*** Post Your IDEAS to IMPROVE the FORUM. ***

[Anonim97]

[Implemented] tag on Suggestion subforums that actually works.

There is one on Stellaris forum that is empty, despite many suggestions being implemented and on CK3 suggestion subforum there is "implemented" tag that is sometimes used, sometimes not.

 

[Rycestealer]

Remove respectfully disagree. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the "like" system, it generally does not positively impact discussion on the forums. Most people will respectfully disagree with what you have to say and not elaborate any further by replying to your post. This is genuinely frustrating if you effort-post and get nothing but "likes". Give the feel of a echo chamber since you aren't really talking to people of differing opinions.

 

[metroncho]

Remove respectfully disagree. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the "like" system, it generally does not positively impact discussion on the forums. Most people will respectfully disagree with what you have to say and not elaborate any further by replying to your post. This is genuinely frustrating if you effort-post and get nothing but "likes". Give the feel of a echo chamber since you aren't really talking to people of differing opinions.

So the way to avoid the feeling of an echo chamber is to remove the tool which people can use to show disagree and allow only likes and helpful... Something in this logic seems fawlty.

 

[IsaacCAT]

Remove respectfully disagree. While there is nothing inherently wrong with the "like" system, it generally does not positively impact discussion on the forums. Most people will respectfully disagree with what you have to say and not elaborate any further by replying to your post. This is genuinely frustrating if you effort-post and get nothing but "likes". Give the feel of a echo chamber since you aren't really talking to people of differing opinions.

To get better discussions and elaborated replies we need engaged readers.

Removing a feature that allows for an easy participation will not help us here.

We could require reviewers to write down what they like or disagre before they are able to left their emoji, but that won’t help us either if the answers are not constructive or original.

I would find ways to reward constructive or original posts to foster them. Something that could be done peer to peer by allowing members of the community to award ‘contribution’ points akin to the existing ranking by number of posts. These members of the community would be first chosen by the moderators and being a ‘contributor’ will be displayed in the name and allow giving contribution points to posts that are constructive, well thought, original and/or interesting.

I personally do not change my ideas because the reactions but after discussion on the thread.

PS: to avoid exploits, two different contributors have to award a contribution point for a post being considered. When a user has enough posts that have been considered, he/she will become a contributor as well.

 

[Rycestealer]

So the way to avoid the feeling of an echo chamber is to remove the tool which people can use to show disagree and allow only likes and helpful... Something in this logic seems fawlty.

See the reactions on my post and you'll see exactly what I mean. Say something that people marginally disagree with and you get only reacts. Removing reacts will incentivize people to actually voice their disagreements instead of rudely leaving disagree. If you have a issue with what someone says, voice it.

 

[Bearjuden]

See the reactions on my post and you'll see exactly what I mean. Say something that people marginally disagree with and you get only reacts. Removing reacts will incentivize people to actually voice their disagreements instead of rudely leaving disagree. If you have a issue with what someone says, voice it.

The price comes in the form of readability if your position is already laid out. For example:

1. Post details something
2. Post counters it
3. "I agree with post 2 and disagree with post 1"
4. "I agree with post 2 and disagree with post 1"
5. "I agree with post 2 and disagree with post 1"
6. "I agree with post 1 and disagree with post 2"
7. "I agree with post 1 and disagree with post 2"
8. "I agree with post 2 and disagree with post 1"
9. "I agree with post 1 and disagree with post 2"
10. Something of value
11. "I agree with post 2 and disagree with post 1"
12. "I agree with post 1 and disagree with post 2"
13. "I agree with post 2 and disagree with post 1"
14. "I agree with post 1 and disagree with post 2"
15. "I agree with post 1 and disagree with post 2"

Only three posts there add serious value to the conversation - I don't expect to see the rest of those verbatim, but if you only agree it's going to boil down to that most likely - but that's a whole page of posts. A reaction is an efficient space-saving way to indicate a brief statement that otherwise takes up a whole post on a thread. If you remove them, it will bog down discussion because it will be extremely difficult to read the actual flow of conversation. It will also make it hard to judge what people actually think, which is especially pertinent when it comes to dev posts, suggestions, etc.

Does it mean you can just disagree with someone without responding even if you don't see your argument? Yeah, but...there's not a good way to force someone to explain themselves. They're more likely to just not do anything at all then. And at least the original post will have made its pitch, which is more compelling by default than not.

 

[Rycestealer]

To get better discussions and elaborated replies we need engaged readers.

Removing a feature that allows for an easy participation will not help us here.

We could require reviewers to write down what they like or disagre before they are able to left their emoji, but that won’t help us either if the answers are not constructive or original.

I would find ways to reward constructive or original posts to foster them. Something that could be done peer to peer by allowing members of the community to award ‘contribution’ points akin to the existing ranking by number of posts. These members of the community would be first chosen by the moderators and being a ‘contributor’ will be displayed in the name and allow giving contribution points to posts that are constructive, well thought, original and/or interesting.

I personally do not change my ideas because the reactions but after discussion on the thread.

PS: to avoid exploits, two different contributors have to award a contribution point for a post being considered. When a user has enough posts that have been considered, he/she will become a contributor as well.

I think adding in karma wouldn't be a bad idea because it adds in another means to show how engaged you are with the community, but it also will lead to negative behaviors where voicing popular opinions and getting rewarded for it cumulatively would lead to negative behavior in the pursuit of higher Karma. I think throwing out reactions entirely would be the way to go so that everyone has an equal voice if they choose to use their voice. I also think a contributor role will negatively impact the community and this role will be used to highlight curated opinions and reduce discussion about issues people genuinely have. A lot of the dissenting opinions about the recent Hoi4 expansions have migrated off of this forum not because they were banned or they were troublemakers, but because there was no discussion to be had in many of the dev diaries with many taking a tremendous amount of flack for stating thing's like "why are we getting a Switzerland tree before Finland" etc. Another instance was with Poland where the alternate history tree's were poorly researched with some path's being generally offensive to the Polish friends I have. Perhaps this is a forum culture issue or an issue with just hoi4, but I do think reacts help at all with having a productive discussion here.

 

[Rycestealer]

The price comes in the form of readability if your position is already laid out. For example:

1. Post details something
2. Post counters it
3. "I agree with post 2 and disagree with post 1"
4. "I agree with post 2 and disagree with post 1"
5. "I agree with post 2 and disagree with post 1"
6. "I agree with post 1 and disagree with post 2"
7. "I agree with post 1 and disagree with post 2"
8. "I agree with post 2 and disagree with post 1"
9. "I agree with post 1 and disagree with post 2"
10. Something of value
11. "I agree with post 2 and disagree with post 1"
12. "I agree with post 1 and disagree with post 2"
13. "I agree with post 2 and disagree with post 1"
14. "I agree with post 1 and disagree with post 2"
15. "I agree with post 1 and disagree with post 2"

Only three posts there add serious value to the conversation - I don't expect to see the rest of those verbatim, but if you only agree it's going to boil down to that most likely - but that's a whole page of posts. A reaction is an efficient space-saving way to indicate a brief statement that otherwise takes up a whole post on a thread. If you remove them, it will bog down discussion because it will be extremely difficult to read the actual flow of conversation. It will also make it hard to judge what people actually think, which is especially pertinent when it comes to dev posts, suggestions, etc.

Does it mean you can just disagree with someone without responding even if you don't see your argument? Yeah, but...there's not a good way to force someone to explain themselves. They're more likely to just not do anything at all then. And at least the original post will have made its pitch, which is more compelling by default than not.

I'm sorry for being blunt, but you are straw manning just a little bit. There could be a system to consolidate the forums to only show highlights or most replied posts like on the blizzard forums. My suggestion was removing the respectfully disagree because it is used as a means to shut down discussion and shoot down a valid point like what was seen on my initial post. All disagrees. Two replies. We already have filters for show dev responses and it is well within the powers of the website managers to add in additional filters. You are not forcing people to explain themselves whatsoever.

 

[Bearjuden]

I'm sorry for being blunt, but you are straw manning just a little bit. There could be a system to consolidate the forums to only show highlights or most replied posts like on the blizzard forums. My suggestion was removing the respectfully disagree because it is used as a means to shut down discussion and shoot down a valid point like what was seen on my initial post. All disagrees. Two replies. We already have filters for show dev responses and it is well within the powers of the website managers to add in additional filters. You are not forcing people to explain themselves whatsoever.

Straw-manning is where someone misconstrues your argument; the fact that you're accepting that what I said actually needs addressing means it's not really a straw-man. Your example overlooks that devs are an extremely discrete group of people; it's very easy to put in a button that identifies what should qualify as a dev post. The other categories are way more nebulous. "Most replied" needs a threshold to be decided; "highlighted" needs to be defined somehow. Especially since it's possible to contribute meaningfully both with and without quoting or replying.

Like, how do you propose this be implemented? And why is all of this work worth it just to remove disagrees/reactions (you started off initially by saying remove disagrees, then talked about reactions, then went back to just disagrees but I think the answer is true regardless).

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

shoot down a valid point like what was seen on my initial post. All disagrees. Two replies.

Maybe people just simply plain and entirely disagree with your post? There's no reason to elaborate that.

And if you REALLY care for their opinion you could simply ask them. While it's not public who disagreed with you you know it - it's in your "Reactions received" list - and you can ask them what they disagree with.

However, experience says that in general people who want that "Disagree" option to be removed are mostly those who just can't cope that people might have other views. I'm not saying that this is the case with you as I didn't dig into your post history, so please refrain from "But not me!" posts - I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just telling from experience when this topic came up in the past.

And if you have issues with people "Disagree-Bombing" you, ie when people go to your post history and just Disagree with everything you said, then you could report these people as this behaviour is not allowed

Community Code of Conduct

You must agree to these terms and rules before using the site.

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Respectfully disagreeing​

Our forums and social platforms welcome players, Paradox employees and moderators from diverse backgrounds and opinions. It is impossible to agree with everyone, but it is possible to disagree constructively to allow real discussions. There is no need to turn disagreements into heated arguments. Rather than letting these threads become flame wars please agree to disagree. Unconstructive reactions and disagreements will be deleted and subject to sanction.

 

[Nikolai]

Well, the respectfully disagree is not without its problems. I've seen posts pointing out a historical fact be a target of that. But I don't see the problem. It's not like the votes matter.

 

[Rycestealer]

Maybe people just simply plain and entirely disagree with your post? There's no reason to elaborate that.

And if you REALLY care for their opinion you could simply ask them. While it's not public who disagreed with you you know it - it's in your "Reactions received" list - and you can ask them what they disagree with.

However, experience says that in general people who want that "Disagree" option to be removed are mostly those who just can't cope that people might have other views. I'm not saying that this is the case with you as I didn't dig into your post history, so please refrain from "But not me!" posts - I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just telling from experience when this topic came up in the past.

And if you have issues with people "Disagree-Bombing" you, ie when people go to your post history and just Disagree with everything you said, then you could report these people as this behaviour is not allowed

Community Code of Conduct

You must agree to these terms and rules before using the site.

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Funny thing is this is the first time I've been disagree bombed. Oh well. I only check this forum for dev diaries anyways. All of you guys have a good day.

 

[ConjurerDragon]

Funny thing is this is the first time I've been disagree bombed. Oh well. I only check this forum for dev diaries anyways. All of you guys have a good day.

"disagree bombed"? This is a forum where people write and answer each other, very often with different opinions. If you already feel that you have been "disagree bombed" by receiving several respectfully disagree icons, then how would you have reacted if - as you insisted on - every single one of that "respectfully disagree" icons would turn into a full-lenght post why and how you are completely wrong, disagreeable and your posts only wasted electric energy and served to pollute the planet from the very start?

 

[ConjurerDragon]

...and of course there is the problem of taking the rules by intent or by word.
The more precise any given ruleset gets the more it tends to go to the latter.

On the one hand this is desirable as "intent" is pretty much an excercise on interpretation. On the other hand, the more you specifiy any given rule or law the more its meaning goes to "everything not stated explicitly within the rule is exempt from the rule" and thus you can find loophooles quite "easily" - that's why lawyers get the big bucks, after all. They are professional loophole finders. And this is despite that in most if not all countries (afaik) the laws are meant to be interpreted "by intent" and not "by word"...

/edit: An example, I pretty much like:
The 10 Commandments (sans the really religious ones) would be sufficient.
Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, respect others as you respect yourself.

All other rules and laws are basically clarifications of these.

Actuallly, depending on source and translation the 10 commandments could every well be different.

e.g. "Don´t kill" = do not murder (after all killing people was daily practice in that time, especially in war). "don´t lie" = do not give false witness is much more specific and leaves white lies wide open, respect others as you respect yourself = open horror considering the multitude of inept, depressed, masochistic people out there.

 

[Pellaken]

my suggest is "post, somewhere somewhat easy to find, maybe in the FAQ, the following: an explanation of what to do if you want to post something, but are unsure if it violates any rules are not."

sometimes words like "respectful" or "nice" or "rude" can be interpreted differently by different people, and it's always good to get a second set of eyes on something when you are not sure.

 

[DebbieElla]

my suggest is "post, somewhere somewhat easy to find, maybe in the FAQ, the following: an explanation of what to do if you want to post something, but are unsure if it violates any rules are not."

sometimes words like "respectful" or "nice" or "rude" can be interpreted differently by different people, and it's always good to get a second set of eyes on something when you are not sure.

You can always PM a moderator if you are unsure.

 

[anbeck]

I would like to see an option to "mute" or ignore a thread. There's a few very popular threads that I'm not interested in, and I'd like to keep a clean overview of forum activity so I can make most of my time here. If I understand correctly, there is already a plug-in for this platform that makes ignoring threads possible.

Not sure if this or something similar is something the admin's would consider (or already have considered), just thought I'd leave my suggestion here.

 

[jonjowett]

Suggestion: When a thread is necro'd, add some kind of warning to the thread so that there's no way for people to miss the fact that it's been recently necro'd.

The first person to necro a thread has to tick a box saying that they acknowledge that the thread is X months/years old, but they are the only person who receives that warning. For everyone else, it's easy to gloss over the precise dates of posts (especially if you're a bit tired or distracted), which means it's easy to waste time replying to a necro. And I'm arguing that expanding the existing automated warning would help to avoid this kind of timewasting.

Eg1: For a few days after that initial necro, EVERYONE who replies to the thread has to tick the box warning about necroposting.
Eg2: The thread gets a prominent but time-limited "recently necro'd" tag that's visible in the thread view.

 

[Chief of Staff]

This is probably something that is beyond Paradox's control, as I suspect this is something hard-coded in XenForo, the software powering this forum, but I would like to see an option when creating a post or a reply to disable the automatic transformation of text emoticon into graphic emoji. In some of the older forum software I had experience with, they had this option. Can't remember which software had this but it might be VBulletin or PhpBB. This option may or may not be a setting that an administrator could enable in Xenforo.

Obviously not an essential feature to have but would be nice to have. Not every post / reply have to have graphic emojis. And in some cases depending on the context, graphic emoji may not be appropriate.

On a side note, I would also recommend adding a few more emojis for reaction. For example, I suggest wow emoji which I think may have come with XenForo by default but which for some reason is not available here. Also a small pet peeve: I dislike the crying version of haha emoji. For heaven's sakes, please use non-crying version instead. Speaking of which, that particular emoji is inexplicably missing from emojis list for use in post/reply (as opposed to reaction). I was surprised that laughing emoji is enabled for reaction but not for in post/reply itself, given its ubiquity among the postings across many forums on the Internet.

I would also suggest adding emoji for reaction but I could see the potential for problems on a large community forum, where people tend to get, umm, rather passionate, like this so it is probably not wise.

 

[WeeBigTerd101]

I think posts in suggestions should get bumped up whenever it gets another vote instead of it getting bumped up only with a reply.