liking posts seems to be forum standard, and is self explanatory- if you like a post, you hit the like button and the poster gets a bit of [url=http://phpbb.mfgg.net/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=19756]forum currency[/url] in return. it's a fun and easy way to show approval of a post, no matter what's in it, without cluttering up a thread with "plus one" posts that don't have much substance. reactions are similar, but serve a wider variety of purposes. reacting to a post lets you place a smiley on a post depicting how you feel about it at a glance. social media sites like facebook have this as a feature both for its traditional use, and to hold "faux-polls" where you can tie specific smilies to choices and let people decide without having to worry about the current "one poll per thread" "rule". most of the contention with reactions come from the worry that it could be abused to antagonize users as well as discourage actual posting. my personal idea is that if the former happens, it's entirely possible for users to flip it the other way and put positive reactions to a post as well. the latter i can't see happening, as a single smiley can never replace a well thought out reply. if anything it would serve the same purpose as liking posts wherein it would detract from overly blunt and antagonistic posts.

Likes are basically confirmed, unless we get a large enough backlash or the majority of staff disapprove. I've been a huge proponent of it before. Reactions work really really well on Minus World. Since seeing how it works there, I'm in favor myself.

I've seen way too many instances where the like and dislike buttons have caused unpleasing situations, so I'd rather not have them.

I say we give likes/reactions a trial run. I'd rather not add any reactions that are unequivocally negative, however. Reactions are a fine way to recognize a post as helpful, funny, or well-written, but if you're going to be criticizing a post, I think it deserves a thoughtful critique, not a push of a button.

again, i think simply putting a "no" reaction on a post instead of a wholly unhelpful flame is undeniably better than the alternative. i think if the only reactions are positive, then what's the point of having them when there's a like button? obviously there's some inbetween reactions but it's all context based, for the most part.

I don't think there should be any kind of "dislike" option but I definitely think there should be multiple forms of like/reactions. It's a simple way to let someone know their post was helpful or useful or simply just a good post. I'd like to think it also encourages users to post more / more intelligently because they're far more likely to score a reaction with a decent post in an ideal world. A dislike option though... could possibly replace the report button. If a post gets disliked enough it gets reported perhaps, but that could easily be abused. Still, I'm sure with a bit of thought there's an idea in there somewhere.

I am really against the idea of having any sort of like system myself, to be honest.

[quote="DJ Coco"]I am really against the idea of having any sort of like system myself, to be honest.[/quote] I don't get why MFGG apparently [i]needs[/i] every single "New Internet" feature ever.

I can do with likes on social media and the like, but I've never been a fan of likes on forums. For one, I can see it being abused by snarky comments being upvoted and people being encouraged to post what they think will get them the most likes. I always feel like it's often a popularity contest. I like forums to contain discussions and I feel like each post should be of equal worth. Especially if likes can be collected for karma or something like that, I could see some people try to shitpost all the time in order to get the most out of it. I know a certain site like this where people comment just for the sake of being that week's top commenter, while contributing absolutely nothing of value. Reactions are even worse, especially if we have negative ones, too. It'd basically function like a rep system then, and I can see that being very discouraging.

[quote="BullockDS"][quote="DJ Coco"]I am really against the idea of having any sort of like system myself, to be honest.[/quote] I don't get why MFGG apparently [i]needs[/i] every single "New Internet" feature ever.[/quote] liking posts definitely is far from a "new internet" feature. the issue currently is that message boards are being outdated by more immediate methods of communicating like social media. if MFGG is upgrading then we should try to keep up with the current standards so as to not get left behind, especially if we want to bring in younger members who would otherwise have more convenient areas to work and communicate. the fangaming scene for mario's been in a huge drought for a pretty wide variety of reasons, but i think lack of drive and initial know-how for new users is a big factor. plus, other forums that've integrated these features have been very successful, much moreso than MFGG has been in the last year or so. there's a lot of good reasons to get all of these new features as well as rethink the site's methods of attracting new users and garnering interest. [i]WE[/i] don't need these new features because we're used to boards being this way, but newbies are used to social media and therefore should be catered to, being the future of fangaming. [quote="[url=http://phpbb.mfgg.net/viewtopic.php?p=503856#p503856]DJ Coco[/url]"]I can do with likes on social media and the like, but I've never been a fan of likes on forums. For one, I can see it being abused by snarky comments being upvoted and people being encouraged to post what they think will get them the most likes. I always feel like it's often a popularity contest. I like forums to contain discussions and I feel like each post should be of equal worth. Especially if likes can be collected for karma or something like that, I could see some people try to shitpost all the time in order to get the most out of it. I know a certain site like this where people comment just for the sake of being that week's top commenter, while contributing absolutely nothing of value. Reactions are even worse, especially if we have negative ones, too. It'd basically function like a rep system then, and I can see that being very discouraging.[/quote] i don't think specific reactions received would be tallied, because i agree that's basically a rep system. i see no reason as to why MFGG would have top posts or other things that make it feel like a competition because that simply doesn't fit the goal of the website. what are the boards in question themed around, by the way? i'm curious to know since that could explain why they have such features. honestly like i said long ago a majority of these features i plucked and refitted from [url=http://minus.world]minus world[/url], which in structure is very similar to how i think MFGG would work with these features. the big picture should be content created, such as assets, games, etc., not so much posting to get a laugh and being deemed by the software a "better poster" for doing so.

Yeah, if likes/reactions were exclusive to the post they were given on and not accounted to anywhere else, then that's better already. However, people might still post just for the sake of getting lots of likes, and I'm still not fond of the idea of basically showing which posts are better (i.e. have more likes) and which aren't. Of course, likes can be encouraging for submitting content, i.e. post a game, get likes. But I can also see it becoming rather abused. Example: Person A: <stupid post> (10 ironic laugh reactions) Person B: Are you literally retarded (27 likes) Person C: Please do not flame (3 likes) If that kinda thing doesn't happen on the Minus World, good, I guess, but I've seen it happen many times on Facebook, Twitter etc. You could argue those websites are very different, but I do think that's something that inheritly comes with a like/recation system. Cases like these can be very discouraging for Person A in question here, too, while Person B feels beloved by the community and encouraged in his behavior.

the thing about that example is that while likes could be given for posts people think are funny like A and B, C could get a surprisingly high amount of likes as well for being something others are thinking, but don't want to necessarily say. in a way it balances out, because even if this discussion is any indication the board will be populated by a wide variety of different people and personalities. i don't think the shitposting side will be dominant, especially if a lot of meek, younger newbies roll in eventually, since the people who post just for laughs the most tend to be in their mid to late teens. younger users typically just want to contribute and be nice, since they're often very malleable.

The thing is in this example, if A is being really stupid most people would probably think B. People usually wouldn't post what B posted though, as it's warranted a warn, but when you just like the post you're on the safe side. Doesn't necessarily have to be as exaggerated as in this example. Even if B merely posts something passive aggressive or otherwise derogatory, it'd likely get way more likes than A, which can probably really leave a sour taste in A's mouth. I'll be perfectly frank here, in sites with likes, I often refrain from posting my opinion if I feel like it's not the main consensus, for the mere reason of being "outvoted" and treated like an outcast. Another thing is that celebs/beloved members usually get way more likes by default, which once again feels like there is unneccessarily much focus shifted to their posts, as if they were better.

That's why I would prefer a like system be more targeted. So rather a simple "like" it'd be something like "helpful!" or "thanks!" and other things to encourage users to be positive and helpful. I'm sure it could be fleshed out in that way.

With your users A, B, and C example, leaving a negative reaction on user A's post would suffice, eliminating the need of user B to post.

[quote="DJ Coco"]Person A: <stupid post> (10 ironic laugh reactions) Person B: Are you literally retarded (27 likes) Person C: Please do not flame (3 likes)[/quote] does it really matter whether or not this happens in the PPP? kidding aside, we could turn off reactions on certain forums maybe. Just a thought

My only issue with liking posts + reactions is its abuse to be weaponized against people you disagree with. Minus World has that problem as an example unfortunately, with the Punch Nazi thread being the most glaring example in action.

[quote="DarkSideStrike"]My only issue with liking posts + reactions is its abuse to be weaponized against people you disagree with. Minus World has that problem as an example unfortunately, with the Punch Nazi thread being the most glaring example in action.[/quote] yeah. though I'll say that it's more like nerf darts than actual weapons. I don't care too much about getting negative reacts on a political post myself. It allowed people to express their opinions of my post in a nonverbal way.

I'll say that I think abuse of a like/dislike system is a problem with the community and users, not the system itself. If you're afraid to post a dissenting opinion because you feel dislike bandwagons will cause you to be ostracized from the community, the problem's either with you being just as superficial as the bandwagoners, or with the bandwagoners themselves. If people are going to use the system to isolate dissenters and mock them, then the community is likely already inclined to doing that without such a system.

I don't think the ability to upvote/downvote posts would contribute to discussions. It'd make an already-small community less active. And just because it's a feature seen on other forums doesn't mean it's a good one. As a counterexample, take the incredibly-niche but highly-active Starmen.net. No post voting and polls are heavily discouraged. Why? Because people are lazy. When given the option of clicking a button and typing a response to express their opinion, they almost always take the former. Heck, I don't think I'm above these people. If we already had a voting system I probably would've upvoted someone I agreed with instead of writing this post. So really, I don't think we should implement a voting system. But if it's already lined up, I'd say give it a shot. I could be wrong, after all.