The forum should have a "like" or "agree" feature

[rereboy]

The rules forbid members from just agreeing with posts.

However, sometimes, that's exactly what users want to do: simply express agreement in regards to a post that has conveyed perfectly what the user thought and perhaps in an even better way than what the user would be able to do (or something similar to that). And sometimes, users like to see that others agree with them.

The argument against those kind of posts is that, if it was allowed, a topic could be filled with posts like that, which doesn't move the discussion forward or really adds much.

A "like" or "agree" feature in the forum would fix all that because members would be able to simply express their agreement, if they want to, and with that there would be no need to have posts simply agreeing, making the prohibition of those kind of posts even more meaningful.

[Ajay]

My issue with it, and it's one you see across other sites with such features, is that it just promotes a hivemind mentality. Instinctively, people just assume anything with a lot of "likes" is correct, which doesn't promote healthy conversation or truth. It's not a good feature. It discourages those from putting forth dissenting opinions for fear of just being buried next to a post with a huge number of likes, regardless of how interesting their post was in the first place. Nobody wants that on a forum.

Moreover, there's no need to agree with posts. It's aimless. Agree at the start of a post and offer more with the rest -- spur the conversation on. If all you're going to do is hit like and move on, then head off to Twitter. That's not what forums are for. Not every bit of online discussion needs to be bite-sized and measured in clicks. Especially not a forum like this.

[rereboy]

If you are that worried about the influence of the system on others, make it so only the users that agreed and were agreed to can see the relevant agreements or likes, and not the rest of the users.

But I don't agree with what you are saying, in any case. I don't see a real difference between what you are saying and a topic where 99% of the users share one opinion and the other 1% share another. Those 1% would still be buried in between a huge amount of posts disagreeing with them, no matter how interesting their posts are and would be "afraid" of posting against the majority. That's a problem of majority versus minority, not the "agree" system. The agree system wouldn't stop anyone from explaining what they think because it's a very limited system, only useful for when you don't have anything more to say other than "I agree", so people who disagree and actually have reasons and want to explain them, would still do so, and wouldn't be any more discouraged than they are regarding a current topic in the current system where they are clearly the minority.

[B]

Not to regurgitate old news, but I feel as if people attempted to do this with penguintruth; he would say something people didn't want to hear and they would use the report-a-post function as a pseudo-"dislike" button. Implementing a direct version of that invites more of such behavior, I feel.

[Kuririn Fan]

Not to regurgitate old news, but I feel as if people attempted to do this with penguintruth; he would say something people didn't want to hear and they would use the report-a-post function as a pseudo-"dislike" button. Implementing a direct version of that invites more of such behavior, I feel.

What does reporting a post do, anyway?
I never reported anyone, because i'm not that kinda guy, but this one guy apparently reported me. It just notifies the admins or what?

[Soppa Saia People]

What does reporting a post do, anyway?
I never reported anyone, because i'm not that kinda guy, but this one guy apparently reported me. It just notifies the admins or what?

Basically to inform the Mods on a user bad behavior in case they missed it or something. Something like "fuck you " INSERT NAME HERE, you're a smug prick and should go die!" or if someone's spamming.

[Cipher]

Not to regurgitate old news, but I feel as if people attempted to do this with penguintruth; he would say something people didn't want to hear and they would use the report-a-post function as a pseudo-"dislike" button. Implementing a direct version of that invites more of such behavior, I feel.

Having likewise survived the days of penguintruth, I'm going to posit that he was reported less for having unpopular opinions, and more for genuinely being an asshole. And with a level of sincerity that guaranteed not even the irascible Rocketman could have dreamed of achieving his posts' levels of thread-disruption.

As for the the topic at hand--1) It'll never happen, because it's too tacky for this forum. But 2) I'm actually torn on it. On the one hand, that kind of upvote/downvote feature is reductive and tied to some of my least favorite aspects of online communication. On the other, I do sometimes find myself wanting a quiet way to weigh in on miscommunications or throw a little appreciation toward members without having to resort to a "Thanks!" or "I agree!" (usually happens when a quick question has been answered, and then someone chimes in with a little more information in a subsequent post). I think I'd be pretty happy with an upvote-only system, actually, but it's all so superficial anyway, it's probably not worthwhile.

My issue with it, and it's one you see across other sites with such features, is that it just promotes a hivemind mentality. Instinctively, people just assume anything with a lot of "likes" is correct, which doesn't promote healthy conversation or truth. It's not a good feature. It discourages those from putting forth dissenting opinions for fear of just being buried next to a post with a huge number of likes, regardless of how interesting their post was in the first place. Nobody wants that on a forum.

Moreover, there's no need to agree with posts. It's aimless. Agree at the start of a post and offer more with the rest -- spur the conversation on. If all you're going to do is hit like and move on, then head off to Twitter. That's not what forums are for. Not every bit of online discussion needs to be bite-sized and measured in clicks. Especially not a forum like this.

In brief defense of these systems, I completely understand the intent behind them, and I don't think it's to make conversation bite-sized. Rather, they (in theory, at least) mimic the kind of brief verbal or non-verbal approvals and agreements that take place in real-world group discussion. A "yeah!" or head nod; what have you. That's ... a pretty reasonable thing to want, actually. It fills a lexical hole.

Unfortunately, as we've seen, it also invites a number of problems.

[Saiga]

I've been a member of several forums that use "like" buttons, and I don't think they discourage discussion at all. It's a much appreciated feature, especially when you wish to express appreciation for a post that you can't add anything else to but want to make note of.

I really don't buy the arguments that it would cause any major shift in how discussions are handled or cause problems. I think it's too minor a feature for that. I agree with the positives that Cipher raised, particularly about filling the void. It is really nice to be able to emulate that "yeah/I agree" feeling and a better way of doing so than to simply post "I agree/THIS/QFT/clapping.gif".