Approved by Mx
I wanted to open a conversation about reinstalling likes in the CAP forums. Reading through the thread that got them removed, I just couldn't help but disagree with the reasoning. I personally think reinstating likes will boost activity, create a friendlier and more supportive atmosphere, and make the forum more appealing to people outside our small community. Outside of that thread I've never really heard the idea that likes can be destructive in a forum setting.
When I see stuff like the PRC and important tiering threads in other parts of the forum operate just fine with likes, including likes on posts from members of tiering councils, it makes me struggle to believe that likes will force a vicious bandwagon or kill activity. They're also an easy way to share support for a post when you don't have anything to say- and a large (though unknown) percentage of ppl in the forum simply follow along without posting- this gives a better idea of what routes are supported and worth polling, while still leaving room for TLT to prompt for more discussion. Sometimes its a way to acknowledge someone's counterpoint as well-written and potentially valid, without going all-in on saying that you support their direction. If there are posts with a lot of likes, these are points that are likely worth building into your own points and counterpoints. This can be helpful to have without the TLT needing to specifically highlight posts. Meanwhile, the TLT is still in charge of posing key questions and directing the conversation in a healthy manner (and people in CAP have shown consistently that they will listen and follow the TLT's lead in this regard) if for some reason the conversation becomes centralized around one particular issue due to bandwagoning. Personally I think if people that are invested in the discussion disagree they will voice that regardless of likes, and plenty of respected CAP peeps have different opinions often, so its hard to imagine a respected member with a huge number of likes scaring people away from posting something contradicting them. If people use nasty comments and bully others to get easy likes, hopefully the mods and TLT will check them on that.
Maybe there is some concern that likes will reveal pre-voting what the favourite results will be, but we already have elements of this with our multiple stage voting system that reveals what's popular before it gets finalized- at least with likes, you can address the favourites early on before its too late and discussion on the forums is closed if they are a threat to the process or concept.
For negatives, it could be troublesome to have likes on the art submissions thread. It could be difficult or discouraging to have a submission with less likes than others. Id be interested to hear ppls thoughts on this also.
What could work is to do a process with likes enabled and test the waters, see if it has any positive or negative effects and then re-evaluate afterwards. That could help prove/disprove their usefulness in today's CAP landscape. Thanks for readin
I wanted to open a conversation about reinstalling likes in the CAP forums. Reading through the thread that got them removed, I just couldn't help but disagree with the reasoning. I personally think reinstating likes will boost activity, create a friendlier and more supportive atmosphere, and make the forum more appealing to people outside our small community. Outside of that thread I've never really heard the idea that likes can be destructive in a forum setting.
When I see stuff like the PRC and important tiering threads in other parts of the forum operate just fine with likes, including likes on posts from members of tiering councils, it makes me struggle to believe that likes will force a vicious bandwagon or kill activity. They're also an easy way to share support for a post when you don't have anything to say- and a large (though unknown) percentage of ppl in the forum simply follow along without posting- this gives a better idea of what routes are supported and worth polling, while still leaving room for TLT to prompt for more discussion. Sometimes its a way to acknowledge someone's counterpoint as well-written and potentially valid, without going all-in on saying that you support their direction. If there are posts with a lot of likes, these are points that are likely worth building into your own points and counterpoints. This can be helpful to have without the TLT needing to specifically highlight posts. Meanwhile, the TLT is still in charge of posing key questions and directing the conversation in a healthy manner (and people in CAP have shown consistently that they will listen and follow the TLT's lead in this regard) if for some reason the conversation becomes centralized around one particular issue due to bandwagoning. Personally I think if people that are invested in the discussion disagree they will voice that regardless of likes, and plenty of respected CAP peeps have different opinions often, so its hard to imagine a respected member with a huge number of likes scaring people away from posting something contradicting them. If people use nasty comments and bully others to get easy likes, hopefully the mods and TLT will check them on that.
Maybe there is some concern that likes will reveal pre-voting what the favourite results will be, but we already have elements of this with our multiple stage voting system that reveals what's popular before it gets finalized- at least with likes, you can address the favourites early on before its too late and discussion on the forums is closed if they are a threat to the process or concept.
For negatives, it could be troublesome to have likes on the art submissions thread. It could be difficult or discouraging to have a submission with less likes than others. Id be interested to hear ppls thoughts on this also.
What could work is to do a process with likes enabled and test the waters, see if it has any positive or negative effects and then re-evaluate afterwards. That could help prove/disprove their usefulness in today's CAP landscape. Thanks for readin
Last edited: