New Ratings?

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by ElBell, Mar 10, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Was the change on ratings intentional? Because I'm worried no negative ratings is gonna lead to flame posts rather than just clicks >_>
    • You Need a Hug You Need a Hug x 1
  2. And now I see the announcement thread. Never mind XD
  3. Well, if it does, then we get to punish people much quicker. :D People seem to be much less likely to SAY spiteful things and run the risk of getting in trouble, though. Compared to clicking a button that is easy for us to miss and not notice (thus gets abused cause they could get away with it).
    • Thank Thank x 1
  4. If one could get punished for using negative ratings why were they a thing to start with?

    Nvm, just read the announcement myself.
    But now my question is "If spite, showing disagreement etc." aren't appropriate uses than what is?

    Because almost everything can fall under "disagreement".
  5. Putting the Announcements & News forum on your 'watched forums' list is a good way to avoid derping on these things :3
    • Useful Useful x 1
  6. You can use them to show disagreement, but if you do it on ten posts within a few minutes or always down rates a certain person/group of people, then it's pretty clear that you're just using it to pick on people and not using it to show that you have a strong disagreement with something they said. This is what we have taken issue with as far as I know. That's the way it has been abused. That and petty revenge sprees... ): If they show the same smite to people by talking instead of giving smites, we will notice if they're picking on them as a person or just want to argue against what they wrote in that specific post.

    So you can disagree all you want, but you can't be going after a single person all the time, or throw bad ratings on someone simply because you don't like that person. That's the issue. We've never cared for a smite or dislike that appears sometimes now and then because someone said something someone else didn't like. (Which mainly happens in discussion threads). If that was the case, we would probably have lots of banned people and warnings right now :D
    • Useful Useful x 1
  7. I liked neg ratings

    I like positive ratings

    If anything I think we needed to track neutral ratings

    I got drunk soooooo many times. Kinda wished everyone knew just how many times
    • Go Home, You're Drunk Go Home, You're Drunk x 2
    • You Need a Hug You Need a Hug x 1
  8. Do you need a hug Raz? :D
    • You Need a Hug You Need a Hug x 1
  9. No thanks. Already pregnant from alien wing wong

    Could use a RACKS rating tho
    • You Need a Hug You Need a Hug x 4
    • Go Home, You're Drunk Go Home, You're Drunk x 1
  10. So basically it was excessive use of the disagreement that was the issue, not the disagreement itself?
  11. mm Pretty much. People used it a bit as a tool to bully others instead of just ignoring the people they didn't like. One could argue that the overuse of cookies and rainbows also should make us take away those ratings, but the difference is that no one will feel hurt if they get 20 rainbows by someone, but 20 smites will bring a bad reaction. (Which is probably why the neutral dislike rating also disappeared as that probably also would make people feel bad if overused on them by one person.)
  12. Now I'm wondering what would happen if the rainbows, cookies and hugs were from Odin.
    Would they be smiteful cookies? Divine cookies? :P
    • You Need a Hug You Need a Hug x 1
  13. Divine smiteful cookies?
    • You Get a Cookie You Get a Cookie x 1
  15. Of course it is. I thought of it, thus it must be genius :D
    • Bucket of Rainbows Bucket of Rainbows x 1
  16. [​IMG]
    • You Need a Hug You Need a Hug x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.