Making Reactions Public?

[jsneb83]

@Mavric what would be the course of action, if any, to give everyone the ability to see who is reacting to posts? Getting rid of the anonymity of it would lead to fewer people abusing it, imo.

Mavric edit:  I spit this to a separate topic as it might come up in the future and won't gum up the StPaulHusker thread.

 

[Mavric]

@Mavric what would be the course of action, if any, to give everyone the ability to see who is reacting to posts? Getting rid of the anonymity of it would lead to fewer people abusing it, imo.

Yeah, I've gone back and forth on that.  I know other boards let you see who +1ed your post but I haven't been on any other boards that have other reactions.

Part of me says turn it loose and see what happens.  But I wasn't around here before when the -1 was around and several people seem to think that caused a lot of problems.  My thought is if you want to post something or react to something you should be ready to take whatever happens.

 

[Mavric]

One caveat I would throw in is that I'm not sure if it would upset people that they thought they were giving a reaction anonymously and all of the sudden people could see it.  I still lean to the side of if you didn't mean it enough to let people know maybe you shouldn't have done it but it's a consideration.

Edit: "anonymously" not "autonomously"

 

[Enhance]

I think I could be convinced either way.

Publicizing them would at least allow some level of accountability for people. It would likely be a hindrance to the StPaul situation and all eye roll controversies. It may also adjust the @skers83 situation in P&R right now (this poster likes to +1 a lot of conservative view points, including the more controversial ones, but rarely takes part in the conversation). The only real con I see is we will likely receive a change of behavior to the opposite of what we see now - instead of people complaining about the anonymity, they'll complain about who +1'd what and why.

At the minimum, I would propose getting rid of the eye roll emoji as it has now effectively become the '-1.' I obviously wasn't a mod at the time that was removed, but I do remember people abusing it just for fun, and it's beginning to happen with more regularity.

If I had to stick my foot in the dirt and give an answer, I'd be OK with publicizing reactions. I'd also be in favor of removing the eye roll emoji as a separate consideration, but if we publicize them, I don't think we'll have to worry about the eye roll as much.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

While we debate whether 'eye rolls' and other reaction emojis should be anonymous, I posted in the "Village of the Banned" thread that emoji reactions are subject to review by the mod team, as part of board content.

 

[jsneb83]

What do you guys think about putting up a poll seeing what the board would like? We can still make it so we have the final say, but it would at least give them a voice on the subject.

 

[Enhance]

Perhaps instead of a poll we just do an open comment period? That way, we're not bound to any kind of vote total at the end, sort of like a school board or city council meeting. The public can weigh in but the vote ultimately comes down to the officials.

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

I am in favor of removing the anonymity of all emoji reactions. It would likely deter their use as a trolling method or, at least, give the member being trolled information to report as abusive behavior.

One caveat I would throw in is that I'm not sure if it would upset people that they thought they were giving a reaction anonymously and all of the sudden people could see it.  I still lean to the side of if you didn't mean it enough to let people know maybe you shouldn't have done it but it's a consideration.

Edit: "anonymously" not "autonomously"

Would there be a way to roll back or strike all of the 'eye roll' reactions already given before removing the anonymity? I could see how it may offend some to lose their assumed anonymity with the reactions already given.

Perhaps instead of a poll we just do an open comment period? That way, we're not bound to any kind of vote total at the end, sort of like a school board or city council meeting. The public can weigh in but the vote ultimately comes down to the officials.

If we were to have a public conversation about this topic, I agree this would be a good format.

 

[jsneb83]

Perhaps instead of a poll we just do an open comment period? That way, we're not bound to any kind of vote total at the end, sort of like a school board or city council meeting. The public can weigh in but the vote ultimately comes down to the officials.

Yeah, that might actually be better. We can have a more open discussion and not just a bunch of people voting and not adding any other input.

 

[Enhance]

A little discussion from The Village of the Banned thread in the Woodshed. A few board members are curious if we can update the board guidelines to reflect the fact that board emojis/interactions may be subject to review by the mod team.

For example, a concept of the change is underlined below:

#1 - No Flaming/Trolling/Defamatory posts
Strong opinions are encouraged, and debated is not only welcomed – it's the main reason the board exists. If what you are considering posting doesn’t advance the issue being discussed – if it’s just taking a “shot” at someone – then either don’t post it, or phrase it in a way that meets the rules. There is absolutely no reason to verbally attack another user (aka flaming), and/or posting a message/interaction for the express purpose of generating a negative response (trolling). Any defamatory posts made against HuskerBoard, its representatives, or any other member may result in an immediate ban or temporary account disablement.Posts outside of the general theme of the topic which you are posting within will be moved or deleted.

As a side note, I noticed that there's a grammatical error in the first sentence in our Guidelines - it says 'debated' instead of 'debate.'

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

I like the revised rule. Good stuff.  :thumbs