'Disagree'

[Ctrlos]

I have no problems with the disagree button. I think it serves a purpose. But should this not be to promote discussion?

Could we not have a PSA put out asking people to at the very least back up their disagreements with a reason why?

 

[turbineseaplane]

1000% agree

The "disagree" button shouldn't even be allowed to register if not also accompanied with an actual post.

As it is now, it's really just used for group think and continued polarization

I have some users who simply "thumbs down" or "laugh" (both emoji reactions I mean) at everything I post.
It's not constructive

It's literally just polarization gone amok -- sort of how political factions have become tribal and just "disagree with the other side", no matter what is actually being said.

 

[Reverend Benny]

1000% agree

The "disagree" button shouldn't even be allowed to register if not also accompanied with an actual post.

As it is now, it's really just used for group think and continued polarization

I have some users who simply "thumbs down" or "laugh" (both emoji reactions I mean) at everything I post.
It's not constructive

It's literally just polarization gone amok -- sort of how political factions have become tribal and just "disagree with the other side", no matter what is actually being said.

Is it even possible to do a thumbs down? I don't have that option.

 

[rm5]

Is it even possible to do a thumbs down? I don't have that option.

The disagree option is only available on news articles.

 

[rm5]

I have no problems with the disagree button. I think it serves a purpose. But should this not be to promote discussion?

Could we not have a PSA put out asking people to at the very least back up their disagreements with a reason why?

Often, if I personally disagree with something, I'll explain why. Sometimes though, in the "Political News" section, explaining a disagreement would require going onto political grounds, which isn't allowed on this site.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Often, if I personally disagree with something, I'll explain why. Sometimes though, in the "Political News" section, explaining a disagreement would require going onto political grounds, which isn't allowed on this site.

If we can't "go onto political grounds", should there even be a "Political News" section?

The two concepts seem at odds with each other

 

[rm5]

If we can't "go onto political grounds", should there even be a "Political News" section?

The two concepts seem at odds with each other

I've always wondered that, I'm not quite sure. I don't think I'm qualified to answer that though.

 

[Juicy Box]

000% agree

The "disagree" button shouldn't even be allowed to register if not also accompanied with an actual post.

As it is now, it's really just used for group think and continued polarization

I have to disagree with this.

Just picture this, someone makes a controversial statement that many people disagree with.

Do we really need 1000+ replies with every post saying pretty much the exact same response on why they disagree?

No. It would make the forum a sad place to be.

What we currently have works.

Someone makes a controversial statement that many people disagree with, they can disagree and choose whether they feel they need to respond. Most times for myself, someone else already responded with the same thoughts as myself and then I can "like" their response showing that it is how I feel.

It works.

 

[I7guy]

Often, if I personally disagree with something, I'll explain why. Sometimes though, in the "Political News" section, explaining a disagreement would require going onto political grounds, which isn't allowed on this site.

There are some posts so outrageous the disagree button handles the feedback from members and is very useful.

However, if you are responding to a post in the “political news” section, that is where political posts and other controversial posts are allowed.

 

[chown33]

Often, if I personally disagree with something, I'll explain why. Sometimes though, in the "Political News" section, explaining a disagreement would require going onto political grounds, which isn't allowed on this site.

The Political News forum is the only place where "going onto political grounds" is expressly allowed.

If there was some past communication from moderation staff that led you to think otherwise, please use the Contact form to point to that specific communication.

Contact us

forums.macrumors.com

EDIT
Citation follows.

Forum Rules

Jump to: Instantly Bannable Offenses | Advertising/Self-promotion | Things Not to Do | Minor Problems The following rules govern use of the forums. You are also responsible for observing the Regist...

macrumors.zendesk.com

Heading: Things Not to Do
Item 6, Off-topic posts.

... Posts on political, religious, and social issues are to be limited to the Political News forum, and made only by those eligible for that forum. See the Rules for the Political News forum.

 

[icanhazmac]

I've put forth this opinion before and I will do it again.

There is no shortage of members on MR that are willing to engage in written conversation. The idea that emoji responses limits communication is IMHO a non-issue. Please point me to a thread that was 100% emoji responses and no written discourse... 80%? 70%? You get my drift? Emoji responses, both those perceived as agreement and disagreement, serve a purpose:

• Eliminates +1s on both sides
• Allows a member to "chime in" if they do not have time to type a response
• Allows a member to register an opinion if they are late to a thread and it is already 10 pages deep in conversation and there is not much left to say
• Allows members to participate if they cannot formulate a written response: disabilities, language barriers, etc.
• Some posts are so preposterous that they only are deserving of emoji
• Allows members to gauge how the community felt about any single post without the need to read the entire thread looking for replies. To the best of my knowledge there is no way to filter this way.

I think the real reason people want to limit or eliminate disagree is they:

• Only want to see positive affirmations for their posts
• Have a touch of OCD and need to know why each and every member disagreed with them, even if 10, 20, 100 other members type out their reasons the couple of red emoji, without text, they receive cause them to lose sleep

I do acknowledge that there are some trolls amongst us that just disagree with everything certain members post. I have a couple of those right now because of my avatar. Worse yet, some troll others by using the laughing emoji as "laughing at you", those people are fools... don't let them win, don't feed the trolls!

 

[Juicy Box]

I think the real reason people want to limit or eliminate disagree is they:

• Only want to see positive affirmations for their posts
• Have a touch of OCD and need to know why each and every member disagreed with them, even if 10, 20, 100 other members type out their reasons the couple of red emoji, without text, they receive cause them to lose sleep

I agree, especially the first one.

This reminds me of a similar thread in the Site and Forum Feedback sub-forum a few weeks ago claiming that the Mac Rumors community is "Toxic".

Just reading their explanation, it didn't take long to see that the person posting that thread just didn't like people disagreeing with their posts and took offense to any constructive criticism of Apple like they are Tim Cook or something.

 

[Spock]

I kinda miss the days when liking or disagreeing wasn't a thing at all.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I have to disagree with this.

Just picture this, someone makes a controversial statement that many people disagree with.

I'm picturing it -- and "yes", a discussion forum should have thoughtful replies to posts, even if that sometimes means many replies. That's the whole point of being here! (discussion) -- or at least it's supposed to be.

Devolving to an "emoji fest" of "reaction" is just silly.
(no offense meant to you or your post at all)

Like I said, I have folks who just "dislike" or "laugh" emoji about every post I say everywhere.
It's childish to the extreme.

 

[Juicy Box]

It has only happen a once to me, but this reminds me of a thread from a few months ago, I think it was about Apple TVs, someone replied to a relatively long post of mine with a simple, but confusing statement saying:

"I disagree with your statement.".

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me at all, but in this case, I made several points, many of which were factual, not just opinion. It left me wondering what part they disagreed with. The whole thing or just certain parts, because most of my post was objectively true, just with a small portion of it subjective or speculative.

I didn't bother myself with it, but I wasn't the only one that was confused by the reply. Someone else asked what part of my post was wrong, but the person in disagreement never responded.

Honestly, I would have much rather have someone leave a disagree reaction emoji than to actually reply "I disagree with your statement.".

I'm picturing it -- and "yes", a discussion forum should have thoughtful replies to posts, even if that sometimes means many replies. That's the whole point of being here! (discussion) -- or at least it's supposed to be.

Devolving to an "emoji fest" of "reaction" is just silly.
(no offense meant to you or your post at all)

There is plenty of discussion in the forum with the reaction emoji. Sometimes another post isn't necessary with a like or dislike would do.

Like I said, I have folks who just "dislike" or "laugh" emoji about every post I say everywhere.
It's childish to the extreme.

Your answer to this is to force them to respond with a post?

If it is the same people doing it over and over, maybe they just disagree with your views. Maybe they are just trolling you.

Probably best to just try not to take it so personally or just ignore them.

 

[kpluck]

I have no problems with the disagree button. I think it serves a purpose. But should this not be to promote discussion?

What if it had already been discussed to death? In other words, you hit disagree and continue reading other posts in the thread and notice your point of view has been expressed by several other people. So, you hit "agree" with their posts and call it a day.

IMHO, there is absolutely nothing wrong with how it currently works.

-kp

 

[bousozoku]

I have to disagree with this.

Just picture this, someone makes a controversial statement that many people disagree with.

Do we really need 1000+ replies with every post saying pretty much the exact same response on why they disagree?

No. It would make the forum a sad place to be.

What we currently have works.

Someone makes a controversial statement that many people disagree with, they can disagree and choose whether they feel they need to respond. Most times for myself, someone else already responded with the same thoughts as myself and then I can "like" their response showing that it is how I feel.

It works.

Why change the 1000% in the quote to 000%? Was that an accident?

 

[Juicy Box]

Why change the 1000% in the quote to 000%? Was that an accident?

It wasn't intentional, it is a glitch when selecting certain parts to quote.

Not sure if it is just on MR or if it is a Safari related glitch. It happens often though, sometimes I correct it before posting, sometimes I don't notice it.

 

[bousozoku]

It wasn't intentional, it is a glitch when selecting certain parts to quote.

Not sure if it is just on MR or if it is a Safari related glitch. It happens often though, sometimes I correct it before posting, sometimes I don't notice it.

I can't do the multi-quote function because I can't reply when I try to do it. I'm guessing the forum software is almost as bad as the software we had when I was moderator.

 

[theluggage]

If someone takes the time to write a response to a post, I will read the response. I've even been known to go back and correct posts when someone has pointed out a genuine error. If someone hits "like" I'll assume that they agree with the gist of whatever I posted - which is nice, but I can live without it. If someone hits "disagree" without taking the time to explain why then I just ignore it - if I wanted to start a poll I'd have posted a poll.

...and I have no idea whether the "angry" emoji is supposed to mean "you make me angry", "I share your anger" or "I need anger management classes", so I usually just assume the latter.

Do we really need 1000+ replies with every post saying pretty much the exact same response on why they disagree?

You solved this yourself:

Most times for myself, someone else already responded with the same thoughts as myself and then I can "like" their response showing that it is how I feel.

...which, indeed, is the way to avoid "me too" posts without a disagree option. The "like" button is all that is needed to make "me too" posts unnecessary.

I guess the real answer is for some one to look at a few threads, count how many "likes" and "disagrees" the original post receives vs. how many unhelpful posts there are repeating the same points and counter-points. My gut impression is that "like" is well used and might well be mopping up the "me toos", but that there aren't enough "disagrees" to account for a significant reduction in the number of low-quality posts.

There are some posts so outrageous the disagree button handles the feedback from members and is very useful.

If it is really a troll then report it and ignore it. Hitting "disagree" just feeds the troll* half a billygoat rather than a whole billygoat. Otherwise, it is likely that the "outrageous" bit is either a matter of opinion or a factual mistake, and hitting disagree does nothing to explain your opinion or present the correct facts.

* Self-pedantry: The term "troll/trolling" for making deliberately provocative posts to discussion groups actually derives from a fishing term for training bait in the water rather than mythical bridge-dwelling caprivores - but as the jargon file notes, mixing the metaphors (and not feeding trolls) works well...

Sometimes though, in the "Political News" section, explaining a disagreement would require going onto political grounds, which isn't allowed on this site.

OK, so its been established that you *can* post political responses in the "political news" section. Elsewhere on the site, though - hitting "disagree" on political grounds (which will often be obvious in context) seems to me like it's breaking the spirit of the rules, even if it's unenforceable by the mods. Providing an end-run around forum rules doesn't seem to be a good argument in favour of the "disagree" button.

What if it had already been discussed to death?

Then one more "disagree" still adds nothing to the discussion.

These are discussions, not polls (there's a "poll" option if that's what you want). Nobody "wins" a thread. If you don't have time to write a post before someone else has made your point for you, you're not losing your voice (and you're free to "like" the points you agree with).

Only want to see positive affirmations for their posts

There's a difference between "only wants to see positive affirmations" and "only wants to see reasoned responses". Posting "I disagree" or "You're wrong" without justification is a lazy response which contributes nothing to the discussion, and having a "disagree" emoji just provides an even lazier way of doing that.

If you disagree with a post, either find time to make a counter-point or "like" someone who has already done so. Even if someone posts "2+2=5" it only takes a minute to post "•• + •• = ••••".

 

[I7guy]

If someone takes the time to write a response to a post, I will read the response. I've even been known to go back and correct posts when someone has pointed out a genuine error. If someone hits "like" I'll assume that they agree with the gist of whatever I posted - which is nice, but I can live without it. If someone hits "disagree" without taking the time to explain why then I just ignore it - if I wanted to start a poll I'd have posted a poll.

...and I have no idea whether the "angry" emoji is supposed to mean "you make me angry", "I share your anger" or "I need anger management classes", so I usually just assume the latter.


You solved this yourself:

...which, indeed, is the way to avoid "me too" posts without a disagree option. The "like" button is all that is needed to make "me too" posts unnecessary.

I guess the real answer is for some one to look at a few threads, count how many "likes" and "disagrees" the original post receives vs. how many unhelpful posts there are repeating the same points and counter-points. My gut impression is that "like" is well used and might well be mopping up the "me toos", but that there aren't enough "disagrees" to account for a significant reduction in the number of low-quality posts.


If it is really a troll then report it and ignore it. Hitting "disagree" just feeds the troll* half a billygoat rather than a whole billygoat. Otherwise, it is likely that the "outrageous" bit is either a matter of opinion or a factual mistake, and hitting disagree does nothing to explain your opinion or present the correct facts.

* Self-pedantry: The term "troll/trolling" for making deliberately provocative posts to discussion groups actually derives from a fishing term for training bait in the water rather than mythical bridge-dwelling caprivores - but as the jargon file notes, mixing the metaphors (and not feeding trolls) works well...


OK, so its been established that you *can* post political responses in the "political news" section. Elsewhere on the site, though - hitting "disagree" on political grounds (which will often be obvious in context) seems to me like it's breaking the spirit of the rules, even if it's unenforceable by the mods. Providing an end-run around forum rules doesn't seem to be a good argument in favour of the "disagree" button.


Then one more "disagree" still adds nothing to the discussion.

These are discussions, not polls (there's a "poll" option if that's what you want). Nobody "wins" a thread. If you don't have time to write a post before someone else has made your point for you, you're not losing your voice (and you're free to "like" the points you agree with).



There's a difference between "only wants to see positive affirmations" and "only wants to see reasoned responses". Posting "I disagree" or "You're wrong" without justification is a lazy response which contributes nothing to the discussion, and having a "disagree" emoji just provides an even lazier way of doing that.

If you disagree with a post, either find time to make a counter-point or "like" someone who has already done so. Even if someone posts "2+2=5" it only takes a minute to post "•• + •• = ••••".

Sometimes one goes around in circles discussing certain points. I find just disagreeing is better than going around in circles.

In short, like the like reaction, I do not see anything wrong with disagreeing without leaving a response.

 

[theluggage]

Sometimes one goes around in circles discussing certain points. I find just disagreeing is better than going around in circles.

(so tempted to flag that with 'disagree'... )

I'd suggest (and this is something I have to remind myself on occasion) that when a discussion is going round in circles like that, the best thing to do is just walk away - rather than trying to steal the last word via a "disagree" which can't usefully be responded to.

As I said earlier - it's a discussion, not a vote that can be won or lost. If the argument has gone has far as it usefully can, if both sides have been stated and any misinformation has been challenged, respect the ability of other readers to see that for themselves and make their own decisions.

 

[icanhazmac]

As I said earlier - it's a discussion, not a vote

Why can't we, in a way, have both? A poll or vote on every post is not possible at scale so why not allow emoji responses as an informal poll on each post? Again, we have no shortage of people who choose to type responses so "limiting communication" doesn't hold water with me.

As I stated in my post, there are many reasons a member might not have the time or ability to post but still wants a way to participate. How can more ways to participate be bad?

Questions to all that want "disagree" to go away:

1) Is an emoji disagree 100% ok with you if there is also a typed response?

2) How do you know that those that emoji your posts didn't also type a response to your post? At times you might see both in your alerts window but in other cases one might emoji your response and type one later, are you cross checking them all? I don't have time for that and it is why I believe that "limiting conversation" is the new way to say "red emoji trigger me".

 

[I7guy]

(so tempted to flag that with 'disagree'... )

I'd suggest (and this is something I have to remind myself on occasion) that when a discussion is going round in circles like that, the best thing to do is just walk away - rather than trying to steal the last word via a "disagree" which can't usefully be responded to.

As I said earlier - it's a discussion, not a vote that can be won or lost. If the argument has gone has far as it usefully can, if both sides have been stated and any misinformation has been challenged, respect the ability of other readers to see that for themselves and make their own decisions.

Different styles I suppose. If you look at many of the major threads at this time, most of the discussions, imo, are going around in circles. People like to get their point out.

You have your own thresh hold of when to discuss, use the disagree, etc.

 

[VisceralRealist]

Eh, sometimes I like seeing people get ratio'd for their page one "hot takes" (which is where you see the most usage of the disagree button). We don't need to hear 33 people explain why they disagree with "Tim Apple doesn't know how to run a company". Lol.

Besides, if you get rid of the disagree button, then you're just going to see a bunch of people using the "laughing" and "angry" reactions to express the same disagreement/disdain, as is done outside of the News section.