Proposal to make gratuitous negative reactions unavailable

vrijvlindervrijvlinder Papillon-Sauvage MVP

After the spam fest in the last the couple of days, I have been thinking about a solution to heinous activity by spammer trolls and reaction hijackers.

The way I see it , new users with 0 time and participation should not be allowed to react except for awesome or insightful where if they don't react at all ,it comes to mean that they don't like or the answer was not helpful.

People who are serious about resolving a technical issue with the software generally do not use reactions even in a good way...even after their issue has been solved. They don't need to have negative buttons either for that matter.

The promote button only appears after a certain time of participation so should some of the others.

Spammers should not be allowed to post at all after getting 100 spam flags. I think this is the biggest issue. They can get 500 spam flags and still post?

Other types of reactions like off topic abuse and troll should be restricted to people with more time on here or a moderator. There should be a flag instead of a reaction like that. A flag would be enough to alert the moderator to review the post. A general negative flag . The moderator can decide what it is, off topic troll or abuse and mark it as such. At least that way it would seem more fair if one gets marked by the moderator.

I also think that guide or tutorial as to when it is improper to use these might help people not be so trigger happy with the negativity ...

For those already established in this community, I urge that we restrain ourselves from using these against each other none of us lack for words I am sure. But it is best to be kind to each other. :)

hgtonightDavidShine

Comments

  • hgtonighthgtonight ∞ · New Moderator

    I agree with your thoughts, but I disagree with the methods you propose. I feel that freedom of expression is important. The reactions help us boil down expression to a few simple choices. They also help keep the forum clean by reducing the comments with little to no content (insults, praise, etc.).

    Getting marked off-topic, troll, or abusive does not make you an abusive, off-topic, troll. Just that post. Likewise, getting marked awesome, insightful, or lol does not make you an awesome, insightful, and funny person. Just that post. If you consistently get marked in one of these things, there should be some type of action taken.

    Points help reflect this on a small level. Users with negative users are "poor" community members. Users with high points are "good" community members. Can a "poor" member be awesome? Sure. Labeling a user permanently does nothing to help bring the (back) around.

    I guess I just feel that the system works well. I do think that the first few times someone uses each reaction a little pop up explaining what it is for would be helpful. Perhaps a community announcement detailing what each of the reactions are used for (per your suggestion) would be helpful.

    Thanks for bring this discussion up @vrijvlinder. :D

    Search first

    Check out the Documentation! We are always looking for new content and pull requests.

    Click on insightful, awesome, and funny reactions to thank community volunteers for their valuable posts.

  • businessdadbusinessdad Stealth contributor MVP

    Since I'm implementing my own Reactions and Rankings plugins, I was thinking of how they could handle abuse, and this is a typical case where there is no "right answer". As we have seen, stricter regulations imply less freedom, looser regulations can favour abuse.

    Unfortunately, there is no Reaction::Why() to help us figuring out the real reason behind a User's action. That's the same issue that plagues democracy: there are many people who vote irrationally, but it's not possible to check if they were conscious of what they were doing, or if they only did it because they were high.

    hgtonightUnderDog
  • hgtonighthgtonight ∞ · New Moderator

    @businessdad said:
    Unfortunately, there is no Reaction::Why() to help us figuring out the real reason behind a User's action. That's the same issue that plagues democracy: there are many people who vote irrationally, but it's not possible to check if they were conscious of what they were doing, or if they only did it because they were high.

    If I ever feel the need to justify a reaction, I post a comment instead. In that case, I wouldn't use a reaction at all.

    That said, giving a little reason for each reaction is an interesting idea. It would definitely increase the cost of reaction.

    I do think that getting reactions from a user humanizes them. I essentially think of you (the user) as an actual person rather than just a username. This definitely reduces the likelihood of me insulting them (us).

    Search first

    Check out the Documentation! We are always looking for new content and pull requests.

    Click on insightful, awesome, and funny reactions to thank community volunteers for their valuable posts.

  • vrijvlindervrijvlinder Papillon-Sauvage MVP
    edited April 2013

    I agree with you both, however I am referring mostly to non user spammers who come here just to spam and mark people just for sport and has no interest in participation.

    Maybe you did not get marked 10 times in a row by the same person just for spite, but someone did and went marking everyone on several threads as off topic when clearly it was not off topic. An clearly they were just abusing. Yes they got banned but only after doing damage. That needs to be stopped and by curtailing their ability to do this until they have gained some reputation of not being a spammer, people should not have the privilege to screw other people just for sport.

    That is the kind of behavior I am talking about. Users who sign up without intention but to cause trouble.The only way that I can think of is to not avail them of the opportunity.

    One way to achieve this is by needing to unlock the reactions by receiving a first awesome. Community members can help new people unlock the reactions by giving them an awesome.

    That way the person gets verified as areal user and not a spammer loser...

  • vrijvlindervrijvlinder Papillon-Sauvage MVP

    Well, as you have seen this is happening as I write this...

    And as the latest barrage of people coming in here and spamming negative reactions
    for no reason at all...I will not return until this has been addressed . This is an insult in the face of hard work that was put into contributions, money wise and work wise.
    By me and everyone who has made efforts to improve the community and the input.

    If this request can't be looked at seriously based on the latest events of negative spam reactions , then I can't continue to participate.

    Reputation is important to me and I am certainly not a troll or ever have abused anyone, and I am sure that could be said about the rest of the community who is kind and helpful .

    So that said....I bid adieu until this has been resolved. I just can't take the stress level it causes me.

    These reactions need to be locked down...what are they worth now ?? nothing...

    Please let me know if it ever gets resolved, whenever it does. :(

  • hgtonighthgtonight ∞ · New Moderator

    @vrijvlinder I thought you were trying to address the user population in general; in the context of spam detection your proposal makes sense.

    You must be verified as a non-spammer before 'negative' reactions are available. Verification could be automated after receiving some number of awesomes or manually verified.

    Search first

    Check out the Documentation! We are always looking for new content and pull requests.

    Click on insightful, awesome, and funny reactions to thank community volunteers for their valuable posts.

    DavidShine
Sign In or Register to comment.