Is it time for the agree and CMU buttons to go?

I'm adding comments split off from the Payet thread.

I have no problem with removing the buttons if that is a consensus.


  • edited January 2017
    There's a lot of tiresome things going on to be honest.

    Can I just ask why individuals constantly state that they are free to give their opinion, yet some opinions given by others are not quite as free to be expressed without some kind of forensic analysis and certain tone?
  • edited January 2017
    Who's not free to express their opinion?

    Name me one person who has been stopped from expressing their opinion, as long as they stay within site rules.

    That's in invitation to anyone - you, Luke or indeed the 3 (so far) people who have agreed with you.

  • edited January 2017
    I didn't say people weren't free to give their opinions. Clearly everybody is. I said certain opinions are not as freely expressed as others.

    Just a couple of things I've noticed on here this month. Nothing groundbreaking or terminal, but a few exchanges and posts I've been a bit uncomfortable with tbh.
  • You mean some opinions seem to be attracting quite a lot of disagreement?

    Nothing new in that.
  • Lukerz,

    If any of that is aimed at me, all I can say is that I assume that people who post in a forum are looking to enter into a debate.

    I don't assume people post in a forum to be ignored or to have their word santicifed beyond rebuke.

    Nobody's right to have an opinion ends with their own. Everybody has a right to an opinion, but everybody else has a right to have an opinion about that, and to respond within the site rules (and, which we all try very hard not to do, without being personal or nasty, even when we feel strongly about something).

    If I'm causing unpleasantness in the forum then I'm happy to step back, as perhaps I'm completely misunderstanding why people are posting in the first place, and it's for the most part a lovely place to be, something I wouldn't want to tarnish.

  • No need to step back jorderz.

    Just a bit of thought when debating not to come across as ridiculing, not aimed at you specifically, just a general thing from a whole host of posters that possibly don't mean it that way but it comes across differently at times.

    ;hug ;ok
  • edited January 2017

    In your role as either member or moderator, if there are things on the forum you think are 'not right' why haven't you brought them up either on the relevant threads or via PM?

    As to:
    I said certain opinions are not as freely expressed as others.
    I don't really understand what that means unless you are saying that some viewpoints get challenged more than others?

    But I don't see why that should be a 'thing'. Surely it just reflects how people think?
  • Grey - I'm bringing them up now. ;ok in the open.

    As I said nothing was worthy of moderation, just more a tone thing (I've done it myself in the past!) with posts as not to ridicule the post or poster.
  • It seems to me that whenever there is a minority viewpoint the people who express it feel that they are being victimised by the people in the majority. That has always been the case on here, be it BFS, the OS, the US Election, ITKs or Dimitri Payet.

    It's just unfortunate when one person happens to be in the minority opinion on more than one subject at a time, because then they feel like their opinion isn't valued.
  • True, but it's not that. It's the way some opinions are put forward. There can be a tone to it.

    Not talking about myself here. I enjoy being controversial if I genuinely believe the opinion (I don't just post it to play Devils advocate). ;wink

    Just seen some exchanges between other viewers, then a rather embarrassing 'agree' and 'CMU' tally almost showing a culture where a bunch of users have all contrived to hit the agree and CMU button and it can be quite demoralising to the user in question who is, after all, just posting an opinion.
  • Maybe it's worth removing the 'agree' and 'CMU' function

    After all it was brought in to stop users from posting that they agree and generating comments which aren't adding any new info to the debate but still happens anyway.
  • But isn't that exactly what I just described though? A minority opinion gets no agrees, people feel that they aren't listened to?

    Personally, I notice comments on both side of the argument that seem abrasive or sarcastic that are supported by other people and a stack of agree's.
  • Yes I see that Luke - the amount of agrees mounting up in the recent izwt difference of opinion on "sources" being an example
  • edited January 2017

    I can see how it might feel 'demoralising' (Lord knows, I've been on the 'wrong end' of an 'agree' blitz a fair few times) but clearly there is no contrivance. It's just that certain views resonate at times.

    I'm not sure what we can do to avoid it, or ameliorate it, but I'm open to suggestions.
  • we could have a cup of tea and some biscuits
  • edited January 2017
    Friday Swiss; ;beer or ;rose
  • But I think I know what you mean ;wink
  • edited January 2017
    I'll just step back in from self imposed excile for a moment if I may....

    The reason I left/leaving whatever isn't because certain people won't entertain in any shape or form that there is ITK information out there which is actually spot on and yes some people are party to some of it!!

    It was because it became abundantly clear once a user had posted an opinion piece on me about what they "thought" I was like and what I did, then a significant amount of people supported that or it cheered them up (?? Never got that mentality either what the heck is funny about it??)

    Therefore the users have spoken with their buttons, quite simple really and no point in hanging around at this time.


    (Blimey top of the page as well ;biggrin )
  • edited January 2017
    G - not saying it is premeditated, it clearly isn't. But a post that may address a user, generating several CMU's and agree's can only hurt the user in question IMO.

    I normally would not advocate the removal of the CMU/agree system as I benefit from it a lot ;wink but maybe worth looking at?

    I noticed it with a post about Suze recently and then to izzy.

    Not looking to cause issues, just thought good to address it, see what people think.
  • edited January 2017
    'G - not saying it is premeditated'

    tbh I would argue that some of it is, unfortunately.

    Does feel that some sides that were formed in the bfs days still remain
  • rav, I started to type ;nonono Really?

    But then I thought about it, and I think you may be right (to a very very small degree) ;hmm

    I do sometimes wonder if clicks are given to 'mates' as a show of support rather than to the comment itself. Maybe I'm being unfair - maybe it goes back to what alderz said about how the Agree/CMU tallies can rankle if you feel you are being ganged up on?

    Personally, I'd have no issues with the two buttons being removed.

    (Note, we did have a real case in the past of users getting together and engaging in 'button attacks' on individuals, but those particular members have left the site.)

  • (Blimey top of the page as well ;biggrin )

    ;whome ;weep
  • I have no issue with the buttons going, with a slight addition to the basic rules of the site that asks people to not just reply "agree" or ;ok to posts that they agree with
  • Moojor

    That's the main reason the buttons were introduced in the first place.

    Users were either quoting the whole post and then 'This' or ;ok , or, as you say, just posting

    ;ok or ;lol
  • I've no issue with their going but judging by the number of agrees on this thread some might have.
  • thorn


    Though, to be fair, they were probably made while the comments were still mixed in with the Payet thread.
  • i think the buttons do make sense, they avoid unnecessary duplications and whilst a little selfish, I get a slight kick out of seeing that a post of mine that CMU, managed to cheer up a couple of others as well.

Sign In or Register to comment.