Post Ratings Discussion

[Adamska]

I'd prefer a Chad Thundercock rating for the new Love Shys.

How ever I don't have a clue what the icon would look like.

I was thinking lightning bolt or something. The big problem is I'd probably use it in a way similar to "winner" or something like that.

Salty would be quite nice as a rating, since I know when I'd use it too: when people get way too mad. It was one of 3 things I used the A-log rating for anyway, the others being blatant trollshielding and really nasty dumb retorts.

I do like the triggering rating idea for the Tumblr Ballpit, though I guess feels could work for it too?

 

[CatParty]

The big problem is I'd probably use it in a way similar to "winner" or something like that.

man if you're a chad thundercock, you're already a winner

 

[Randall Fragg]

I was thinking lightning bolt or something. The big problem is I'd probably use it in a way similar to "winner" or something like that.

Salty would be quite nice as a rating, since I know when I'd use it too: when people get way too mad. It was one of 3 things I used the A-log rating for anyway, the others being blatant trollshielding and really nasty dumb retorts.

I do like the triggering rating idea for the Tumblr Ballpit, though I guess feels could work for it too?

What about a "Supreme Gentleman" rating designed like Elliot Rodger's head? Seems like it would work for people who get way too angry about things and make dumb comments.

 

[Clown Doll]

because these incels are so salty that it could warrant one.

The thing is, my opposition to ratings designed to be given to cows is because it promotes lazy discourse with them. If a cow is being "salty", then it's much funnier when people outwit them by clever posts or just let the cows' posts speak for themselves. And it would mean that any counterpoint made by the cow would be just tagged as "salty" even if they were on to something which renders the point of the rating irrelevant and discourages the cows to engage in any actual discussion. If the a-log rating that's a part of our forums culture and history and which had actual use(since the forum has high amounts of troll shielding which isn't going anywhere it seems) was disabled, why should a rating that's basically designed to abused as a lazy shorthand to escape when a cow challenges your argument be added?

I know, a bunch of the ratings are just for fun, like the donator ratings, but I really don't see a scenario where a "salty" rating wouldn't be abused to hell and back even harder than the A-Log one supposedly was.

 

[Simplicity111]

The thing is, my opposition to ratings designed to be given to cows is because it promotes lazy discourse with them. If a cow is being "salty", then it's much funnier when people outwit them by clever posts or just let the cows' posts speak for themselves. And it would mean that any counterpoint made by the cow would be just tagged as "salty" even if they were on to something which renders the point of the rating irrelevant and discourages the cows to engage in any actual discussion. If the a-log rating that's a part of our forums culture and history and which had actual use(since the forum has high amounts of troll shielding which isn't going anywhere it seems) was disabled, why should a rating that's basically designed to abused as a lazy shorthand to be escape when a cow challenges your argument be added?

I know, a bunch of the ratings are just for fun, like the donator ratings, but I really don't see a scenario where a "salty" rating wouldn't be abused to hell and back even harder than the A-Log one supposedly was.

I get what you're saying now. The "salty" rating would be used when someone was being very upset in a foolish way, although that is how it would likely end up being used, sadly.

 

[AnOminous]

It was one of 3 things I used the A-log rating for anyway, the others being blatant trollshielding and really nasty dumb retorts.

I miss the A-log rating. I rarely used it, but it seems like actual A-logging has increased since the rating went away.

 

[Slightly Observant]

I'd like to see a post that explains all the ratings and the proper way to use them. I can't seem to find that sifting through this topic.

 

[Clown Doll]

the proper way to use them

All non-obvious-ratings are there pretty much there for vanity/variety.

the only ratings that have double-meanings are "feels" which can be anything from feeling sad to expressing fuzzy wuzzies toward the user. And "optimistic" is also "gay".

 

[JU 199]

I'd like to see a post that explains all the ratings and the proper way to use them. I can't seem to find that sifting through this topic.

All non-obvious-ratings are there pretty much there for vanity/variety.

the only ratings that have double-meanings are "feels" which can be anything from feeling sad to expressing fuzzy wuzzies toward the user. And "optimistic" is also "gay".

Yeah its pretty intuitive. 'Informative' can be given seriously or sarcasticly depending on intention etc

 

[Peter Capaldi]

Yeah its prety intuitive. 'Informative' cam be given seriously or sarcasticly depending on intention etc

But I don't think it is used that way very often.

 

[JU 199]

But I don't think it is used that way very often.

Yeah, but its just an example of how versatile a rating can be.

 

[AnOminous]

Disable ratings for people who don't post. What the fuck is with this plague of retarded spastics who create a sock just to spam ratings?

 

[Frank Rizzo]

Disable ratings for people who don't post. What the fuck is with this plague of retarded spastics who create a sock just to spam ratings?

I've noticed that too. I've seen more then one person spam dumb and autistic ratings, and they have zero posts to their names.

 

[melty]

I'd like to see a post that explains all the ratings and the proper way to use them. I can't seem to find that sifting through this topic.

Yeah I came here because I got confused about nice meme like if it could be sarcastic or something

 

[Coster]

Disable ratings for people who don't post. What the fuck is with this plague of retarded spastics who create a sock just to spam ratings?

One of the original ideas for the ratings was that it gives lurkers a voice in a thread without having to post. Some people just don't want to post, whether it be because they're a lurker, something's already been said, etc.

 

[chimpburgers]

I've noticed that too. I've seen more then one person spam dumb and autistic ratings, and they have zero posts to their names.

Those random lurkers really get on my nerves. I don't think it would be a bad thing for there to be a minimum post count before ratings for those people are enabled. Something like 20-25 posts minimum to cut down on spam rating.

 

[Ruin]

I was against implementing ratings in the first place. whenever that happens on a forum it leads to pettiness, popularity contests, and a never ending stream of people bitching about receiving negative ratings.

I say do away with the stupid things entirely.

 

[Coster]

pettiness, popularity contests

Ratings or no, these will never not be here.

never ending stream of people bitching about receiving negative ratings.

Then it serves one of its other purposes, namely weeding out spergs who get upset at garbage can stickers.

 

[Clown Doll]

I say do away with the stupid things entirely.

Threads are already horrifying clusterfucks without people quoting each other and saying "This!". I used to be against the ratings system but really, it's an invaluable tool for participating in threads and getting your voice heard without having to pile up horrible walls of multiquote just to communicate "I agree with you guys!".

 

[Ruin]

Threads are already horrifying clusterfucks without people quoting each other and saying "This!". I used to be against the ratings system but really, it's an invaluable tool for participating in threads and getting your voice heard without having to pile up horrible walls of multiquote just to communicate "I agree with you guys!".

A very fair point.