Thanking actionable posts.

Turtwig

Musicmental85 wrote: »

To be honest I always assumed people were thanking it for the mod note!

Now that you mention it. I've actually thanked posts that infracted for this reason.

biko

It's up to the forum mods to decide whether a post should be removed.
If you think a post should be removed then report it with an explanation. If the mods agree it will be deleted.

I don't want to go into examples but as said previously, sometimes actioned posts are left as a warning and anyone who thanks it is left visible for anyone else to see and draw their own conclusions from.

Artful_Badger

biko wrote: »

It's up to the forum mods to decide whether a post should be removed.
If you think a post should be removed then report it with an explanation. If the mods agree it will be deleted.

I don't want to go into examples but as said previously, sometimes actioned posts are left as a warning and anyone who thanks it is left visible for anyone else to see and draw their own conclusions from.

If its actioned and still there then the mods will have already viewed it and made a decision on it so I'd be hesitant to report it and question the mods actions tbh. I also think if a mod has to go back and deal with a post a second time then there is an issue thats not being addressed by simply dealing with the poster.

In the case of the post I linked to on page one it had received close to 20 thanks before a mod edited the post to show the poster was banned for it. So there does seem to be an issue with people thanking such posts if the warning had to be placed in the post in retrospect. I'd imagine most posts that have abuse dont result in an outright ban too so if it only gets an infraction there will more than likely be no mod edit, just a warning further on in the thread.

Imo there should be no room for ambiguity (or as little as possible) when it comes to abuse, its not tolerated in round about ways in posts so it shouldnt be tolerated in round about ways via thanks. There are ways to deal with this so I see no reason to ignore it.

Sulla Felix

I dislike the idea of issuing further infractions for people who thank purely because touch.boards is still a bit twitchy on my phone and the two most common miscommands are profile jumps and thanks. Plus once the first person gets their thanking-card/infraction removed on such a technicality, the trolls will jump on the chance and it'll create a headache of large proportions imo.

Depending on the forum architecture, it'd be better just to remove thanks from infracted posts, or probably easier from a coding perspective, just make them invisible. There's already a rudimentary if/then in there because we don't have any thanks section shown when none are present, so in this case another parameter would be added in a similar vein.

Tombi!

Like others have said I think the only time I've ever thanked a post that was acted on by a mod was to thank the mod for acting on it.

I mean if you agree with someone's point and they throw in a few insults, surely you could just edit the post and then quote it?

anncoates

Think I've thanked actioned posts before. Not a big deal and related to the post, not a dig at the mod.

Artful_Badger

anncoates wrote: »

Think I've thanked actioned posts before. Not a big deal and related to the post, not a dig at the mod.

My point was more about thanking insults. I seen another post in AH since I started this thread that was simply "You're a twat". It was carded but left there and thanked a couple times.

Not a massive deal but still those who thanked it were basically let away with insulting another boards member. A thank in that instance cannot be anything other than a +1. Would a +1 be ok in relation to an abusive post ?

anncoates

Svlad Cjelli wrote: »

My point was more about thanking insults. I seen another post in AH since I started this thread that was simply "You're a twat". It was carded but left there

Didn't read it but perhaps they were a twat?

P. Breathnach

anncoates wrote: »

Didn't read it but perhaps they were a twat?

Irrelevant. You are allowed be a twat here, so long as you are an inoffensive twat; you are not allowed call another person a twat.

anncoates

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Irrelevant. You are allowed be a twat here, so long as you are an inoffensive twat; you are not allowed call another person a twat.

Yes, I may well have gleaned this already from my years as a user of the site?

Artful_Badger

I was just talking to Rónán in site development and he said removing the thanks on carded posts is possible and would be a "relatively small change".

So its an option IF there is an issue that needs to be addressed.

Femme_Fatale

Not sure it's something that warrants blanket policing. Case-by-case if needs be, would be enough IMO. I know personal abuse is not allowed, but sometimes... well, sometimes it's what lots of us are thinking. It's not undeserved in other words.
If the post is really bad, maybe if the moderator quotes it to say it has been actioned, but delete the original post?

It'd be a bit thoughtcrimey to clamp down on mere thanking for certain posts, but then again, the thanks button can be used to take passive-aggressive digs.
And the following is a post that's pretty atrocious and was not provoked whatsoever (the poster it was aimed at had barely posted, let alone acted the dick):

Are Polish a race? Or a nationality? Either way its his car. If he wants to limit the buys its his loss probably. OP please slit your wrists for being a PC shítlord.

P. Breathnach

I can't see how Boards would be made worse by disabling thanks on actioned posts. It seems obvious to me that some of the thanks are from people who wish to express solidarity with statements that break posting guidelines, and some others are simply people trying to express contempt for moderators or for moderation actions. Boards would be improved if that type of low-level acting the dick didn't happen.

If disabling thanks on actioned posts is relatively easy to implement, I say go for it.

whiteandlight

I agree even though I'm one of the people who often thank to express gratitude for the moderator stepping in. Probably better if neither those thanking the OP or the moderator can do it.

Daqster

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Irrelevant. You are allowed be a twat here, so long as you are an inoffensive twat; you are not shouldn't be allowed call another person a twat.

FYP


I just thanked a post that I reported for the simple reason that I believe in what the user was saying and endorse their point but they said something which I also found objectionable. Just because someone thanks a post, does not mean that they stand behind every single aspect of it.

Rabies

Svlad Cjelli wrote: »

I was just talking to Rónán in site development and he said removing the thanks on carded posts is possible and would be a "relatively small change".

So its an option IF there is an issue that needs to be addressed.

No one should be able to tell a poster who they can and can't 'thank'.

Gokei

Will I Amnt wrote: »

I'm guessing it's this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88087806&postcount=7

Thanking the fact the poster was banned?

Artful_Badger

Rabies wrote: »

No one should be able to tell a poster who they can and can't 'thank'.

But they can tell people what they can or cannot say and how they should or should not say it ? We're talking about a feature of the website here not human rights. Like it or not Boards.ie can tell everyone exactly who they can and cannot thank and they already do. You cant thank posts in certain forums such as prison or dispute resolution as it stands while you can in others. And just as there is no need for the feature in certain forums it can also be applied to single posts.

People dont have a fundamental right to thank posts and in the case where there is an issue with the post being out of line or abusive I dont see any issue in removing the feature. To me its no different than not being able to respond in a locked thread. Things cross the line and there is a downside to allowing it continue so the feature is removed.

Artful_Badger

Gokei wrote: »

Thanking the fact the poster was banned?

The majority if not all of those thanks appeared before the cmod edited it to say he was banned. There was a mod post shorty after it initially and looking at poster names not many (if any at all) who thanked the abusive post thanked the mod for banning him. So I'd say its pretty clear those thanks were not in relation to the ban.

Doesnt mean they were thanking the abuse but if you're gonna thank a post that puts its point across in an abusive manner then I'm not sure there's much difference.

Gokei

Svlad Cjelli wrote: »

The majority if not all of those thanks appeared before the cmod edited it to say he was banned. There was a mod post shorty after it initially and looking at poster names not many (if any at all) who thanked the abusive post thanked the mod for banning him. So I'd say its pretty clear those thanks were not in relation to the ban.

Doesnt mean they were thanking the abuse but if you're gonna thank a post that puts its point across in an abusive manner then I'm not sure there's much difference.

I agree, and apologise for my short and vague post.
I was putting that forward as a possible ulterior motive as to why someone would thank an abusive post.

Rabies

Should have explained more.

Poster A: FF are amazeballs. Best party ever.
(Thanks from: User 54 )

Poster B: you're a ****ing retard if you think they were any good. What rock have crawled out from under?
(Thanks from: User 1, User 22 )

Mod: Poster B banned
(Thanks from: User 97)

Poster C: yippee!


While 2 people agree with the banned poster, it doesn't mean any action should be taken against them.

Of course it is up to Boards to allow or not allow certain topics to be discussed.

Sometimes you have to be allowed call a spade a spade.

Artful_Badger

Rabies wrote: »

Should have explained more.

Poster A: FF are amazeballs. Best party ever.
(Thanks from: User 54 )

Poster B: you're a ****ing retard if you think they were any good. What rock have crawled out from under?
(Thanks from: User 1, User 22 )

Mod: Poster B banned
(Thanks from: User 97)

Poster C: yippee!


While 2 people agree with the banned poster, it doesn't mean any action should be taken against them.

Of course it is up to Boards to allow or not allow certain topics to be discussed.

Sometimes you have to be allowed call a spade a spade.

Firstly there's no mention of action being taken against those two posters, its already been established thanks are too ambiguous. But just as its up to boards to allow or not allow certain topics so too is it up to boards to allow or not allow thanks in certain circumstances. I'm proposing not allowing them on said post above to avoid there ever being an issue with the thanks to begin with. As there really is no need for people to be able thank posts that boards.ie has deemed unwanted on this website.

Rabies

Do you think people should have the ability to thank that post?

It's a strange one really. People could be thanking it because they just find it funny and not because they have a grudge against the person being quoted. I've had a PM before from someone who was unhappy about a post I thanked due to it insulting them. I had nothing against that poster at all(literally had no interaction with them before at all) I just found the post quite funny. So thanking posts like that can really annoy people as much as the post itself.

P. Breathnach

Can I modify Rabies's scenario? Try this:

Poster A: FF are amazeballs. Best party ever.
(Thanks from: User 54 )

Poster B: you're a ****ing retard if you think they were any good. What rock have crawled out from under?
(Thanks from: User 1, User 22 )

Mod action: post is red-carded - no words posted by mod.
(Thanks from: User 97)

The more obvious interpretation of User 97's thanks is approval of the post rather than approval of the red card. If User 97 is a regular poster in the forum, it may be easier to gauge the intent. But it's an interpretation challenge that we just don't need.

Artful_Badger

Rabies wrote: »

Do you think people should have the ability to thank that post?

To thank my post ? Why wouldnt I ? Its an available feature and people are entitled to use it in line with the terms and services of the website. If you mean the post you made up, then no I dont think the feature should be available. I think the post would have crossed the line of whats acceptable on this website and any ambiguity of what the thanks may mean should be removed. I fail to see any reason that the thanks feature should be left there, I dont think people have any right to be able thank a post, its just a feature that can and is added or removed.