Implementing a 'Like' feature for higher quality posts

[Ryika]

But by the same token, we can never know what the poster who has actually posted the insult intends to mean. It could be a joke between friends. There could be some cryptic pop culture reference that has been overlooked. But that necessary uncertainty doesn’t mean we’re going to let the post slide, for we are interested in the manner in which a notional reasonable member will read and react to the post. This is why the rules don’t actually require a conclusion as to the intention behind the post. It is enough to conclude that the post is reasonably likely to cause a negative reaction, even if the poster did not intend, when telling the other poster that they are an idiot, to do anything other than dispassionately state what they regard to be an observable fact. We are not confined by the epistemologically impossible.

That's a completely different thing though, in all of these examples something bad is actively being said, a text is created that when read can be misunderstood and the person creating that post must be aware that that's what they're doing. The base assumption is that the post is meant to be read in its literal meaning, and if the literal meaning of the text is it being an insult, then that's of course a problem.

A like is not a sign of endorsement of the message, a like is a sign that the person liked _something_ about the post, that's the base assumption and anything other than that is a baseless additional assumption that the mod makes up in his brain (or pulls out of his or her butt), at least as long as there's no "You're only allowed to like posts if you agree with their message"-rule. And with what I know about some of the mods here I really don't _WANT_ them to base their decisions on assumptions when the only information available to them is that the person has pushed a button - because I find it highly likely that they will always assume the worst they can imagine.

But a poster who expresses their direct agreement with the insult, either through posting the words ‘I agree’, or by leaving a visible mark of endorsement on the post, is also behaving in such a way as to hinder civil and productive discussion, and for that we would want to take some form of action to let them know that their behaviour is something we would not like repeated.

An obvious example to show the disconnect:
Somebody tells a racist and also extremely funny joke. I press like.
Have I just just said that "I agree" with the message of that joke? No, obviously not. I liked the post because I like dark humor and thought it was funny.

"I agree" and pressing the like-button are not the same thing, and the fact that you seem to think they are shows that you should not put yourself into the position of giving out infractions for posts that people like, because you clearly can't assume to understand why the person liked a post perfectly shown by the fact that you jumped to a conclusion that isn't there. The base assumption ("The person liked something about the post.") and your assumption ("The person agreed with what was being said.") don't match.

This is easy to fix however - just rename the "Like"-Button to "I agree" and by doing that you have matched your assumption with the base assumption. It's also a way better description for what the button is supposed to be used for.

However, how exactly does a like hinder a civil and productive discussion? What's the line of thought here? "This person insulted me and because there were 5 people also liking that highly offensive post I can now no longer just report that post and continue to have a highly productive discussion!"?

If that's the case, then how does the like feature in general not also hinder productive discussions? After all, a person who is such a mental child that a few likes on an insult make them not want to post would also be a person who would be discouraged from seeing people agree more with people not sharing their opinion. I would even go further and say this scenario is more likely to cause people to not take part in the discussion, because a few people who like an insulting post can just be brushed off as idiots, while hardly anybody enjoys to take a stance knowing that they are representing the minority position.

Sounds like doublethink to me.

 

[Agent327]

This Like function keeps getting better and better. (Ponders if a Sarcasm Alert would be redundant here.)

As for how many "likes" you can give out in one day, it never occurred to me to wonder about that.

I have a quaint feeling, the person(s) responsible for this Like=quality idea share this with you.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It would have to depend upon the specific content of the post that is being ‘liked’. If a post contains a whole lot of substantive content, but also happens to insult another member, then it’s hard to discern anything from a ‘like’. Is the poster liking the substantive content, or the insult?

When the moderator is unsure, the best policy is to ask the poster to clarify what was meant. Sometimes all it is, is a simple misunderstanding, and the moderator should be aware that it's really disrespectful to automatically assume the poster will lie about it. Remember, not everyone has the same definition of "reasonable."

But if the post is solely an insult, e.g. a post which simply reads, “You are an idiot”, or even more concerning, “You should go kill yourself”, then we can make a more reasonable inference from the ‘like’.

I thought the "kill/hurt yourself" posts received an automatic temp ban. Is that no longer the case?

In terms of removing likes from posts, I do know that it’s possible to remove all likes given by a particular poster in a particular period. So within the admin control panel there is a function that causes the removal of all likes given by poster X for the last n days, and presumably this power can be conferred on moderators. I don’t know, though, whether there’s any function to allow the removal of specific likes, or likes from a specific post, nor whether that function could be conferred on moderators.

Some people would complain that people shouldn't be penalized for "likes" given to posts unrelated to the infracted post, but as long as they have the option to "like" those at a later date, this seems like a fair way to deal with this.

BTW, another question: I've seen some posts with mod text and instead of the moderator being identified as the person who left it, all we see now is that the post was modified by "a moderator." That's not exactly helpful information, if a person wants to ask a question about the post.

This Like function keeps getting better and better. (Ponders if a Sarcasm Alert would be redundant here.)

We have a smiley for that, or at least we used to.

I have a quaint feeling, the person(s) responsible for this Like=quality idea share this with you.

A bemusing part of the "like" system is the "trophy" system. Check your profiles, and you'll find that you've been accumulating points for various things - posts, "likes", and such.

 

[Camikaze]

@Ryika - whilst the basic insult example is one in which there can be a high degree of certainty as to what the poster has subjectively intended, such that a reasonable inference can readily be drawn, the text which we're called upon to moderate is rarely so clear cut. Thus, whether a post violates the forum rules is not actually a function of that elusive subjective intention; instead what we're looking for is the objective meaning of a post (in the Clapham omnibus sense). If a notional reasonable onlooker would regard a post as being a troll post, that is what it is considered to be, even if it is positively demonstrated in conversation with the poster that they genuinely did not intend to provoke anyone; their culpability in such a situation transfers from their subjective intention, to their recklessness in framing a post in such a way that it would be interpreted by a reasonable onlooker as a troll post. Their post has a certain objective meaning which they may not have intended, but which has been discovered all the same, and to which the forum rules attach certain sanctions. This is the application of basic interpretive principles.

By that same logic, it may be possible to ascertain an objective meaning from a 'like' which similarly falls afoul of the forum rules. Simply looking at it from a conceptual standpoint, a 'like' is a particular form of communication, which may be interpreted, and as such, to which an objective meaning may be imputed. It is possible that this objective meaning may breach the forum rules, particularly with regards to trolling and flaming. It is unlikely to break other forum rules, such as spam or inappropriate language. In the case of spam, a 'like' does not purport to be in a form designed to add substantial value to the discussion at hand. In the case of inappropriate language, a 'like' cannot by itself carry an objective meaning necessarily entailing inappropriate language; at most it can carry an objective meaning indicating approval of inappropriate language, which is not itself against the rules.

This is one of the reasons why the example you give of someone 'liking' a racist joke is quite inapposite. A racist joke would primarily be sanctioned under the rubric of inappropriate content. A 'like' is not a form of communication which can itself convey inappropriate content in the same sense. That is not to say that it would be impossible to do so in relation to inappropriate content; if a poster were to make a post solely containing the phrase "All Australians should be murdered", and another poster were to 'like' that post, the objective meaning of that 'like' may be an endorsement of the statement, which would be itself inappropriate.

Of course, a racist joke may also fall under the trolling rules, and to the extent that it does, 'liking' that joke may also fall under those trolling rules, if the objective meaning of the 'like' is similarly trollish. This would be very context dependent, of course.

Your example is also missing the mark for two other reasons. Primarily, it simply provides an example of a situation in which the objective meaning of a 'like' may not be direct agreement with the sentiment of a post. Far from refuting the point that a 'like' may exhibit some objective meaning, which may or may not be in breach of the forum rules, depending on the particular circumstances, you've simply acknowledged that such an objective meaning may be discerned, but that in the particular circumstances you've outlined, it would not be in breach of the forum rules. I quite agree with that framework of analysis.

The second reason is that, as it happens, I disagree with how you've applied that framework of analysis in the given case - but of course, given we're apparently agreed on the framework of analysis itself, it doesn't seem particularly necessary to enter into that discussion.

I was not implying that 'liking' a post and posting 'I agree' are in all cases identical actions. Rather, I was indicating that in the context of a post consisting solely of an insult, the objective meaning of a 'like' would almost invariably be an endorsement of the insult. In other situations, such as the one you outline, a 'like' will not carry the same meaning. This is why the inquiry as to the objective meaning of the 'like' would have to be context dependent, rather than rigidly formalistic.

Again, the poster may have subjectively intended the 'like' to convey some other meaning, such as an appreciation of the alliterative ability exhibited in the framing of the insult. But as is the case with all other actions on the forum, the forum rules are concerned with the objective meaning of the action, rather than with the subjective intention of the poster who has engaged in the action, reckless to the interpretation that would naturally be given to the action by a reasonable onlooker.

In relation to your concern that moderators are ill-equipped to determine the objective meaning of a forum member's action, I would return to the initial point above that many of the posts we are called upon to moderate are not as clear-cut as the example of the basic insult. The ship has sailed on moderators exercising interpretive judgment; indeed, that is a primary aspect of our job. If a breach of the forum rules is conditioned on the objective meaning of a post, there is necessarily implied the requirement for some person to identify that objective meaning. That task on this site, and traditionally on all internet forums, has been delegated to the moderators. Of course, there are processes whereby a moderator's discretion can be questioned; we have a public appeals system, for instance. I would expect a poster dissatisfied with the ascertainment of the objective meaning of their 'like' would make use of that system, just as a poster dissatisfied with the ascertainment of the objective meaning of their post does currently.

Our general approach to civil and productive discussion is that mere disagreement is no hindrance. A fortiori, 'likes' on a post which exhibits such disagreement are no hindrance to civil and productive discussion. Certainly, a poster whose discussion partner is receiving an avalanche of 'likes' may be personally discouraged, but it would be considered unreasonable, as part of a civil and productive discussion, to take mere disagreement as an actual hindrance to continued participation in the discussion.

On the other hand, trolling and flaming are seen as hindrances to civil and productive discussion. Trolling, by definition, is reasonably likely to provoke some sort of negative reaction; it is calculated (whether intentionally or not) to produce some form of negative reaction, moving a civil and productive discussion into uncivil and unproductive territory. Flaming may not put off a particularly stoic individual, but flaming is considered reasonably likely to offend or 'inflame' tensions, thereby disrupting an otherwise civil and productive discussion. By that same logic, presupposing at this stage that the 'like' in question carries an objective meaning of the same content (although perhaps not the same strength), that 'like' may achieve the same effect. If a 'like' in a particular circumstance is taken to objectively indicate agreement with an insult, or to objectively entail a reiteration of the insult, then it is hindering civil and productive discussion in precisely the same manner as the original posted insult itself, although obviously to a lesser extent, when taken on its own.

It would be conceivable to reject the logic behind trolling and flaming being hindrances to civil and productive discussion; this is, to some extent, what you appear to be doing. But it is a fundamental assumption of our rules that they are hindrances, and the same logic applies to those whose actions fortify trolling and flaming.

@Valka D'Ur - it may be impolite to assume an adverse subjective intention, but this is not what is occurring when e.g. a trolling infraction is issued. The rules do not require a moderator to make a conclusion about the subjective intention of a user in order to issue the trolling infraction. Rather, the crucial inquiry is into the objective meaning of the post. This does not turn upon the subjective intention of the poster. It may be that they intended to provoke a negative reaction. It may be that they meant nothing of the sort. But in either case, the words of the post stand on their own, with one objective meaning to a notional reasonable onlooker. Subjective intention may, however, be relevant to the severity of the warning given; a poster who has deliberately sought to provoke a negative reaction will be dealt with more harshly than a user who has acted in completely good faith. In this sense, a moderator does have to make a determination as to the probably subjective intention of the poster, which may include considerations of their infraction history, posting style, etc.. But we don't tend to make an inquiry with the poster in question before making this determination. If we misinterpret the subjective intention, then a poster will be free to ask us for leniency, which is not an infrequent occurrence. But it would be overly time consuming to require a policy of consultation prior to the issuing of any infraction/warning.

Posts which indicate that another user should engage in self-harm are definitely still considered severe enough to earn an automatic temp ban.

The lack of indication on an edited post as to which moderator has made the edit is a problem for posters and moderators alike at this stage. From a moderator's perspective, it is possible to see who has edited a post, but much harder to find out. Meanwhile, an inquisitive poster is unlikely to be able to correctly identify the moderator who has performed the action, which results in moderators fielding inquiries in relation to actions they know nothing about, and having to figure out who performed a particular action in order to refer the poster on to the correct moderator.

 

[Ryika]

Well, I appreciate that you have taken the time to explain your position in that much detail, but before all of that explaining even kicks in I still don't see the goal behind ruling over which posts can be liked and which cannot. Let's grant for the sake of the argument that it is reasonable to conclude that the average person would think that liking a post that is just an insult equals liking the message of that post, what exactly is the difference between the situation where somebody insults somebody else and then gets an infraction, and somebody insults somebody else, then somebody likes that post, and then the person making that post gets an infraction?

What is the harm that liking the post has done? How has it played part in the way the conversation went toxic? How has it derailed the conversation further?

Because again, if the idea is that the Like of the post has somehow made the situation in the thread worse, increased the severity of the insult in any way, then ANY like would make the discussion worse for a person who disagrees with the like, because it increases the "felt" level of disagreement that is there. If that's the very idea behind the infraction, then the very idea behind the like system is flawed and leads to worse discussions that people who don't share the majority opinion would be less likely to enjoy.

I disagree that this is what would happen, so again, in my eyes it's just an infraction for the sake of an infraction. No actual harm has been done by the like, the discussion has not been hindered more than it was hindered by the initial post... it's just a level of pettiness that makes no sense to me, a rule for the sake of having a rule. No other place I know of has such a rule, and that should really tell you something about the terrain you're walking on when trying to tell people what they can and cannot push the like-button for.

About the rest (I'll just quote a short part as proxy because I think it very clearly shows what I disagree with:
"if a poster were to make a post solely containing the phrase "All Australians should be murdered", and another poster were to 'like' that post, the objective meaning of that 'like' may be an endorsement of the statement, which would be itself inappropriate."

No, it is very distinctly not. It's not a real life conversation, it's not a person standing up, saying, "I agree with what this person has said!", it's a person pushing a like-button. I don't know what internet places you frequent, but in the ones I visit a like of such a post could have dozens of meanings.

"I liked the post because it made me laugh."
"I liked the post because it was so inappropriate it's hilarious."
"I liked the post because I agree."
"I liked the post because I wanted to be ironic."
"I liked the post because it was clear to me that he was being sarcastic."
"I liked the post because I wanted to seem edgy."
"I liked the post because <insert more reasons here>"

Your interpretation of the like is so far away from the reality of what that like may stand for that you once again jumped to a conclusion that just isn't there. You may read it as an endorsement, I heavily disagree that it's the "logical conclusion" that follows from knowing that a person has pushed the like button on that post. You're assuming an intent that could be SO far off the intent of the person pushing the button, and unlike what a person vocally endorses the message of the post all you can do is speculate based on your personal experience which once again may vary heavily depending on what sites you frequent (on twitter people even favorite posts they heavily disagree with so their followers can see and respond to them). That problem already exists in text because it lacks tone as you have demonstrated, and that can't really be prevented in text form, but now you're trying to give infractions for an action that does not only lack tone, it also lacks any sort of content that you could draw a conclusion from. It lacks SO much context that whether or not to infract such a like would rely solely on the personal internet experience of the moderator.

So again, unless you actually write a comprehensive guide on what the like-feature is meant for (which would again be a ridiculous level of overregulation), and explain exactly how moderators are going to interpret a like, that you're only allowed to like a post if you agree with its message (at which point you should REALLY rename it to "I agree", because that doesn't have anything to do with "liking" a post anymore), and that you're held responsible if you like a clearly sarcastic post that is later subject to moderation, then it's bound to end up with infractions for people who did not intend to break any rules, who did not do anything that objectively hurt a conversation, who only pushed a button that is now subject of being interpreted via "moderator discretion" - you're interpreting his interpretation of the post based on the push of a button.

It's like there's a person voting for Trump and then there's two people making assumptions on his motives based solely on that fact. One says "What a racist!", the other one says: "He cares about trade deals and doesn't want yet another establishment candidate." And both, or one of these observations may be correct, or none of them may be correct. We don't know about his motives, but you're his boss firing him for being a racist because that's the conclusion you've drawn from living in an echo chamber that makes you think voting for Trump automatically equals racism.

It just doesn't make sense, your whole argument is based on the idea that there's one "right" way to use the like feature and that every other way is wrong.

Oh and the argument that there's cases where the conclusion is obvious... yeah sure, there's some, and I wouldn't have that much of a problem with that idea were the style of moderation in these forums not "If I'm able to see this as worthy of an infraction, then I'll probably give an infraction!", instead of being based on doing it the other way around. It is the same reason for why a moderator concludes that saying "I disagreed with some of the infractions I received, that's why I left." by itself as an honest response to the question asked by another user may be reasonably considered PDMA worthy of an infraction that will make moderators interpret the "not so obvious" cases in the worst possible way.

(Wow, either my auto-correct doesn't work of I've typed that whole text in an external editor without a single typo)

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Camikazi: Ryika's use of "over regulation" is the right word selection. If a post is worthy of an infraction because it violates the basics of courteous discussion, then that post should be infracted. Those infractions may or may not actually improve the discussion, but moderator intervention would seem appropriate. It is the inappropriate post(s) that deserves moderator attention. The "like", which could come minutes, hours, days or even weeks later, should not be infracted for all the reasons Ryika has laid out. There might be some very small percentage of "likes" where the intent is to show support for a despicable idea. If you or some other mod can actually determine that, then it should be the exception and not the rule. Adding a "like" button shouldn't call for any changes in the rules. Don't over regulate. It makes the staff look petty and vindictive.

 

[Agent327]

Can't have that.

It's not a real life conversation, it's not a person standing up, saying, "I agree with what this person has said!", it's a person pushing a like-button. I don't know what internet places you frequent, but in the ones I visit a like of such a post could have dozens of meanings.

"I liked the post because it made me laugh."
"I liked the post because it was so inappropriate it's hilarious."
"I liked the post because I agree."
"I liked the post because I wanted to be ironic."
"I liked the post because it was clear to me that he was being sarcastic."
"I liked the post because I wanted to seem edgy."
"I liked the post because <insert more reasons here>"

"I liked the post because I can"

(Wow, either my auto-correct doesn't work of I've typed that whole text in an external editor without a single typo)

If only you hadn't added that last sentence...

 

[BvBPL]

Presuming to punish a user for liking a post, even the most hate-filled and repugnant post possible, is absurd because it is so easy to accidently like a post. Liking is a one-click operation with little feedback. A user may well like a post in error without even noticing that he did so.

 

[Agent327]

It is indeed right next to +Quote. Which I understand is a frequently used button.

 

[Camikaze]

@Ryika - you're again not disagreeing with the underlying premise, but simply providing other examples of where the objective meaning of the like may not be in breach of the forum rules. Notice that I used the word 'may' in the "All Australians should be murdered" example, and said that it would of course be subject to the circumstances, i.e. the context. If it were a non-serious thread, and the post were made non-seriously, then although the post itself would still be contrary to the forum rules, it is highly unlikely that the 'like' would be. But if the thread were completely serious, and there was no indication that the post itself were a joke, and the 'like' came from a poster who had been told on multiple occasions to cease expressing murderous intent towards Australians, then we'd be entitled to draw an objective inference from the relevant circumstances, rather than allowing a loophole through which the poster in question can do precisely what they have been told not to do. The possibility in such a circumstance that other subjective meanings could be given to the communication would not obviate the objective meaning that is in fact attached to the communication, and to which the poster will be held.

Of course, I was addressing the theoretical possibility of the application of the principle to the 'inappropriate content' rules, not the likelihood of that application. This is simply a logical conclusion flowing from the basic proposition that a 'like' is a form of communication carrying an objective meaning. You have not disagreed with that proposition. You have simply highlighted instances in which the objective meaning would be other than rule-breaking. I'd note that you've also admitted as such by saying that there will, of course, be instances in which a certain conclusion is obvious, but that your concern is rather that any power given to moderators might be overused. If you stand by that statement, then I really don't think you disagree with what I'm saying nearly as much as you're making yourself out to.

It should be mentioned that your objections seem to equally apply to any form of communication; the gist of your argument is that moderators can't possibly objectively interpret and instance of communication which is open to interpretation. That's an interesting position to take, but doesn't really further a discussion of how forum rules on an internet forum moderated by moderators should be applied. Just as we don't have a comprehensive list of all the possible instances of trolling that a poster might engage in (despite periodic requests for such a list), we also wouldn't see any necessity in providing a comprehensive list of all the instances in which liking a post may be trolling. In both cases, such a list would be impossible to formulate, because the objective meaning flowing from any form of communication is dependent upon the context. There are definitely certain contexts in which trolling is far more likely to be discernible, but it would not be possible to authoritatively set out all those contexts. We rely upon posters acting somewhat like the notional reasonable forum member, through whose eyes we interpret the forms of communication that are mediated by the forum software.

The marginal harm of a 'like' is probably going to be quite minimal in most circumstances. But the 'I agree' example is instructive again. It is easily conceivable that people piling onto an insult will fortify that insult. If a poster were to simply quote an insult and post 'I agree', then it might be said that the agreeing poster isn't adding anything novel, and all the insulting work has been done by the first post. But in reality, the fact that another poster has stated their agreement will compound the insult felt by the poster to whom it's directed. A 'like' may, in particular circumstances, cause the same effect.

It is also the case that, if many people 'like' a post of someone who you are disagreeing with in a discussion, that will increase the sense in which you feel people are disagreeing with you. That's a pretty obvious side effect of the like system (and if anything, demonstrates the above point re insults quite well). But again, there's nothing rule-breaking about five people disagreeing with one poster in a thread, whether that's by way of posting arguments themselves, or by liking an argument that has already been made. We do not consider mere disagreement to be an issue for civil and productive discussion, although it may discourage those who do not wish to be disagreed with.

More directly to the point of perpetuating the toxicity of a discussion, it might be considered in some circumstances that a 'like' is egging on a rule-breaking discussion. That's a fairly obvious way in which a 'like' might contribute to the breakdown of civil and productive discussion.

@Birdjaguar and @Ryika - I think you're mistaking the theoretical argument as to the logical possibility of a 'like' being a rule-breaking communication, for an approach which would heavily scrutinise all 'likes'. My original point in addressing this issue was that there's no theoretical reason why a 'like' should be exempt from the forum rules which apply to all other forms of public communication. I have not been meaning to imply that the circumstances in which a 'like' will actually carry such a rule-breaking objective meaning will be frequent. The focus would not be on finding 'likes' to which we can attach sanctions, but rather to ensure that the 'like' system is not being used as a way around the forum rules to e.g. troll and insult other posters. If it is used in such a manner, we would want to reserve the right to intervene, rather than pretend that a 'like' couldn't possibly have any sort of objective meaning.

@BvBPL - similar issues can arise in relation to e.g. inappropriate content. We've had situations before where a poster has been infracted for posting pornography, but it's actually been a complete accident accused by hotlinking to a site which doesn't take kindly to hotlinking. Such issues are easily resolved in communication with the moderator. Given the circumstances in which a 'like' would be rule-breaking are quite narrow, and given that conclusion is very contextual, it would be quite unlikely that a poster would face some sanction for accidentally hitting a specific button in precisely the circumstances which would indicate the wrong objective meaning.

Keep in mind as well that a warning (which, perhaps more accurately, all 'infractions' are now termed) is, by its nature, not a punishment. It contributes towards a punishment, i.e. a ban.

 

[Ryika]

@Ryika - you're again not disagreeing with the underlying premise, but simply providing other examples of where the objective meaning of the like may not be in breach of the forum rules. Notice that I used the word 'may' in the "All Australians should be murdered" example, and said that it would of course be subject to the circumstances, i.e. the context. If it were a non-serious thread, and the post were made non-seriously, then although the post itself would still be contrary to the forum rules, it is highly unlikely that the 'like' would be. But if the thread were completely serious, and there was no indication that the post itself were a joke, and the 'like' came from a poster who had been told on multiple occasions to cease expressing murderous intent towards Australians, then we'd be entitled to draw an objective inference from the relevant circumstances, rather than allowing a loophole through which the poster in question can do precisely what they have been told not to do. The possibility in such a circumstance that other subjective meanings could be given to the communication would not obviate the objective meaning that is in fact attached to the communication, and to which the poster will be held.

Of course, I was addressing the theoretical possibility of the application of the principle to the 'inappropriate content' rules, not the likelihood of that application. This is simply a logical conclusion flowing from the basic proposition that a 'like' is a form of communication carrying an objective meaning. You have not disagreed with that proposition. You have simply highlighted instances in which the objective meaning would be other than rule-breaking. I'd note that you've also admitted as such by saying that there will, of course, be instances in which a certain conclusion is obvious, but that your concern is rather that any power given to moderators might be overused. If you stand by that statement, then I really don't think you disagree with what I'm saying nearly as much as you're making yourself out to.

No, I do in fact not disagree with the idea that there will be instances where it's obvious to the neutral observer that a like is a direct agreement with the message. Having for example a person who is scratching the border of what is acceptable before then liking a direct insult against the same person made by another poster would be such a case, and even if there were some other reason for that like it would still be an entirely reasonable assumption that has a very high likelihood of being accurate.

My point is the idea that the "harm" done by somebody liking a post that is an obvious insult and the likelihood of that even being an issue are so minor that I do not think even having such a rule makes any sense on the most basic level. Most cases would not be that cut and dry, and for a person to be able to like a post that ends with an "infraction-worthy like" there has to be an infraction already in place, so the scenario of people liking obvious insults becoming a common issue is literally impossible as long as the action of insulting somebody is being punished correctly.

It should be mentioned that your objections seem to equally apply to any form of communication; the gist of your argument is that moderators can't possibly objectively interpret and instance of communication which is open to interpretation. That's an interesting position to take, but doesn't really further a discussion of how forum rules on an internet forum moderated by moderators should be applied. Just as we don't have a comprehensive list of all the possible instances of trolling that a poster might engage in (despite periodic requests for such a list), we also wouldn't see any necessity in providing a comprehensive list of all the instances in which liking a post may be trolling. In both cases, such a list would be impossible to formulate, because the objective meaning flowing from any form of communication is dependent upon the context. There are definitely certain contexts in which trolling is far more likely to be discernible, but it would not be possible to authoritatively set out all those contexts. We rely upon posters acting somewhat like the notional reasonable forum member, through whose eyes we interpret the forms of communication that are mediated by the forum software.

Yes, the concept applies to any form of communication, the nuance is the level of guessing that is required due to missing information. Interpreting spoken word seeing a persons mimic is easier than interpreting spoken word without seeing the face, interpreting spoken word is easier and less likely to lead to mistakes than interpreting written word, and written word is easier to interpret than the push of a button.

The only thing that I can think of as being more difficult to interpret than the press of a button is inaction. "She didn't push the dislike-button, that means she endorses this abusive post that somebody else made. BANNED!"

So no, I still very much disagree with the concept of punishing the press of a button - and that argument didn't even include the technical problems, such as the fact that the push of the button may have been accidental. That's a huge difference, because you don't accidentally type and send an abusive post.

The marginal harm of a 'like' is probably going to be quite minimal in most circumstances. But the 'I agree' example is instructive again. It is easily conceivable that people piling onto an insult will fortify that insult. If a poster were to simply quote an insult and post 'I agree', then it might be said that the agreeing poster isn't adding anything novel, and all the insulting work has been done by the first post. But in reality, the fact that another poster has stated their agreement will compound the insult felt by the poster to whom it's directed. A 'like' may, in particular circumstances, cause the same effect.

It is also the case that, if many people 'like' a post of someone who you are disagreeing with in a discussion, that will increase the sense in which you feel people are disagreeing with you. That's a pretty obvious side effect of the like system (and if anything, demonstrates the above point re insults quite well). But again, there's nothing rule-breaking about five people disagreeing with one poster in a thread, whether that's by way of posting arguments themselves, or by liking an argument that has already been made. We do not consider mere disagreement to be an issue for civil and productive discussion, although it may discourage those who do not wish to be disagreed with.

There's "nothing rule-breaking" about anything until you write a rule against it. But if you want me to play devil's advocate, that's pretty easy: If mass-likes on a post have a negative effect on people not sharing that position while also not adding anything to the thread (after all, the trend is already visible), what is the argument against limiting the amounts of likes that a single post can have in relation to the other posts around so that the users who disagree don't have to feel marginalized? Why not create a rule that says: "If a post has X more likes than other posts in the same thread, responding to the same topic, you are not allowed to like that post, because that could be conceived as bullying by other users."?

That would most certainly lower the severity of the problem of having people feel bad during a discussion.

Now obviously the two are not the same, the fact that there a breach of the forum rules in one of the scenarios and not in the others makes them very different, but the mindset of the rule is the same. Nothing bad is actually being said by the person liking the post and all their action does is making the other person feel _slightly_ worse, and even that is only the case if the like is interpreted in a particular way. I would hope most people are emotionally mature enough that they can live through having somebody openly like an insult against them.

Hell, one could even make the argument that infracting people for liking the post adds legitimacy to the "additional insult" that has (not) been created by the like.

More directly to the point of perpetuating the toxicity of a discussion, it might be considered in some circumstances that a 'like' is egging on a rule-breaking discussion. That's a fairly obvious way in which a 'like' might contribute to the breakdown of civil and productive discussion.

Now you've even gone a step further. A like might >contribute< to the breakdown of civil and productive discussion? Yeah, sure, but so could any post, including ones that do not break the rules in any way. Just agreeing with the opinion of the person bordering a breach of rule may make him feel validated and push him into being more aggressive, or even the opposite case may be true - maybe the fact that yet another person disagrees with him makes him angry enough that he drops the ball. And of course telling him to "Hey, come down, it's just a discussion." is also not an option, because that too may make him more angry, and then a moderator is probably going go give extra points for "backdoor moderation", because "Don't mediate - call the cops!".

So if that were handled in the same interpretative way I wouldn't be allowed to take part in that discussion at all and may get an infraction if there's a causal relationship between my post and him breaking the rules - even if that was not in no way my intent. Thankfully stuff is not handled that way which leads back to the same issue again, that you simply cannot draw a conclusion from a like.

While a post written in text may be formulated in a way that it objectively pushes the discussion into a more negative area, a like can never do that, because it carries no objective meaning, it's the way the like is interpreted by the people within the discussion that changes the tone, not the like.

The focus would not be on finding 'likes' to which we can attach sanctions, but rather to ensure that the 'like' system is not being used as a way around the forum rules to e.g. troll and insult other poster

That's a nice thing to say, but I don't believe that this is how it would play out. Again, I've had a discussion with a moderator recently where he specifically told me that "Some (infractions) I found reasonable, some I disagreed with so heavily that I realized that I'm not going to enjoy my stay in the subforum." as an answer to a question asked by another user is bodering PDMA and may be worthy of an infraction, and that I should avoid mentioning that I disagreed with past infractions, even as an abstract sentence without referring to specific examples.

That's the ridiculous level to which the rules are pushed. PDMA, which is meant to avoid discussions of moderator actions, is brought forward as a reason for why it may not be appropriate to truthfully answer a question, even when done within a neutral context ("I did not agree with the infractions, so I left." instead of "The infractions were dumb, so I left.") and clearly without the intent to discuss specific moderator actions. Were the forum moderation actually based on "The rules are there to allow us to punish people who behave badly, not to interpret them so we can punish non-crimes without ill-intent." the only correct response to that situation would be to not give an infraction and maybe put a warning into that thread to please not get side-tracked into PDMA.

But that's not what happens, so forgive me when I don't believe that the "It's just a rule that's meant to cover our backs in the worst case scenario" is actually how that whole thing would play out.

And I mean you even discredit the whole concept of the rule in this part:

We've had situations before where a poster has been infracted for posting pornography, but it's actually been a complete accident accused by hotlinking to a site which doesn't take kindly to hotlinking. Such issues are easily resolved in communication with the moderator. Given the circumstances in which a 'like' would be rule-breaking are quite narrow, and given that conclusion is very contextual, it would be quite unlikely that a poster would face some sanction for accidentally hitting a specific button in precisely the circumstances which would indicate the wrong objective meaning.

If that's actually how that plays out then no such infraction will ever stick. The user would claim an accident and then the infraction gets removed. Unless of course you have the right to overrule his claim and make a claim of your own, namely that you know better than him whether he pushed that button by accident or not at which point that whole "It's just to cover our back!"-thing was a farce to begin with.

It's a rule that you can't enforce, it's a situation that is likely to not occur very often if at all, when it occurs the likelihood of it having a big impact is very small and it cannot become a big problem because the trigger that enables this is already against the rules. And it's petty as hell.

Overall I also don't see the need for the rule. What prevents you from just contacting the approximately one individual that will ever manage to aggressively hammer the like-button in a way that the text "<user> likes this." fuels the flames so much that all hell breaks loose and ask him to please stop it? There is already a rule that allows "moderator discretion" aka "If all else fails we can do whatever we feel we need to do to get you under control.", this seems like the perfect theoretical case to make use of it if the user is actually having a real impact and is unwilling to cease doing what he does.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's a rule that you can't enforce, it's a situation that is likely to not occur very often if at all, when it occurs the likelihood of it having a big impact is very small and it cannot become a big problem because the trigger that enables this is already against the rules. And it's petty as hell.

Overall I also don't see the need for the rule. What prevents you from just contacting the approximately one individual that will ever manager to aggressively hammer the like-button in a way that the text "<user> likes this." fuels the flames so much that all hell breaks loose and ask him to please stop it? There is already a rule that allows "moderator discretion" aka "If all else fails we can do whatever we feel we need to do to get you under control.", this seems like the perfect theoretical case to make use of it if the user is actually having a real impact and is unwilling to cease doing what he does.

Exactly. an excellent post, thank you. No rule is needed. Moderators already have all the necessary tools to deal with such a situation. More rules do not improve moderation. Better judgment does. Reliance on adding rules is the opposite of showing good judgment. The moderator solution to the liking of a hateful post is pretty simple: infract the hateful post and send a pm to the liker and ask if their intent was to support the hateful position. Asking such a question will most likely get them to either unlike the post or provide an explanation.

 

[Camikaze]

It seems you both agree that yes, a 'like' is a form of communication that is capable of conveying an objective meaning, and yes, that objective meaning may conceivably amount to e.g. trolling, and yes, it could conceivably be appropriate against someone who is using the 'like' system in a rule-breaking manner. The difference of opinion seems largely to be in whether these agreed facts should be in some way set out within the forum rules, or whether we should just rely upon the existing rules in those situations in which we take some form of action against a 'like' (such as sending a PM to a poster who has liked a post in such a way as to convey an objective meaning in breach of the forum rules). Personally I'm not overly fussed with which way we go, but I do incline towards the view that transparency in the rules is preferable to hiding the fact that the rules may be applicable to the 'like' system. I don't see the harm in setting out, within the forum rules, that those forum rules are also applicable to the 'like' system. I don't see the harm on further elaborating on that point within the forum rules, either. Indeed, I would note that this would be in keeping with Ryika's suggestion that we set out comprehensively the situations in which a 'like' would be unacceptable. The argument seems to be that, if we cannot have such a list comprehensively set out, then we shouldn't have any indication in the rules whatsoever that the forum rules will also be applied to 'likes'. I can't say I agree that we should incorporate the 'like' system within the scheme of the forum rules, with no indication for the notional reasonable user who diligently reads the forum rules.

In other words, whether the fact that a 'like' may attract some form of warning is explicitly stated within the rules or not, doesn't change that fact, once it's been accepted, as it has been, that there will be situations in which such warning would be appropriate. And that now appears to be all that you're really disagreeing about.

To respond to other specific points raised by Ryika, it's quite conceivable that you could accidentally post something offensive or insulting, particularly now that the forum software saves draft replies. It's not unheard of for people to think better of making a particular post after they've typed it out, and it only takes an unnoticed press of a button for the poster's subjective intention to then be defeated. That, of course, doesn't change the objective meaning attaching to that post. On the more general point you're raising through that example, it's entirely possible that a particular post will be more difficult to interpret against the forum rules, than a particular 'like'. As you stated, there will be an 'obvious' objective intention attaching to the 'like' of a person near the borderline of directly attacking a poster, of a post which actually crosses that line to insult that poster. In other circumstances, interpreting a 'like' will be much more difficult. But there's no logical reason why all posts containing words are necessarily easier to interpret than all 'likes', just as there's no logical reason why all statements made by a person standing directly in front of you are necessarily easier to interpret than an internet post. Certainly you're more likely to have an easier time interpreting the statement of a person standing directly in front of you, but that's only relevant as a question of the degree of certainty necessary before drawing an objective inference, not to the possibility of drawing an objective inference at all, as you have conceded.

The example of a rule which prevents too many people from liking a post, in order to prevent someone else from feeling about too many people disagreeing with them, is again not an apt comparison, as it's again ignoring that mere disagreement is not seen as problematic under our forum rules. Seeing mere disagreement as problematic would be entire rationale behind any such rule. The marginal harm of a person liking a post which is an insult, for example, is therefore not commensurate to any marginal harm caused by a person feeling that more people disagree with them; in the former case the harm is against the forum rules, whereas in the latter case it is not.

Rarely is it the case that any one communication can be blamed entirely for the breakdown of civil and productive discussion. Typically it's a number of posts which contribute to that breakdown. The fact that such posts are mere contributions, does mean exempt them from sanction. Likewise, it does not logically follow from the fact that a 'like' would be a mere contribution to the breakdown of civil and productive discussion, and not the sole cause of that breakdown, that a 'like' should not be susceptible to moderation. Of course, the fact that a communication contributes to the breakdown of civil and productive discussion is not determinative; that someone has responded uncivilly to a post that they subjectively perceived as a provocation, does not mean that the post to which they are responding can objectively be perceived as a provocation, or in any way rule-breaking. We still look for the meaning as perceived by a notional reasonable forum member. But the communication need not be something more than a 'mere contribution', if it carries the requisite objective meaning.

I'm not seeing the relevance of your dislike of PDMA rules. Those rules have certain criteria, namely that there been some sort of public 'discussion' (which incorporates a wide range of communications, including a mention accompanied by some value judgment), and some form of moderator action or inaction. Likewise, the trolling rules have certain criteria, namely that the post be the type of post that is reasonably likely to draw a negative reaction from a notional reasonable forum member. The fact that the criteria in the case of the latter rule-breaking offence are more evaluative than in the former case is a pretty relevant difference. If rules surrounding the 'like' system were framed in a similarly evaluative way, the concern you articulate here would not be present.

It's actually not all that difficult to make a reasonable guess at whether or not someone is coming up with a specious excuse in response to a warning or not, and typically users don't even try to come up with a specious excuse, because they'd rather address the merits of the warning on the basis of the facts as they see them, rather than coming up with some false reasoning. There will be cases in which we're unsure and will give the benefit of the doubt, and there will be cases that the excuse given is not convincing enough so as to create any doubt, the benefit of which could then be given.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Exactly. an excellent post, thank you. No rule is needed. Moderators already have all the necessary tools to deal with such a situation. More rules do improve moderation. Better judgment does. Reliance on adding rules is the opposite of showing good judgment. The moderator solution to the liking of a hateful post is pretty simple: infract the hateful post and send a pm to the liker and ask if their intent was to support the hateful position. Asking such a question will most likely get them to either unlike the post or provide an explanation.

I've had occasional run-ins with staff on various forums who decided they knew better than I did what I really meant, or what my intentions were, and some of those dictatorial speeches are liberally peppered with words that on CFC would trip the autocensor. It shouldn't be too much of a surprise that those are staff for whom I don't have a lot of respect. So it would be a good thing if there were more instances of working with the poster instead of dictating.

It seems you both agree that yes, a 'like' is a form of communication that is capable of conveying an objective meaning, and yes, that objective meaning may conceivably amount to e.g. trolling, and yes, it could conceivably be appropriate against someone who is using the 'like' system in a rule-breaking manner. The difference of opinion seems largely to be in whether these agreed facts should be in some way set out within the forum rules, or whether we should just rely upon the existing rules in those situations in which we take some form of action against a 'like' (such as sending a PM to a poster who has liked a post in such a way as to convey an objective meaning in breach of the forum rules). Personally I'm not overly fussed with which way we go, but I do incline towards the view that transparency in the rules is preferable to hiding the fact that the rules may be applicable to the 'like' system. I don't see the harm in setting out, within the forum rules, that those forum rules are also applicable to the 'like' system. I don't see the harm on further elaborating on that point within the forum rules, either. Indeed, I would note that this would be in keeping with Ryika's suggestion that we set out comprehensively the situations in which a 'like' would be unacceptable. The argument seems to be that, if we cannot have such a list comprehensively set out, then we shouldn't have any indication in the rules whatsoever that the forum rules will also be applied to 'likes'. I can't say I agree that we should incorporate the 'like' system within the scheme of the forum rules, with no indication for the notional reasonable user who diligently reads the forum rules.

"Notional"? Definition, please.

To respond to other specific points raised by Ryika, it's quite conceivable that you could accidentally post something offensive or insulting, particularly now that the forum software saves draft replies. It's not unheard of for people to think better of making a particular post after they've typed it out, and it only takes an unnoticed press of a button for the poster's subjective intention to then be defeated. That, of course, doesn't change the objective meaning attaching to that post.

This is not something that's new now. I have my preferences set for instant emails when new replies are made to subscribed posts, and there have been a few really vitriolic posts that have come through. The decision to delete the post doesn't alter the fact that the post was made, submitted, and the target read it.

The example of a rule which prevents too many people from liking a post, in order to prevent someone else from feeling about too many people disagreeing with them, is again not an apt comparison, as it's again ignoring that mere disagreement is not seen as problematic under our forum rules. Seeing mere disagreement as problematic would be entire rationale behind any such rule. The marginal harm of a person liking a post which is an insult, for example, is therefore not commensurate to any marginal harm caused by a person feeling that more people disagree with them; in the former case the harm is against the forum rules, whereas in the latter case it is not.

I don't see a problem with a normal, inoffensive post garnering as many "likes" as there are posters willing to give.

Rarely is it the case that any one communication can be blamed entirely for the breakdown of civil and productive discussion. Typically it's a number of posts which contribute to that breakdown. The fact that such posts are mere contributions, does mean exempt them from sanction. Likewise, it does not logically follow from the fact that a 'like' would be a mere contribution to the breakdown of civil and productive discussion, and not the sole cause of that breakdown, that a 'like' should not be susceptible to moderation. Of course, the fact that a communication contributes to the breakdown of civil and productive discussion is not determinative; that someone has responded uncivilly to a post that they subjectively perceived as a provocation, does not mean that the post to which they are responding can objectively be perceived as a provocation, or in any way rule-breaking. We still look for the meaning as perceived by a notional reasonable forum member. But the communication need not be something more than a 'mere contribution', if it carries the requisite objective meaning.

I think people who have been around here for awhile know that targeted trolling happens. There have been cases on this forum where the trolling was very specific, and very maliciously directed at one specific person, while other people unaware of the circumstances of that poster's history wouldn't understand at all why the troll post was a deliberate provocation. You can't just automatically assume that the "notional reasonable poster" is right. They just may not have all the facts necessary to recognize an obvious provocation.

I'm not seeing the relevance of your dislike of PDMA rules. Those rules have certain criteria, namely that there been some sort of public 'discussion' (which incorporates a wide range of communications, including a mention accompanied by some value judgment), and some form of moderator action or inaction. Likewise, the trolling rules have certain criteria, namely that the post be the type of post that is reasonably likely to draw a negative reaction from a notional reasonable forum member. The fact that the criteria in the case of the latter rule-breaking offence are more evaluative than in the former case is a pretty relevant difference. If rules surrounding the 'like' system were framed in a similarly evaluative way, the concern you articulate here would not be present.

The PDMA rules are so vague here that I could hypothetically type any moderator's name, plus a verb, and be infracted (since verbs are action words). Something like "Padma likes Dorsai novels" is, by the current definition of the rules, PDMA - even though it has absolutely nothing to do with any moderator-related action or inaction or decision made by Padma. The rules have got to be made less vague and open to "creative interpretation."

It's actually not all that difficult to make a reasonable guess at whether or not someone is coming up with a specious excuse in response to a warning or not, and typically users don't even try to come up with a specious excuse, because they'd rather address the merits of the warning on the basis of the facts as they see them, rather than coming up with some false reasoning. There will be cases in which we're unsure and will give the benefit of the doubt, and there will be cases that the excuse given is not convincing enough so as to create any doubt, the benefit of which could then be given.

Convincing to whom, though? The hypothetical "reasonable person" may see things very differently from how the poster sees them. For example, anyone trying to use pop culture references to "correct" me is apt to get typed at very loudly (in other words, yelled at), because much of what seems "reasonable" to the average American poster with regard to pop culture just flies over my head. It's pointless to use metaphors and references to TV shows and movies if the target hasn't even heard of them.

I'm reminded of an incident on TrekBBS where some people (after several years of not noticing it before) suddenly decided to complain about a line in my sig: "Let's give it to Riker. He'll eat anything!". Someone of my generation would instantly recognize that as a reference to the old cereal commercials in which a little boy named Mikey "won't eat it - he hates everything." However, the conclusion the younger forum members there jumped to was not that this was simultaneously poking fun at a fictitious character who enjoys trying alien cuisine while parodying an old TV commercial, but rather body-shaming Jonathan Frakes, who played the TV character. Which side has the "notional reasonable posters"? I hadn't known that Frakes had put on weight since the final Next Generation movie. Yet I suddenly had a dozen people typing out angry posts, accusing me of making fun of his current body.

 

[Ryika]

It seems you both agree that yes, a 'like' is a form of communication that is capable of conveying an objective meaning, and yes, that objective meaning may conceivably amount to e.g. trolling, and yes, it could conceivably be appropriate against someone who is using the 'like' system in a rule-breaking manner.

No, I do not agree that "a 'like' is a form of communication that is capable of conveying an objective meaning" or that "that objective meaning may conceivably amount to e.g. trolling" under any reasonable definition. I agree that you could make rules that make it so pushing the Agree-Button would fall under the forum's definition of what is a punishable offense, but that would not make it so it is now objectively trolling. All it is is saying: "We have a rule that says we consider this trolling." - which again you can do for everything. "We have a rule that says disagreeing with another post is considered trolling." and suddenly you have a forum where the OP decides in which direction the conversation goes.

But that does not change the fact that pushing the like button cannot convey objective meaning, because the use of the like-button is not restricted to posts agreeing with what has been said. Everybody uses the like-button differently depending on their character, where they've been on the internet, etc. etc. I mean, the most obvious example is actually the fact that some of the people who like the like-feature have liked some of my posts in this very thread. Why did they do that? Did they want to be sarcastic? Did they appreciate that I defended my position even though they disagree with me? We cannot know unless they actually make a post, saying "Yeah, we may disagree, but I see where you're coming from." or whatever else to explain their intentions.

And that's the difference to language, words have meanings that we have defined, so when somebody says: "You're a ******* ****** ****!" (I just pressed on a random amount of stars there) then that has a pseudo-objective meaning that we as people who use the same language for the most part agree upon. And even in language where we do our best to have an objective framework that doesn't work without flaws.

The difference of opinion seems largely to be in whether these agreed facts should be in some way set out within the forum rules, or whether we should just rely upon the existing rules in those situations in which we take some form of action against a 'like' (such as sending a PM to a poster who has liked a post in such a way as to convey an objective meaning in breach of the forum rules). Personally I'm not overly fussed with which way we go, but I do incline towards the view that transparency in the rules is preferable to hiding the fact that the rules may be applicable to the 'like' system. I don't see the harm in setting out, within the forum rules, that those forum rules are also applicable to the 'like' system. I don't see the harm on further elaborating on that point within the forum rules, either. Indeed, I would note that this would be in keeping with Ryika's suggestion that we set out comprehensively the situations in which a 'like' would be unacceptable. The argument seems to be that, if we cannot have such a list comprehensively set out, then we shouldn't have any indication in the rules whatsoever that the forum rules will also be applied to 'likes'. I can't say I agree that we should incorporate the 'like' system within the scheme of the forum rules, with no indication for the notional reasonable user who diligently reads the forum rules.

No, in my opinion you should not incorporate the like system within the forum rules at all. Let people like what they want, and if there ever happens to be an individual who is liking tons of posts that are against the rules and is pursuing and achieving the goal of upsetting people contact him and ask him to please stop it. I literally mean _contact him_ here, not give him an infraction. If he continues, that's when it's time for an infraction for ignoring moderator warnings.

In other words, whether the fact that a 'like' may attract some form of warning is explicitly stated within the rules or not, doesn't change that fact, once it's been accepted, as it has been, that there will be situations in which such warning would be appropriate. And that now appears to be all that you're really disagreeing about.

No, once again I disagree with this. As I stated in my very first post on this topic, a like should in my opinion NEVER be subject to any sort of infraction. And it's just the push of a button, no harm is being done, no conversation being derailed. Nothing. The only time when liking posts should ever be subject to any sort of reaction is the theoretical case detailed above, a person has made it their goal to like tons of posts that are inflammatory and actually somehow manages to get people to react to that. That's when trolling starts, not when somebody pushes a button without any context.

And I mean, it's not like such a rule would be the end of the problems. What if there's a post that is bordering towards being against the rules but also has a message that I really agree with. How would I figure out whether I am allowed to like that post or not? Do I just wait and see whether the post gets an infraction? No wait, that wouldn't work, because I once got an infraction for a post weeks after posting it. I certainly can't rely on hoping that if the post my like is not going to get an infraction either because that's again not how the moderation works in these forums. So do I just no longer like posts that could on some level be considered to be against the rules at all? Or do I like the post and then create my own post: "I liked this post because I agree with the message, please do not understand it as an endorsement of the way the message is conveyed."?

All such a rule really does is shift the border towards muddy waters and bring up more questions for normal users when it's so easy to just not have a rule against something as petty as liking a post.

To respond to other specific points raised by Ryika, it's quite conceivable that you could accidentally post something offensive or insulting, particularly now that the forum software saves draft replies. It's not unheard of for people to think better of making a particular post after they've typed it out, and it only takes an unnoticed press of a button for the poster's subjective intention to then be defeated. That, of course, doesn't change the objective meaning attaching to that post.

That's not "accidental", that's negligent. A person cannot accidentally type "You're a ****** ****** *** *** *** *!", a person can deliberately type it and then accidentally send it. The meaning of what you have written stays the same.

You CAN accidentally push a button and have other people construct meaning around it, because clicking the button does not carry any meaning in itself, it is only created by context.

On the more general point you're raising through that example, it's entirely possible that a particular post will be more difficult to interpret against the forum rules, than a particular 'like'. As you stated, there will be an 'obvious' objective intention attaching to the 'like' of a person near the borderline of directly attacking a poster, of a post which actually crosses that line to insult that poster.

No, you're wrong here, this is not logically consistent and completely unjust.

If you realize that a post is in the grey area and must be interpreted to come to a conclusion, then you must also realize that the person reacting to that post had to make the same interpretation - and he may have come to the conclusion that the post is within the rules, which would not make them "cross that line to insult that poster".

To interpret whether a post is against the rules you must interpret that post and come to a conclusion.
To interpret whether a reaction to a post that may or may not be against the rules you must interpret the post and come to a conclusion before interpreting the reaction to that post and come to yet another conclusion.

You're just leaving out the first part and for some reason presuming that the person leaving the reaction to the post totally knew that it was against the rule which you just cannot conclude without evaluating the post first.

There's an easy way to logically prove that you have to interpret the post first:
If you interpret the post to fall within the rules, then his reaction to a post (pushing the like-button) is automatically validated as not being against the rules either, because in any case the rules do allow you to like posts that fall within the rules, that's what the button is for. So you clearly have to establish the status of the post itself before you can start interpreting his post.

Otherwise there's 4 outcomes here:
The post was against the rule, the poster should have reasonably known that.
The post was against the rule, but it's realistic that he interpreted it as falling within the rules.
The post was not against the rules, the person reacting did nothing wrong.
The post was not against the rules, but the person reacting still gets an infraction for liking a post that was not deemed appropriate.

The fourth outcome is fundamentally unjust and clearly shows that it cannot be easier to interpret a reaction to a thing than the actual thing.

Also:
"As you stated, there will be an 'obvious' objective intention attaching to the 'like' of a person near the borderline of directly attacking a poster"

No, I do not think I have said that. The one thing I have said similar to this is that if a post is so clearly nothing but in insult that it is nearly impossible to interpret it any other way, then any like added to that post also has a high likelihood to fall into the same category. It's likelihood is lower, but still very high.

This is consistent with what I said above, because the initial interpretation of the original statement as a basis is so extremely one-sided, which is by definition different from anything that could be considered >>bordering<< being worthy of an infraction.

In other circumstances, interpreting a 'like' will be much more difficult. But there's no logical reason why all posts containing words are necessarily easier to interpret than all 'likes', just as there's no logical reason why all statements made by a person standing directly in front of you are necessarily easier to interpret than an internet post. Certainly you're more likely to have an easier time interpreting the statement of a person standing directly in front of you, but that's only relevant as a question of the degree of certainty necessary before drawing an objective inference, not to the possibility of drawing an objective inference at all, as you have conceded.

I think we're using two different versions of the words "easier"/"more difficult" here.

A post that contains a lot of words may be more difficult to interpret than a like in the sense that it contains more information, making it more difficult to distill it down to it's essence, I agree with this.

A post that contains a lot of words can however never be more difficult to interpret than a like in the sense of arriving at a conclusion that matches reality as good as possible, because a like does not contain meaning. You have to fill the blanks with your information based on your own experience, and the blanks are huge if all the information is that the person clicked a button, meaning that your interpretation of a like can never be as accurate as your interpretation of a text within the same context.

/edit: Although you can of course misinterpret the meaning of the text, but that's a failure on the part of the person interpreting it and falls again the first category of "easier"/"more difficult".

And as a side note: It is also about what is _not_ being said in text.
Responding to a post that may border abuse with "I like this post." and pushing the button are two fundamentally different things, because "I like this post." for example will never mean "This post made me laugh.", because if that's what the person wanted to write then that's what the person would have written. Writing "I like this post." means exactly that - that the person likes the post. The like-button has no ability to convey that kind of nuance, so a person who wants to like a post that made them laugh may push the like-button just for that, even if the person doesn't actually like anything else about the post, including it's message.

This is again the disconnect between the meaning that you give the like-button and the meaning it actually has. If you want it to have that meaning, rename it and release a manual about how the button is meant to be used. You cannot simply add a like-button that is used differently all over the internet and then claim you can take to be in the position of what an objective user would understand the like as. Because such a user does not exist.

The example of a rule which prevents too many people from liking a post, in order to prevent someone else from feeling about too many people disagreeing with them, is again not an apt comparison, as it's again ignoring that mere disagreement is not seen as problematic under our forum rules. Seeing mere disagreement as problematic would be entire rationale behind any such rule. The marginal harm of a person liking a post which is an insult, for example, is therefore not commensurate to any marginal harm caused by a person feeling that more people disagree with them; in the former case the harm is against the forum rules, whereas in the latter case it is not.

Yes, and I said exactly that in my post, it's an example to compare the harm, not say it's the same thing.

Your formulation is interesting though, and I think it shows the basis of the disagreement:
"in the former case the harm is against the forum rules, whereas in the latter case it is not."

If the harm to the users is the same, then how is "It's against the rules." an argument? Moderation is about making sure people are not targeted by abuse and that conversations can go smoothly, not to zealously uphold a set of rules even in situation where it causes harm to users who did, when really thinking about what they did instead of how what they did is to be handled by the rules, nothing wrong. If the "harm" done in both cases is similar, then how can you on the one hand justify adding a like-feature, knowing that this kind of harm would be a side-effect and yet not add rules to restrict these side effects as much as possible but on the other hand say that it's not okay that this other thing causes the same kind of minor harm must totally be outruled?

Because again, liking a post that is against the rules is not currently against the rules. You want to create a new rule to make it be against the rules so the harm is prevented. But you do not want to create a rule so that other kind of harm is prevented, the only difference here is the possibility that likes may push the discussion into negative waters, but I think I have demonstrated in my last post that other things that are not against the rules can do that as well. So I think that's inconsistent, and the fact that one thing adds a like to something that is already against the rules does not fix this inconsistency, because rules are meant to prevent harm, not to be arbitrary created when the tools to prevent this harm - punishing the person sending the abuse and just contacting the few people who somehow manage to create a loophole - already exist. You want a rule against the rare situation where harm may be caused, but at the same time you want no rule for a situation where the same harm is caused more frequently.

(And I feel really silly for using the word "harm" to describe people realizing that somebody liked the post of another user.)

Rarely is it the case that any one communication can be blamed entirely for the breakdown of civil and productive discussion. Typically it's a number of posts which contribute to that breakdown. The fact that such posts are mere contributions, does mean exempt them from sanction. Likewise, it does not logically follow from the fact that a 'like' would be a mere contribution to the breakdown of civil and productive discussion, and not the sole cause of that breakdown, that a 'like' should not be susceptible to moderation. Of course, the fact that a communication contributes to the breakdown of civil and productive discussion is not determinative; that someone has responded uncivilly to a post that they subjectively perceived as a provocation, does not mean that the post to which they are responding can objectively be perceived as a provocation, or in any way rule-breaking. We still look for the meaning as perceived by a notional reasonable forum member. But the communication need not be something more than a 'mere contribution', if it carries the requisite objective meaning.

But a like cannot do that. The only situation where a like can definitely be interpreted that way is when the conversation has already reached the state of objective insults and not much else, in any other case a like can carry a whole host of meanings and it is not possible to interpret it to a point that even comes close to a sense of objectivity.

I'm not seeing the relevance of your dislike of PDMA rules. Those rules have certain criteria, namely that there been some sort of public 'discussion' (which incorporates a wide range of communications, including a mention accompanied by some value judgment), and some form of moderator action or inaction. Likewise, the trolling rules have certain criteria, namely that the post be the type of post that is reasonably likely to draw a negative reaction from a notional reasonable forum member. The fact that the criteria in the case of the latter rule-breaking offence are more evaluative than in the former case is a pretty relevant difference. If rules surrounding the 'like' system were framed in a similarly evaluative way, the concern you articulate here would not be present.

True, and this is again the fundamental disconnect here. At least when it comes to the topic of PDMA you seem to be very much of the mindset that rules must be interpreted in a way that anything that could be conceived of potentially breaking the rules must be punished as breaking the rules instead of interpreting the rules by factoring in intent and harm done. If a person's intent is to give a true answer to the question and then the conversation is likely to be on its normal way without people devolving into actual discussions about moderation, then there is absolutely no need for an infraction. And being able to interpret the rules in a very specific way to come to the conclusion that there's a vague sense of breaking the rules.

In my opinion the "value judgement"-part of that specific rule is an example for a vague nothingness that is just interpreted in whatever way it needs to be instead of actually being focused on the cases that matter - which makes sense if you want to make sure people cannot avoid rules by wiggling their way around them, but at the same time the moderators must then understand that that's what the rules are designed for and not go to all possible interpretations and instead start with the general question of: "Is this even worthy of an infraction?". There is no value judgement in the sense that matters in the example given - in the sense that the person is not saying: "That infraction was dumb, so I left.", the person specifically says they disagreed with some of their infractions - that's withholding a value judgement as much as reasonably possible within the boundaries of still being allowed to mention the actual reason for them leaving. A user who creates such a post has clearly gone through an effort to make it as neutral as they possibly can while still being able to answer that question in a context where creating PDMA is clearly not the intent.

And yet moderators would give an infraction for that just because they can. I can't think of a more obvious example of overpolicing.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It seems you both agree that yes, a 'like' is a form of communication that is capable of conveying an objective meaning, and yes, that objective meaning may conceivably amount to e.g. trolling, and yes, it could conceivably be appropriate against someone who is using the 'like' system in a rule-breaking manner. The difference of opinion seems largely to be in whether these agreed facts should be in some way set out within the forum rules, or whether we should just rely upon the existing rules in those situations in which we take some form of action against a 'like' (such as sending a PM to a poster who has liked a post in such a way as to convey an objective meaning in breach of the forum rules). Personally I'm not overly fussed with which way we go, but I do incline towards the view that transparency in the rules is preferable to hiding the fact that the rules may be applicable to the 'like' system. I don't see the harm in setting out, within the forum rules, that those forum rules are also applicable to the 'like' system. I don't see the harm on further elaborating on that point within the forum rules, either. Indeed, I would note that this would be in keeping with Ryika's suggestion that we set out comprehensively the situations in which a 'like' would be unacceptable. The argument seems to be that, if we cannot have such a list comprehensively set out, then we shouldn't have any indication in the rules whatsoever that the forum rules will also be applied to 'likes'. I can't say I agree that we should incorporate the 'like' system within the scheme of the forum rules, with no indication for the notional reasonable user who diligently reads the forum rules.

In other words, whether the fact that a 'like' may attract some form of warning is explicitly stated within the rules or not, doesn't change that fact, once it's been accepted, as it has been, that there will be situations in which such warning would be appropriate. And that now appears to be all that you're really disagreeing about.

Not at all. We are not in agreement. You cannot co-op me into your worldview. My position on rules is that no new rules are needed, because if a moderator feels the need to act they already have all the tools they need. The fact that you would even want to intervene when a person likes a post is the root of the problem. Your "adding a rule solution" compounds it. More rules just provide more entry points for intervention and infractions without any application of thought or judgment. At its core a "weighty" rule book is a disrespectful and creates an atmosphere of litigation and rules lawyering. If we were were all 12 year olds, you would have a better case. Over dependence upon rules just shows a lack of thoughtfulness and an inability to solve problems by talking. This is an internet website community of people who choose to be here because it is a friendly place. It is not a business or a government and nobody is going to sue anybody.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There are some cases where I would be very much opposed to a "like" being allowed to stand:

1. Advocating suicide
2. Advocating self-harm (cutting, illegal drugs)

I have seen both of these sorts of posts on this forum, and I can't imagine any circumstance whatsoever where it would be acceptable to allow a "like" to stand - these were instances of one poster telling another poster to kill/harm herself. This is, as I understand it, an offense that carries an automatic temp ban, so why on earth should a "like" be allowed to stand on such posts?

 

[Ryika]

If that's all the content of the post, then the post itself would not stay up. If it's part of the post, then moderators would <snip> the part of the post that advocates suicide.

As far as I can tell that already solves the issue.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If that's all the content of the post, then the post itself would not stay up. If it's part of the post, then moderators would <snip> the part of the post that advocates suicide.

As far as I can tell that already solves the issue.

You are exactly right.