and "recklessness".
Well, I'll be. If one notices that they're easily offended by the like system... they can shut the window and stop listening to the critics.
You're asking people to reduce the functionality of the site they enjoy because it is used in ways that harms them through no fault of their own.

That is not a solution. Nothing in your post is a solution. It's empty hand-wringing that asks us to accept that people will be shitty and that we should just move on.

I refuse to accept that as being a viable solution to anything.
 
Last edited:
I'm saying that some people, not all people, and certainly not most people, but some people, may discover they have a tendency to take things more harshly than intended, or even take them completely out of context in a way that causes them to suffer. For those people, using the ignore button or turning off the like alerts should be encouraged if they find themselves easily aggravated. It's like with sports, if you find yourself continually getting angry that the team you support is losing, your options are to disengage, or continue to get angry, but not to shut the other teams down. (Or maybe join the team and lead them on a winning streak... but, you know, that's really unlikely)

This is not the same as saying that legitimate harassment should be allowed to continue, or be encouraged to be ignored.

You're asking people to reduce the functionality of the site they enjoy because it is used in ways that harms them through no fault of their own.
If that functionally harms them, then yes, I'd ask they stop using it. If someone doesn't have the emotional maturity to handle what they see as one off like button "missuses", they need to stop paying attention to them. (Again, serial miss-users should be punished.)

If you want to argue that this site should be completely inclusive to everyone, regardless of their emotional maturity.... I'd point to you the perma-ban threads in the tribunal.
 
I think mod warnings go a long way in separating edge cases from wilful abuse. If a mod comes into a thread and uses their mod voice to say, "hey, I see what you're doing with those ratings and that isn't ok," it should get people to stop. Those that don't are the ones who need points. Warnings for Marginal Behavior also serve that purpose.

It's been established in prior tribunals (and the discussions surrounding them) that there aren't enough mods for the amount of work they have to do. Investigation is work. Arbitration is work. Critical analysis of edge cases is work that essentially requires 12 people and its own dedicated thread. Were I a mod, and someone asked me to handle moderation with perfect wisdom while simultaneously keeping every case I'm handling from spiralling out of control–all while getting paid zero dollars–I would laugh at them and go back to playing dreidel with my cat.

As it stands, we have a choice: do we want a system that is 100% fair to edge cases, or do we want a forum that's free to use?
 
I'm unsure whether or not I'd be cut out to be moderator material. I consider myself to be fairly level-headed until I step into CA to see what's up and stumble across half a dozen dumpster fires at minimum, at which point my blood pressure starts rising. And I honestly can't help but pity the ones who get shouted down in there as damned fools, regardless of whether what they said was actually foolish (at best) or if there was a genuine point in there somewhere.
 
I'm saying that some people, not all people, and certainly not most people, but some people, may discover they have a tendency to take things more harshly than intended, or even take them completely out of context in a way that causes them to suffer.

That may well be true, but it is also not terribly important. Ultimately it is the case that people misuse our rating system to mock other people, that is pretty clearly a type of trolling, and that isn't allowed here. That's the important part of the calculus.
 
I'm unsure whether or not I'd be cut out to be moderator material. I consider myself to be fairly level-headed until I step into CA to see what's up and stumble across half a dozen dumpster fires at minimum, at which point my blood pressure starts rising. And I honestly can't help but pity the ones who get shouted down in there as damned fools, regardless of whether what they said was actually foolish (at best) or if there was a genuine point in there somewhere.
I would assume your mindset is different if you go in there assuming the role of a moderator as opposed to that of a regular user.
 
Can we get the WTF rating back? But instead of WTF, it's just a Pineapple with a question mark in it. Something like this:


It's much better for expressing confusion and oddity, without the potentially insulting nature of WTF.
Your post was pretty funny, but it actually made me wonder about the possibility! At least, as an addition of sorts -- like the Meow or Squishy rating.

I can see a Questioning Coconut rating being an addition along those lines...
 
Your post was pretty funny, but it actually made me wonder about the possibility! At least, as an addition of sorts -- like the Meow or Squishy rating.

I can see a Questioning Coconut rating being an addition along those lines...

I feel we have enough ratings to already express numerous sentiments.
If you want to get more nuanced than that, I'd suggest you'd actually quote the post and reply to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top