By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Website Topics - Is the implementation of a 'like' system beneficial of detrimental?

 

Thoughts on the like system?

In favour of it 26 39.39%
 
Against it 29 43.94%
 
Neutral/don't know 11 16.67%
 
Total:66
potato_hamster on 17 April 2018
TalonMan said:
potato_hamster said:

Discredit you? Why would I bother to do that? Silly Rol, you do a great job of that all on your own!

I've made over 2300 forum posts across hundreds of threads. Apparently you've found 7 of them across 2-3 threads to be "unreasonable" filed them away in your little text document, and this in your mind means I don't have any right to claim I've been "perfectly reasonable" on this site? Of course, it should go without saying - but since this is you we're talking about, these posts are only unreasonable in your opinion! Unfortunately for you, your opinion isn't actually an objective fact, despite your persistent attitude that it should be treated as such (like the notion that showing off your adorable little text file "proves me wrong"). I won't go into whether or not those posts hold reasonable views, because that would be incredibly off topic, and derailing to the tread.

So, let's just say that you've done a tremendous job of displaying exactly the kind of behavior that a like system invites.

Wait - woah...  ...how does a spat with Rol, have anything to do with this functionality??

Remember - there is NO "dislike", if there were then I could see a potential problem here. But, since there isn't, in what way would the "likes" act as a detriment here???

It doesn't. That's why I've shown a hesitance to talk about it.

On topic - As Rol plainly stated, if someone were to view a thread with two people arguing two sides of an issue, and one side has a bunch of likes and the other has a few or none, the one with fewer likes should be viewed as "discredited" or "unreasonable" in comparison with the side that is liked by many users. This is a clearly narrative he will use going forward on this site.



Around the Network
OTBWY on 17 April 2018

I'm not for it. All it does is make it a popularity contest. It adds nothing to the actual point of the threads, which is debate.



kirby007 on 17 April 2018

As if anyone is going to stop debating because the other team has more likes, some of you are clueless



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

COKTOE on 17 April 2018
TalonMan said:
...for the record, IF we decide that adding a "who's who" of the likes, I promise to "reset" the table and give everyone a fresh start and just to be fair. It wouldn't be fair if people were anonymously "liking" things today, only to have their names exposed tomorrow.

But again - that's just an "IF" for now. I'll continue to let this play out for a few more days.

Is having a vote on this a possibility? The whole shebang that is. Not just the who's who's implementation.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."

potato_hamster on 17 April 2018
RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said:

It doesn't. That's why I've shown a hesitance to talk about it.

On topic - As Rol plainly stated, if someone were to view a thread with two people arguing two sides of an issue, and one side has a bunch of likes and the other has a few or none, the one with fewer likes should be viewed as "discredited" or "unreasonable" in comparison with the side that is liked by many users. This is a clearly narrative he will use going forward on this site.

Provide proof that I said those things.

Aww it's so sweet that you think you can just demand things of me and expect me to do them.

Stop trying to derail the thread.



Around the Network
potato_hamster on 17 April 2018
RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said:

Aww it's so sweet that you think you can just demand things of me and expect me to do them.

Stop trying to derail the thread.

I asked you to back up your claim. That's normal procedure during an argument.

The reason why you deflect is obvious: You can't back up your claim. In that case you shouldn't make such a claim to begin with.

There you go again treating your opinion as if it's an objective fact. I'm not deflecting at all. I'm just trying to keep the thread on track.

Stop trying to derail the thread.

Last edited by potato_hamster - on 17 April 2018

kirby007 on 17 April 2018
potato_hamster said:
RolStoppable said:

I asked you to back up your claim. That's normal procedure during an argument.

The reason why you deflect is obvious: You can't back up your claim. In that case you shouldn't make such a claim to begin with.

There you go again treating your opinion as if it's an objective fact. I'm not deflecting at all. I'm just trying to keep the thread on track.

Stop trying to derail the thread.

Reply to him 



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

potato_hamster on 17 April 2018
RolStoppable said:
potato_hamster said:

I'm not deflecting at all. I'm just trying to keep the thread on track.

Stop trying to derail the thread.

Do you really believe that you keep the thread on track by refusing to back up your claim?

No I don't believe that. You can keep the thread on track by just simply reviewing your previous posts and acknowledging what they collectively say.

RolStoppable said:
Your refusal actually means that you are trying your hardest to derail the thread.

Citation needed. It appears to me that this conversation that is at best tangentially related to this thread persists because you won't let this go despite my obvious disinterest to play your silly games.

RolStoppable said:
You've made the claim that I stated certain things, and that's why the like system is detrimental.

Citation needed.

RolStoppable said:

I asked  commanded you and continue to ask command you to provide completely unnecessary proof for your claim, and that's 0% on topic because my behavior on this site has nothing to do with the like system.

FTFY.

RolStoppable said:

You can repeat your line that I should stop trying to derail the thread, but that line is completely moot without any sign of me going off-topic.

As stated previously, your behavior on this site has nothing to do with the like system.



PwerlvlAmy on 17 April 2018

For the people who abandoned FB and had withdrawals, then the like system will heal them and be beneficial to them



NND: 0047-7271-7918 | XBL: Nights illusion | PSN: GameNChick

Angelus on 17 April 2018

I know we don't want dislikes.....but can we add sarcastic likes? I mean what if somebody calls out someone else on poor reading comprehension, after misconstruing multiple arguments by that person they claim to lack it? Cus that would be pretty amusing, but then if we start showing who likes what, you wouldn't want people to think you liked that post for the wrong reasons.

These are the important questions.