Jump to content

Reactions - What do you think?


RichM

Reactions - What do you think?  

90 members have voted

  1. 1. Reactions - What do you think?

    • I like it, I think it allows people to better express their reactions
      33
    • I like it but it would be better to remove the negative options
      11
    • I don't like the extra options. Please change it back to how it was
      33
    • I have no opinion on the matter
      12
    • I wish to abstain
      1

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 06/08/17 at 21:55

Featured Posts

33 minutes ago, Dave_P said:

Genuinely I can't figure out how offence can be given?  If you try to offend me and I'm not offended, then no offence exists.  The intention of offence exists.

But, ergo, if I try to offend someone and they ARE offended, than I have given (or, as MtB paraphrased it earlier in the thread, caused) offence.

Think of "give and take". You would, I'm sure, agree that people can TAKE offence; in order for it to be taken, it must have been given in the first place.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Athy said:

But, ergo, if I try to offend someone and they ARE offended, than I have given (or, as MtB paraphrased it earlier in the thread, caused) offence.

Think of "give and take". You would, I'm sure, agree that people can TAKE offence; in order for it to be taken, it must have been given in the first place.

 

Yes, you have caused offence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Athy said:

But, ergo, if I try to offend someone and they ARE offended, than I have given (or, as MtB paraphrased it earlier in the thread, caused) offence.

Think of "give and take". You would, I'm sure, agree that people can TAKE offence; in order for it to be taken, it must have been given in the first place.

 

Sort of, but you're missing the crucial point which is that the "giver" has no control over whether the receiver takes offence or not. Clearly something is definitely given - a communication of some sort - but whether it is deemed offensive by the recipient is up to the recipient.

So for example, one could say that women shouldn't be allowed to drive cars. If the recipient was a British woman, offence might be taken. If the recipient was a Saudi man, it wouldn't be taken. Nothing given is fundamentally offensive. It is all in the eye of the recipient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave_P said:

Yes, you have caused offence.

:D

...or "given" it, as we also say in English. 

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

Sort of, but you're missing the crucial point which is that the "giver" has no control over whether the receiver takes offence or not. Clearly something is definitely given - a communication of some sort - but whether it is deemed offensive by the recipient is up to the recipient.

So for example, one could say that women shouldn't be allowed to drive cars. If the recipient was a British woman, offence might be taken. If the recipient was a Saudi man, it wouldn't be taken. Nothing given is fundamentally offensive. It is all in the eye of the recipient.

Eloquent as ever, Sir Nicholas, but irrelevant. The point is not whether offence was given, but whether it could be - which, of course, it could.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dave_P said:

No, no, no, no, no!  If you can't see the difference between causing something and giving something, then I give up.

RESULT!

You could always try causing up instead.

But seriously, you will surely agree that give and cause can be synonymous. So I say Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DHutch said:

If it helps I also think the offence can be caused, taken, bit not given. However in the main I think we're disappearing into an of topic spat!

Daniel

I see no "spat" here, just a good-natured exchange of views between members who think, with varying degrees of validity, that their point is correct - which is the essence of a discussion forum. No one goes into a discussion thinking and saying that their point of view is wrong, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Athy said:

:D

...or "given" it, as we also say in English. 

Eloquent as ever, Sir Nicholas, but irrelevant. The point is not whether offence was given, but whether it could be - which, of course, it could.

 

Ah now we are getting to the crux, and the reason why I'm labouring the point. Someone can if they choose, and do so increasingly in these days of delight in being outrged, take offence about pretty much anything. The only way to be sure of not "giving offence" is to not communicate, or to do so only in platitudes. The important point for a moderator to remember is that the definition of something offensive is not necessarily what that mod finds offensive, but what the intended recipient finds offensive. Nothing is fundamentally offensive. It only becomes so after the receipt interprets it.

24 minutes ago, DHutch said:

If it helps I also think the offence can be caused, taken, bit not given. However in the main I think we're disappearing into an of topic spat!

Daniel

Not a spat, a discussion. And whilst the connection with the emoticons is loose, it is there.

Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, nicknorman said:

 The only way to be sure of not giving offence

Gotcha!

I do not see why your "important point" should apply only to a part of our community, such as moderators - we are discussing language here, not actual offensive speech or behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Athy said:

Gotcha!

I do not see why your "important point" should apply only to a part of our community, such as moderators - we are discussing language here, not actual offensive speech or behaviour.

Sorry, missed out the inverted commas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Athy said:

I do not see why your "important point" should apply only to a part of our community, such as moderators - we are discussing language here, not actual offensive speech or behaviour.

Because one of the jobs of being a moderator is to deal with offence. If the moderator hasn't really thought about it beforehand, problems could arise. So if offence cannot be given but only taken, a mod has to decide whether it is reasonable for offence to have been taken. I suggest that they have to refer to social norms, rather than their personal ideas or the ideas of the person professing to be offended. In other words, can of worms!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Because one of the jobs of being a moderator is to deal with offence. If the moderator hasn't really thought about it beforehand, problems could arise. So if offence cannot be given but only taken, a mod has to decide whether it is reasonable for offence to have been taken. I suggest that they have to refer to social norms, rather than their personal ideas or the ideas of the person professing to be offended. In other words, can of worms!

I refer you to my post no. 85 (how pleasing it is to have numbered posts once again, thank you CWDF boffins).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Athy said:

I refer you to my post no. 85 (how pleasing it is to have numbered posts once again, thank you CWDF boffins).

Please don't thank them.

They'll stay up all night and change everything again.

Rog

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Froggy said:

Now i'm torn! I voted to revert back to the single greenie option but then enjoyed adding a few LOL-greenies to some of these posts!!   :lol:

Well unless the poll results change soon, we're heading for no change on the reactions feature. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RichM said:

Well unless the poll results change soon, we're heading for no change on the reactions feature. 

The trouble with polls like this is that you only get to give one answer, not a second choice etc. So we have 24 who don't like it at all, and 24 who do like it but of them, 6 don't want the negative options. So I'd say it's hardly a clear-cut answer! It would be wrong to say that because the "please change it back to how it was" option has the most votes, that most people want it changed back to how it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RichM said:

Well unless the poll results change soon, we're heading for no change on the reactions feature. 

 

2 hours ago, nicknorman said:

The trouble with polls like this is that you only get to give one answer, not a second choice etc. So we have 24 who don't like it at all, and 24 who do like it but of them, 6 don't want the negative options. So I'd say it's hardly a clear-cut answer! It would be wrong to say that because the "please change it back to how it was" option has the most votes, that most people want it changed back to how it was.

Ok, i'm going to admit that my vote to change back to the original greenie was a bit of a hasty and reactionary reaction, and on more considered reflection i can see the value of the new system, although i guess the original vintage greenies will always carry more face value when it comes to credo or trading in for single malts and fine wines. So Admin, if you can, please change my choice from 'go back to the original greenies' to 'please remove the negative reactions'. That to me is a decent compromise because it will mean that any form of greenie is a contribution to positive 'rep'.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing not explained is how one's "reputation" is affected by these silly new emojis.

Previously, one's "reputation" racked up by one each time a greenie was awarded. What happens when the emojis are awarded instead, in particular the neutral and negative ones?

I'm just going to award a few and watch what happens...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok UPDATE:

I awarded Froggy three different emojies, cancelling each in order to award the next, and his reputation rose by one for each positive emojie, just like getting a greenie. The negative emojies made no change to his reputation.

Greenie awarded for being the subject of my experiment, and his 'noticfications' tab probably filling up! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.