"No Thanks"

Amerika

What do you think about adding a "No Thanks" feature to go along with the "Thanks" feature - particularly in the Politics forum. That way if you don’t like what a poster had to say, you could utilize it for the same, yet opposite, purpose. Sure beats calling someone an idiot and getting banned.

jd007

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055739481

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055623333

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055856166

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055471271


to mention just a few :pac:

Wolfe Tone

No thanks

Cookie_Monster

Amerika wrote: »

What do you think about adding a "No Thanks" feature to go along with the "Thanks" feature - particularly in the Politics forum. That way if you don’t like what a poster had to say, you could utilize it for the same, yet opposite, purpose. Sure beats calling someone an idiot and getting banned.

no thanks

see what I did there...

efb

No thanks button- no thanks!

Amerika

Good reading on past requests. I guess it makes sense not to have one. Just wish there was a way for people to distinguish between “a true thank you” and “Here... let me stick my nose up your butt.”

5starpool

Amerika wrote: »

Good reading on past requests. I guess it makes sense not to have one. Just wish there was a way for people to distinguish between “a true thank you” and “Here... let me stick my nose up your butt.”

Without having a plethora of buttons, we have to live with it. It's usually fairly obvious from the tone of post what the thanks mean anyhow in my experience.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

What do you think about adding a "No Thanks" feature to go along with the "Thanks" feature - particularly in the Politics forum. That way if you don’t like what a poster had to say, you could utilize it for the same, yet opposite, purpose. Sure beats calling someone an idiot and getting banned.

That would only serve to discourage rational discourse. In politics, if you think someone is an idiot, it's usually very simple to refute what the person is saying. If you are at the point where you are that close to getting yourself banned it might be better to Report and/or ignore the user.

As far as discourse goes: if we all just thought "Oh he's an idiot" without actually taking the time to rationalize why we think he's an idiot, the discussion goes nowhere. The ability to formulate and rationalize thoughts is typically what stops us from simply punching each-other in the face. For instance, I wouldn't need to resort to calling Glenn Beck a crazy idiot; it would merely be a matter of demonstrating how among many other things, Obama is not a Nazi-Muslim bent on destroying America for Islamic agenda. And for those who are unfamiliar with Glenn Beck: those are some of the things he has come to believe over the years.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

That would only serve to discourage rational discourse. In politics, if you think someone is an idiot, it's usually very simple to refute what the person is saying. If you are at the point where you are that close to getting yourself banned it might be better to Report and/or ignore the user.

As far as discourse goes: if we all just thought "Oh he's an idiot" without actually taking the time to rationalize why we think he's an idiot, the discussion goes nowhere. The ability to formulate and rationalize thoughts is typically what stops us from simply punching each-other in the face. For instance, I wouldn't need to resort to calling Glenn Beck a crazy idiot; it would merely be a matter of demonstrating how among many other things, Obama is not a Nazi-Muslim bent on destroying America for Islamic agenda. And for those who are unfamiliar with Glenn Beck: those are some of the things he has come to believe over the years.

Not so easy overheal. As an example, here is a progression of events.

Me

Honestly, I would also like representatives of the various Tea Parties brought before Congress. Then maybe the people will see beyond the lies of the media.
Let's start with this organizer.
http://watching-tv.ew.com/2010/03/31...out-tea-party/

The other poster (with me highlighting specific areas which leads to my reply)

Also, I read that article you linked to, with the gentle old lady, as if the condition of being gentle, and old, and female, somehow precluded extremist ideas. I actually read the whole article, including the point where she refuses to accept Obama as an American citizen. Right...

I also noted that she was a member of a group called Friends of Liberty. Now, I've never heard of this group, so I had a look at their website. Under the Corporation of the US tab, I found links to an essay indicting all American public servants for treason, and including veiled threats of violent retribution against them. The reason? For involvement with the American Federal Reserve. According to the essay, American public servants "are willing or stupidly compliant parties to the plunder, bankruptcy, subjugation, ruin and destruction of [the peoples'] lives and country". According to the somewhat hysterical author, these civil servants "have now been placed on notice". "If you continue with this course, you will have natural and moral law and higher powers to answer to, not to mention all those you have wronged under color of law." Right...

There are many other, frankly crazy, notions and ideas espoused on that site. Now, you referenced that woman as the moderate face of the Tea Party. And she certainly seems like a nice, amiable old woman. Yet, once one scratches the surface somewhat, and learns something of her beliefs and affiliations, a different picture emerges. I've no bone to pick with her. her beliefs are her own, and she's entitled to them. But if this is the moderate face of the Tea Party, I'm in no hurry to see its extreme face anywhere near power!

Me

So you think that lady has undertones of evil eh?

Other poster

No, but I do think that comment has overtones of stupidity.

Now, it’s pretty evident some posters are held to a higher standard than others, particularly in US Politics. I’m fairly confident if that last response would have been mine, I’d be in trouble. Yet the other poster gets away with it. That’s okay, I won't go down to his level. But a simple “No Thanks” or “Idiot” button would have conveyed the message without getting into trouble. Just let others “Thank” him for something that shouldn’t be allowed and wouldn't be for some, and let it seem like he won by getting the last word? And don't say report it, I'd rather fight my battles myself. What whould you think would happen if I just started responding " I think that comment has overtones of stupidity," to things I didn't like?

Overheal

I remember reading over that and not being sure which part the other user found stupid, and then I pretty much passed over the entire exchange.

I don't think it warrants No-Thanks. It might have warranted the Report Post button. Did you use the Report feature?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

I don't think it warrants No-Thanks. It might have warranted the Report Post button. Did you use the Report feature?

No, never have used it (as far as I recall) and probably will never will for anything. That's why I brought up the "No-Thanks" in the first place... a kinder, gentler form of admonishment.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

No, never have used it (as far as I recall) and probably will never will for anything. That's why I brought up the "No-Thanks" in the first place... a kinder, gentler form of admonishment.

If you choose not to report posts you're going to be at a disadvantage. As far as the policy goes on No-Thanks, from what I've read over the years, your report post button is as close to No-Thanks as you're going to get on this site.

-Chris-

Amerika wrote: »

No, never have used it (as far as I recall) and probably will never will for anything. That's why I brought up the "No-Thanks" in the first place... a kinder, gentler form of admonishment.

With all due respect, is it really your place to "admonish"?

old hippy

-Chris- wrote: »

With all due respect, is it really your place to "admonish"?

There's far too much admonishment these days

-Chris-

From mods or ordinary posters?

Amerika

-Chris- wrote: »

With all due respect, is it really your place to "admonish"?

When I noted "a kinder, gentler form of admonishment," I meant it as an expression of disapproval. Maybe I should have used a different word.

clln

I would hate to see the thank you button go.
everybody needs feedback to their own thoughts IMO.

but i dont use it just as a black or white thanks or no thanks.

i use it also just to appreciate a response to something i have posted even if the other poster disagree's.

i use it if someone teach's me something i did not know,if someone makes me laugh,or their post moves me or is stunningly intelligent.

i wish there were more buttons to express all of the above.

i don't think any poster should be able to thank a mod/admin warning to a poster though,it smacks of bullying.

surely thanking of a mod warning could be disabled?

stovelid

metrovelvet

clln wrote: »

I would hate to see the thank you button go.
everybody needs feedback to their own thoughts IMO.

but i dont use it just as a black or white thanks or no thanks.

i use it also just to appreciate a response to something i have posted even if the other poster disagree's.

i use it if someone teach's me something i did not know,if someone makes me laugh,or their post moves me or is stunningly intelligent.

i wish there were more buttons to express all of the above.

i don't think any poster should be able to thank a mod/admin warning to a poster though,it smacks of bullying.

surely thanking of a mod warning could be disabled?

Yes I agree with this because it also looks like indirect backseat modding. At the same time I can see the appreciation for a rotten tomato button in this context too. It would be nice to express disapproval without calling in the censors for it.

stovelid

Last thing any site needs is more hating. Adding a feature that facilitates the lazy, effortless distribution of it is even worse. If you can't sufficiently articulate your opposition to (or dislike of) a post, just stay off internet forums and watch TV instead.

I don't understand how a "no thanks" button would be a good way to show disapproval - surely it would be much better off voicing your concerns on a topic than just hitting a button. I was under the impression that the main point behind the "thanks" button was to stem the regular "+1" posts, which it does.

If you disapprove of what a person is saying, then surely you could just tell them so?

The "thanks" button also serves a great purpose - showing your support for a person's opinion and experiences. The "no thanks" button would just encourage users who have had personal grievances with other users to press the button out of spite.

We're much better off without it.

Dudess

Yeah, wouldn't a person prefer to explain why they disagree with something rather than merely saying "I disagree"? I don't think a person who would leave it at the latter is particularly suited to a discussion forum. Whereas when you agree with something, there isn't really a need to explain why - the answer is already contained in the post you agree with (unless you wish to add further comment).

Malice

I agree with stovelid. This is after all a discussion forum.