Reactions in Speakers Corner.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Koalaboy

Koalaboy

Koalaboy

Associate
Joined
15 Aug 2008
Posts
489
Location
Devon
Apologies if I missed an info post.

Are reactions (like, etc.) no longer available in Speakers Corner threads ? I can understand why that may be, but just noticed it seems to have happened this morning, without any obvious note.

Thanks for any clarification.
 
No, and it’s a good policy.

The reactions were abused in SC. In the immigration thread in particular, people were just reacting with a laughing reaction at every post they didn’t agree with, despite people making the effort to make their point. It got extremely frustrating. Its SC, if you don’t agree with the point being made, then counter it.
 
Last edited:
robfosters said:
No, and it’s a good policy.

The reactions were abused in SC. In the immigration thread in particular, people were just reacting with a laughing reaction at every post they didn’t agree with, despite people making the effort to make their point. It got extremely frustrating. Its SC, if you don’t agree with the point being made, then counter it.
Click to expand...
Thanks - I have zero objections. I could just see reactions being made up until around 8:40 this morning on the 'Israel-Hamas war' thread and then noticed there were no buttons, so was confused. I guess because it originated elsewhere and was 'updated' to be compliant this morning.

I appreciate the info, thanks again.
 
robfosters said:
No, and it’s a good policy.

The reactions were abused in SC. In the immigration thread in particular, people were just reacting with a laughing reaction at every post they didn’t agree with, despite people making the effort to make their point. It got extremely frustrating. Its SC, if you don’t agree with the point being made, then counter it.
Click to expand...
*Like
Totally agree
 
robfosters said:
So those that are laughing at my post obviously don’t agree with me. I’ve explained my reason for thinking it’s a good policy, what’s your reason for thinking it isn’t?
Click to expand...
Some in SC make fantastic posts and are able to articulate the post in a much better and more readable way than I ever could. Mostly GordyR. I probably like 90% of what he posts. Some clowns on this forum don't deserve the paragraph or writing to reply and a simple emoji is enough :)
 
I thought all the laughing emojis were out of place in the Israel thread personally. I assume emojis can only be enabled/ disabled per forum rather being thread specific?
 
robfosters said:
No, and it’s a good policy.

The reactions were abused in SC. In the immigration thread in particular, people were just reacting with a laughing reaction at every post they didn’t agree with, despite people making the effort to make their point. It got extremely frustrating. Its SC, if you don’t agree with the point being made, then counter it.
Click to expand...
How many times should it be countered before you (third person) give up and just laugh at them?

E.g. If someone put forward an argument that the Earth was flat should they really be taken seriously, after all this time, after such thinking has been debunked so many times. Should people really give such notions oxygen or should they just be ridiculed?
 
Last edited:
Murphy said:
How many times should it be countered before you (third person) give up and just laugh at them?

E.g. If someone put forward an argument that the Earth was flat should they really be taken seriously, after all this time, after such thinking has been debunked so many times. Should people really give such notions oxygen or should they just be ridiculed?
Click to expand...
No, they should be countered, and if you get bored, just ignore them rather than the incredibly annoying laughing emoji.
 
robfosters said:
.... and it’s for others to find out and decide what’s misinformation, not just accept it if you say so
Click to expand...
I hate to be that person but I dont think people deciding for themselves what’s misinformation and what isn’t has worked very well for society the last 10 years. You just need to look at any social media or the bonkers theories/q-anon rubbish. If someone spouts some complete meth pipe nonsense and people find it laughable and absurd then surely, they should be able to respond so without having to engage in a 30 page debate with someone who won’t listen to reason or common sense. if anything the emoji is a quick way to identify if the general consensus is onboard or not.

I get the feeling that the Emojis may have been removed because someone, probably someone who wanders around calling others delusional, woke or snow particulates, was butt hurt about people laughing at them and complained..... Alanis Morissette said it best
 
Last edited:
robfosters said:
And how does an emoji stop them spreading misinformation, and it’s for others to find out and decide what’s misinformation, not just accept it if you say so
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that someone becoming a laughing stock doesn't cause them to think twice before posting the same thing, that it doesn't indicate to the community that what the person says is laughable?

You're right that the onus is on receiver of the information to decide what information is correct, what is and isn't misinformation, but that just circles back to your reasoning for not liking people laughing at what someone says and my reasoning for why people do so. How many times should sound arguments be put forward that show why something is misinformation before such arguments are ridiculed?

Based on the logic you used in your previous post of "they should be countered, and if you get bored, just ignore them" we should counter flat Earth theories until we get bored and then allow them to disseminate misinformation. That if you use Gish Galloping as a tactic you'll eventually be allowed to disseminate misinformation unchallenged because people will get bored of disproving what you're saying and they'll simply ignore you, they'll simply allow you to say whatever you want totally unchallenged.

IMO laughing at what someone is saying is basically #7 in the how to respond.
 
Should never have been enabled in the first place they're used to ridicule anyone someone doesn't agree with far too often. Theres a reason dislikes aren't allowed almost anywhere online and its for the same reason it facilitates brigading for one (and yeah i'm aware I'm not immune to criticism either)
 
I always thought forum reactions would be better as "Agree", "Disagree" and "Did not know / Appreciate the information".
They're not as 'emotional' and more based on the sort of in-person response someone would give, but I guess they don't have the same 'viral' nature that platforms 'like'.
 
I think these should be reinstated, but limited to just the ‘like’ button - so you can show approval of a message but that’s it.

I agree that the use of the laughing emoji to goad a poster is annoying. Maybe a rule should be made for that.
 
Nitefly said:
I think these should be reinstated, but limited to just the ‘like’ button - so you can show approval of a message but that’s it.

I agree that the use of the laughing emoji to goad a poster is annoying. Maybe a rule should be made for that.
Click to expand...
The problem with just 'like', is that it helps create an echo chamber. It also still brings 'emotion' with it and a lack of transparency as to what it is you 'like'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom