Rating System (was: what even are social noises round N+1)

Okay, but there's also the selfie thread.

 

yeah i agree the ratings shouldn't be too granular

otherwise someone will ask for an option for "N9w I realize we've 6een at this f9r s9me time already, 6ut at the risk 9f derailing the dial9gue y9u initiated, and may I just say h9w thrilled I am that y9u did, Karkat, I w9uld just like qualify my entire analysis 9f y9ur "Alternian culture" 6y saying that in c9ntrast with life 9n 6ef9rus, while y9ur pe9ple may have 6een engaged in vi9lent, lethal class struggle f9r milli9ns 9f sweeps, 6y n9 means d9es this imply that the 6ef9ran way 9f life was entirely with9ut pr96lematic elements, perhaps even m9re distur6ing and insidi9us f9r their lack 9f ackn9wledgement and 9pen discussi9n, particularly as a c9nsequence 9f what in my view were widely and dismayingly unexamined systemic s9cial injustices resulting fr9m the entrenched p9wer dynamics in play, dynamics strikingly similar t9 th9se 9f y9ur planet's markedly m9re 6ellic9se iterati9n, which has 9nly served t9 fully vindicate my hyp9thesis that such a hierarchy is really predicated 9n intrinsic dysfuncti9n, and failure t9 shift all the usual narratives and undiagn9sed pr96lems int9 an 9pen, judgment-free disc9urse thr9ugh which pr96lematic issues are c9nstructively channeled int9 m9re intelligently pr96lematized avenues 9f discussi9n. N9w 6ef9re I c9ntinue, it is 9nly decent 9f me t9 warn y9u a69ut certain triggers that are surely ahead in this essay. I mean c9nversati9n. Triggers include 6ut likely will n9t 6e limited t9 class 9ppressi9n, culling culture and vi9lence against gru6s, lusus a6use, c9mplementary and anal9g9us hate speech, pail filling, slurries and 9ther c9ncupiscent fluids, lifespan shaming, a6leist slurs, pr9lix dissertation... Actually, may6e it w9uld 6e easier f9r y9u t9 list y9ur triggers, and I'll d9 my 6est t9 av9id th9se t9pics, 9r navigate them m9re delicately, if at all p9ssi6le? Great. It s9unds like y9u d9n't have any triggers, at least n9ne that y9u kn9w a69ut. I'll pr9ceed with cauti9n nevertheless. Just please let me kn9w if y9u start feeling triggered 6y anything I'm saying, and we can take a 6rief time-9ut while y9u summ9n y9ur m9irail t9 help pacify y9u, assuming y9u have 9ne. N9t that I'm presuming y9u d9, 6ut I heard that y9u did, is that c9rrect? If n9t, I ap9l9gize. I further ap9l9gize if y9ur 9rientati9n precludes the p9ssi6ility, as a pale ar9mantic, panquadrant demir9mantic, s9mething in the gray palesexual department 9r such, and h9pefully y9u are n9t triggered 6y such presumptu9us c9ncillian9rmative language. It w9uldn't 6e the first time I was guilty 9f such an inexcusa6le micr9aggressi9n, and I am n9t s9 96livi9us t9 my 9wn r9mantic privilege t9 6elieve it will 6e the last time either. I'm glad I 6r9ught up the su6ject 9f unexamined privilege, 6ecause it d9vetails 6eautifully with the p9int I was a69ut t9 make regarding 6ef9ran s9ciety and its savage um6ral p9tentiality which later manifested thr9ugh the kind 9f Alternian 6rutality y9u are all t99 familiar with. Th9se in the higher echel9ns 9f the hem9spectrum such as the ceruleans, 9r "6lue 6l99ds" (careful, 6eing l99se with such termin9l9gy is 9pening the fl99dgates t9 a wh9le h9st 9f t9xic signist language and hem9ph96ic slurs), when addressing the challenges faced 6y th9se l9wer 9n the spectrum, such as the midhues 9r in particular warm castes like um6ers, 9chres, 9r "rust 6l99ds" (an9ther slur, highly pr96lematic, deeply 9ffensive and triggering termin9l9gy, str9ngly impl9ring y9u steer clear 9f this term), they w9uld 6e well advised t9 check their cerulean privilege, particularly 6ef9re dismissing hardships 9r marginalizing claims 9f 9ppressi9n, which can 6e difficult f9r them t9 identify 9r empathize with fr9m their advantage9us p9siti9n within the 6ef9ran//Alternian p9wer structures. And s9me may argue that in 9ur peaceful "ut9pian" culture that we have freed 9urselves fr9m injustice and disparities in privilege in a p9st-scarcity ec9n9my, largely equal rights distri6uted acr9ss the hem9spectrum, and theref9re exist in a "p9st-spectral w9rld" (laugh 9ut l9ud), and theref9re there is n9 need t9 champi9n imp9rtant s9cial causes and there is n9thing left t9 de6ate, 6ut really n9thing c9uld 6e further fr9m the truth. Y9u just need t9 educate y9urself and carefully investigate the l9ngstanding p9wer dynamics in play. F9r instance, a seemingly "harmless" remark fr9m a cis6l99ded cerulean t9ward an um6er 9r G9d f9r6id a 6urgundy 9r yes even a warm-identifying physically-c99ler caste, a69ut their very l9ng term future plans such as 9n the 9rder 9f centuries, then this may pr9ve t9 6e a very hurtful micr9agressi9n due t9 the fact that l9whues cann9t p9ssi6ly live that l9ng themselves, and the m9re priviliged caste c9uld easily 9utlive d9zens 9f generati9ns 9f midhues 9r hundreds 9f generati9ns 9f 6U9Ys (6urgundy-um6er-9chre-yell9wgreens, n9te please av9id descri6ing the latterm9st as "lime 6l99ds" as it has hist9rically 6een used as an especially vici9us epithet). Such remarks can further trigger painful reminders 9f h9w c99ler castes, t9 s9me extent 9JAs, 6ut CIPs and R9yal-Vs in particular, have 6een a6le t9 use their tremend9us lifespans 9ver the millenia t9 gain a strangleh9ld 9ver the s9cial 9rder, have 6een a6le t9 c9mpletely dictate 9ur s9cietal ev9luti9n 6y ensuring 9nly their cultural agendas and narratives receive the dial9gue's air supply, assuring the c9dificati9n 9f th9se resultant ideals and deciding what "n9rmalcy" entails, and sadly these a6s9lutes 6ec9me internalized acr9ss the full spectral range, even within th9se 9f m9st c9mpr9mised privilege, and s9 y9u 6egin t9 see the cyclical nature 9f the dysfuncti9n and the resulting inertia against p9sitive change and raising awareness 9f the m9st underpr96lematized issues, which I think we can agree, is pretty pr96lematic. And really, it's every9ne's 6usiness t9 examine their privilege, even 6urgundies, wh9 may 6e su6ject t9 the pitfall 9f 6elieving inc9rrectly there are n9ne 9n the scale 6eneath them wh9m they enj9y certain privileges 9ver, which 9ff-spectrum tr9lls will never kn9w, such as th9se identifying as 9ther6l99ds 9r caste-multiples, "p9ly6l99ded", any wh9 hem9gl96ically ID as having a caste which manifests n9where (as yet kn9wn) in any9ne physically, 9r f9r that matter 9ffspecs wh9 physically d9 p9ssess such a 6l99d type, 9r "mutants" (VERY pr96lematic term, highly triggering t9 s9me, 6e warned), such as y9u and I, Karkat. I l9ve dick, 6ut this puts us 69th in a situati9n which t9 9ur kn9wledge uniquely all9ws us t9 understand and empathize with tragically underprivileged and unemp9wered gr9ups acr9ss all scuttles 9f life, thus aff9rding us 69th what I like t9 call a "uniquely underprivileged privilege", which, yes, is a kind 9f privilege we sh9uld 69th strive t9 check as well, whenever we can. This same uniquely underprivileged perspective as I'm sure y9u kn9w was disadvantaged up9n my p9st-scratch iterati9n as well, and while I have n9 d9u6t y9u justifia6ly came t9 revere that figure 9f y9ur planet's rich hist9ry and y9ur pers9nal lineage, and while his g9als 9f peace, equality, and a truly spectra6lind s9ciety, I'm afraid I pers9nally have tr9u6le c9nd9ning his meth9ds. I d9n't like t9 use the term "pr96lematic" lightly, 6ut, well, his tactics were n9thing if n9t massively pr96lematic, t9 say the least, empl9ying vi9lent uprising t9 effect change, and em6laz9ning his mark up9n hist9ry and his faithful f9ll9wers with the salty fl9urish 9f a single rude, sh9uted swear w9rd, it's n9t t9 my taste even th9ugh he is wh9 I w9uld have gr9wn up t9 6e in an9ther life. 6ut n9, I prefer t9 effect s9cial change thr9ugh rati9nal, h9nest disc9urse and c9ntri6uting t9 9ng9ing dial9gues, f9cusing 9n what sh9uld 6e the real g9als, thr9ugh keen adherence t9 the discipline 9f Pr96lematics, ensuring that we stay f9cused 9n successfully pr96lematizing a wide range 9f direly underc9mplicated s9cial dilemmas. It's nice t9 see we agree 9n s9 much. May6e we are n9t s9 unalike, despite 9ur drastically different up6ringings. Anyway, as I was saying, the st9ry 9f y9ur ancest9r, and m9re imp9rtantly my exhaustive list 9f misgivings with his appr9ach t9 s9cial change, is quite a l9ng and ela69rate 9ne, 6ut it actually fits 6rilliantly within the larger m9saic which captures the 6r9ad str9kes 9f my p9st. I mean 9ur discussi9n. Trigger warnings f9r the f9ll9wing c9ntent include: ancest9r 6ashing, faith shaming, l9ud swearing, t9rture, 6urn w9unds, ship sinking... again, seri9usly, just let me kn9w if y9u 6egin t9 feel triggered 6y anything, even slightly. We'll pause and see if we can really expl9re th9se issues, and identify exactly h9w I may have invalidated y9ur struggles."

 

i think we can sum that one up as pr96lematic, the real question on my mind is whether anyone besides kankri subaccounts would use it

 

idk what if your joke gets a "like" but not a "funny"? and like @spockandawe said people might continue to just use the like system as before, but i have no way of knowing who is going by what system.

like if someone "likes" my meme post, does that mean they dont think it's funny or relatable or does it mean they're just using the like system as before? idk just New Social Conventions that havenv been figured out yet

 

I figure "like" is the default one for "some kind of positivity," and the rest of the terms (whichever ones end up sticking around, which I hope will include witnessed and useful/informative) are for when people want to specify what kind of liking. Since not everybody's gonna want to specify, or be able to specify, a lot of the time it's just gonna be like.

But if someone clicks "useful" on my shitposting I'm gonna look at them sidelong a little and wonder why.

 

If I'm being completely honest, I totally see the use of Funny/Winner/Informative/Useful/Hugs even, but I'm pretty unlikely to use them. I like the one for "Agree" because it's a very visible endorsement of a thing, and I like having "Witnessed" for when I don't know what to say but want to shot someone I'm reading, but I'm probably not going to use the rating much outside of those two. I like the ambiguity of 'likes' but absolutely understand why other people might not.

 

I like the hug button but then if i could choose i would always be being cuddled. Hugs are good. Even from friends im not terribly close to. Give ke hugs.

That aside hugs and witnessed to me ping very differently. Hugs are more versatile emotionally for me.

 

i am super fine with accepting hugs, and it means that i do not have to manually type "hugs" for all of my sad frens who i must hug

 

Because sometimes you don't have the spoons to even type a monosyllablic response, but you CAN click a button. Source: me. I rarely comment; it's extremely draining for me. I'm VERY happy about the ratings option because it opens up more ways for me to interact with people's posts without it being such a huge energy drain that I decide to just pretend I never read the post until I'm able to write a response - which ends up being never. I WANT to interact more on the forum but right now reaction buttons are pretty much the only option for me, and I don't know when (or if) that will change.

 

thiiiiis

This is pretty much my entire brain reaction to the new thing so far -- I liked that the "like" button was ambiguous, it kept my anxiety from going overboard because the "like" could mean so many different things that it was hard to get overly anxious about "but what if they meant this specific thing!"

With the new buttons it's like, if I meant the post to be funny and it gets "like" reactions instead of "funny" ones, I will get anxiety because clearly I did the post wrong. Ditto with stuff like "useful" and "informative" -- I've already had a thing where a post wasn't really meant to be useful, but it got marked as such, and that was ten minutes of anxiety that wouldn't have happened if it had just been "like" ):

I mean, I will probably adjust somewhat, but I would like it to be clear that my objection to some of the extra buttons is not "egh I don't like the thing and don't need it, so it shouldn't be there", it's "this existing gives me anxiety reactions I wasn't having before even if I personally don't use the thing".

Largely agree with this. Even in the short period we've had the thing, I really liked having the Witnessed button for interacting with vent threads, and I like the extra nuance of the Agree button. I do agree that Agree can largely be covered by Like, but I've liked it in discussion threads? It makes it more clear that yes I actually agree with this post, I don't just like it because of its contribution to the discussion or whatever else.

But if we're going to have new buttons I would really like a Relatable button, because that's another thing where you get into the problem of "I swear I'm not liking this post about your unhealthy abuse coping mechanisms because I think it's good". And Agree feels just as uncomfortable as Like in that context, and Witnessed sort of covers it but doesn't convey the same "you are not the only one who does this" nuance, which I do think is significant.

And then I find Informative, Useful, Funny, and Winner largely pointless and will probably not use them much if ever. Informative maybe occasionally as a "I don't really agree with or even like this post, but thanks for telling me at least" sort of thing, since that's the only thing I've actually used it for so far.

I have no idea if this is technically doable but I approve


[edit] I forgot some things I meant to say

 

It would be nice if the text in the ratings bar was darker. The low contrast is kinda bugging me, and all the themes I've tried have the same problem. Is the text currently the color of the post background? It would be nice if it were the same as the "x 1" or the "List" instead.

 

I'm pretty sure the total amount of ratings being given has decreased since the new system got introduced? Likes in threads like Tumblr.txt could get pretty high but now they're kinda stagnating even if you take into account the other ratings.

 

Also, I only got an alert for one of the agree ratings on that post, palindromordnilap's. If a few people rate a post and no other alert-giving things happen in that timespan, does it only tell you about the first rating? It would be nice if that were not the case.

edit: also if the ratings had timestamps on them when you clicked the list, that would please my brain greatly. Gotta Keep Track.

and sorry if these things are already being discussed, I haven't read the whole thread. I really like the new rating system overall!

 

Is that to prevent getting so many notifications? Because I like those, they make me feel validated

 

Can confirm something wonky is happening with the notifications. I don't think it's only telling you the first rating, because I have gotten different notifs for ratings on the same post. But I think maybe if a bunch of ratings come in at once, it doesn't show notifs for all of them? idk, it is wonky and inconsistent and I don't like it because Validation

 

The part of me that grew up reading Slashdot is annoyed at the lack of "interesting" as an option, because that's my ratings-system compartment for "huh. that's an opinion I haven't heard before" (as opposed to informative, which is "that's a fact I haven't heard before"). This is obviously not enough to demand that you overhaul the forum for, but I figured as long as people were complaining I had an extra two cents lying around.

In this system, what word would I use for a "huh. that's an opinion I haven't heard before" reaction?

 

Informative or useful, maybe? (Or just 'like' if you subscribe to the catchall usage.)

 

"Hugs"