completed Something really needs to be done about the shrug reaction feature.

[BruhBruhThingThing 413]

This thing easily contributes to the toxic arguments that happen around the forum, and is easily abused on members posts simply because the first person doesn't like that member whatever the reason may be.

The reaction itself basically a dislike button and looks like one.

So I have a few solutions to solve this problem:

 

1) replace the shrug reaction with a reaction that's not so hateful.

2) remove it altogether.

3) limit the number of shrugs a person can give to just a few a day.

4) make it so that when you add someone to your ignore list, it'll be impossible for them to give you a shrug reaction.

[Spy 14,900]

Under review

Declined    Completed

We have as of now implemented the 2nd option and removed the Shrug reaction altogether.

[Maf 32,326]

1 hour ago, BruhBruhThingThing said:

1) replace the shrug reaction with a reaction that's not so hateful.

I find it hard to see how the "shrug" reaction can be seen as hateful in any way. We already tried the "confused" face and the "thinking" face. What other neutral reaction could you suggest that can't possibly interpreted as "hateful"?

If we're going for continuity between communities, the Russian forum actually has 5 reactions:  Thanks , Haha , Sad and Like  are pretty much the same as ours. They don't have "agree", but they also have a  reaction, which is the equivalent to our shrug. Logically, the reactions should be the same across all platforms.

1 hour ago, BruhBruhThingThing said:

2) remove it altogether.

This does seem as a likely option, though I wish to avoid it.

1 hour ago, BruhBruhThingThing said:

3) limit the number of shrugs a person can give to just a few a day.

Not possible with this forum engine. At least not without some convoluted add-ons. I also don't think it would help much.

1 hour ago, BruhBruhThingThing said:

4) make it so that when you add someone to your ignore list, it'll be impossible for them to give you a shrug reaction.

I could probably block reactions from ignored users completely. Will look into it.

[BruhBruhThingThing 413]

44 minutes ago, Maf said:

find it hard to see how the "shrug" reaction can be seen as hateful in any way. We already tried the "confused" face and the "thinking" face. What other neutral reaction could you suggest that can't possibly interpreted as "hateful"?

If we're going for continuity between communities, the Russian forum actually has 5 reactions:  Thanks , Haha , Sad and Like  are pretty much the same as ours. They don't have "agree", but they also have a  reaction, which is the equivalent to our shrug. Logically, the reactions should be the same across all platforms.

I like the  , its a much more friendly version of the shrug. I really don't see why you didn't just stick with it. Maybe the members that really pressured you guys into changing it are the same guys that are abusing the shrug to this day?

Is there a post or posts where many people complained about the ?

[LambSauce 1,894]

6 hours ago, BruhBruhThingThing said:

4) make it so that when you add someone to your ignore list, it'll be impossible for them to give you a shrug reaction.

Yes, we need this.

It doesn’t help that a select few forum users decide to be childish and go through my post history and react with ‘shrug’ to all of my content.

As for removing that reaction all together, I don’t believe that is necessary.

[Blutaar 1,904]

I haven't been on the forum for a long while, but even before I left I never really understood the purpose of the shrug and/or thinking emoticons. The goal of a reaction is to quickly show your agreement or thanks to a certain comment; if that's not enough then a written reply is appropriate.

On top of it appearing as indifferent/toxic/etc. - which it is commonly used for among forumer - why do we need a neutral reaction at all, since it doesn't convey any type of meaningful response? 

[LambSauce 1,894]

27 minutes ago, BloodPressure said:

why do we need a neutral reaction at all, since it doesn't convey any type of meaningful response? 

If anything the forum needs some sort of ‘disagree’ reaction - the opposite of the ‘agree’ reaction.

[Dopamine 2,161]

5 minutes ago, LambSauce said:

If anything the forum needs some sort of ‘disagree’ reaction - the opposite of the ‘agree’ reaction.

Yeah, maybe an X sign would be sufficient, I also agree with the ignore feature.

seems reasonable as well, although I'm afraid  users could use it with a different intent, leading into a misunderstanding.

[mjmj5558 2,346]

I think it should he just hidden from the profiles, aka nothing will happen if someone starts spamming it.

[alkyng 3,081]

It was confused then hmm now shrug.  I was against changing confused in start, but the excuse was because hmm is less sharp, then it changed to shrug with the same excuse.  And through the times its usage haven't changed, and it's always meaning "disagree".  I remember I asked someone why you give me hmm, he replied no it means your post is interesting.  I suggest to change it to disagree or X.

The problem isn't that there're some people who abuse it, the problem is I can't criticize them because any small criticize or questioning about such a thing will cause my post to get removed (refrain from provoking user).

[NikmanGT 4,432]

7 hours ago, Maf said:

I could probably block reactions from ignored users completely. Will look into it.

This is the part I agree on and support the most. Removing Shrug emote at all is not the way to go, we need a disagree reaction in a public forum along with the other reactions, it's necessary.

21 minutes ago, asem.harbi said:

the problem is I can't criticize them because any small criticize or questioning about such a thing will cause my post to get removed

Yes, and I am glad you are keeping with the rules, appreciated  

[yellowghetto 3,206]

What is so toxic about shrug? To me, it’s a reaction I put to disagree with someone, TLDR, interesting, or something that just has no meaning to me. 

Like this topic, I shrug because I disagreed to it. I didn’t make an argument. What starts the argument, are the angry writers who disagree.

You should be able to shrug if you disagree. All I’m saying

 

Edit: Very biased opinion. I just think the shrug has lots of meaning. I don’t think it should be removed.

[yellowghetto 3,206]

4 hours ago, BloodPressure said:

I haven't been on the forum for a long while, but even before I left I never really understood the purpose of the shrug and/or thinking emoticons. The goal of a reaction is to quickly show your agreement or thanks to a certain comment; if that's not enough then a written reply is appropriate.

On top of it appearing as indifferent/toxic/etc. - which it is commonly used for among forumer - why do we need a neutral reaction at all, since it doesn't convey any type of meaningful response? 

Or for this case. I shrugged cuz IDK. Normally I wouldn’t reply to your post in this situation, but I replied to give context to it.

[wolverine848 13,097]

5 hours ago, LambSauce said:

Yes, we need this.

It doesn’t help that a select few forum users decide to be childish and go through my post history and react with ‘shrug’ to all of my content.

As for removing that reaction all together, I don’t believe that is necessary.

Case in point - the childish poster who reacted to your post.

[sensei_tanker 3,098]

\

[2shots2kills 2,368]

I don't get why everyone is so thin-skinned nowadays. In the past we had a proper dislike button, and the total negative score actually showed up on your profile whenever you posted something. This feature was useful to ignore trolls or "special" users (you know what I mean). 

However, people were offended by this and we ended up with only positive reactions, now some users have like 3000 reputation, 2500 of which used to be a negative red.

 

Now, a neutral reaction is toxic? come on.

[JustBlackWolf 885]

Tbh i only dislike when the reaction is used out of context, basically for no reason, with the sole purpose of annoying the user (or at least that's what the person who puts the reaction thinks)

But aside that I couldn't care less for this reaction, I'd be happier if it was replaced with a facepalming emote actually.

Adding to this, i remember there is a limited amount of reactions a player can put daily, but it's for any reaction, not a specific one.

[Dopamine 2,161]

1 hour ago, 2shots2kills said:

I don't get why everyone is so thin-skinned nowadays. In the past we had a proper dislike button, and the total negative score actually showed up on your profile whenever you posted something. This feature was useful to ignore trolls or "special" users (you know what I mean). 

However, people were offended by this and we ended up with only positive reactions, now some users have like 3000 reputation, 2500 of which used to be a negative red.

 

Now, a neutral reaction is toxic? come on.

I believe that rather than getting offended, the problem is some individuals will decide to react  to almost every post of certain users, which is simply annoying. I agree though that instead of getting rid of the reaction or changing it, some sort of ignore function would be more effective.

[2shots2kills 2,368]

4 minutes ago, frederik123456 said:

I believe that rather than getting offended, the problem is some individuals will decide to react  to almost every post of certain users, which is simply annoying. I agree though that instead of getting rid of the reaction or changing it, some sort of ignore function would be most effective.

I would love an ignore function, I am all for it.

[Incorp 2,084]

23 hours ago, Maf said:

I find it hard to see how the "shrug" reaction can be seen as hateful in any way. We already tried the "confused" face and the "thinking" face. What other neutral reaction could you suggest that can't possibly interpreted as "hateful"?

The whole things seems like i don’t care what you think now. 
how about ? Seems pretty neutral, just saying ‘ok’

[BruhBruhThingThing 413]

14 hours ago, sensei_tanker said:

\

I like those shrugs better than what we got now.

[BruhBruhThingThing 413]

13 hours ago, frederik123456 said:

believe that rather than getting offended, the problem is some individuals will decide to react  to almost every post of certain users, which is simply annoying.

Well, the impression that it gives off can be seen as rude or etc, which I can see it as such. But yeah, its annoying when someone decides to want to spam certain reactions to you. I think the best solution would be to do a combination of 1 and 4.

[Maf 32,326]

2 hours ago, Incorp said:

The whole things seems like i don’t care what you think now. 
how about ? Seems pretty neutral, just saying ‘ok’

That's more akin to the "saw it" reaction. Marcus was the one who decided to add that one, and admittedly it's not always seen as neutral. A lot of people interpret the  emoji as something like "dude what?", in a comic and perhaps slightly negative way.

I can consider replacing "saw it" with the "ok" hand.

[LambSauce 1,894]

23 minutes ago, Maf said:

I can consider replacing "saw it" with the "ok" hand.

Isn’t that considered offensive by some?

[YANUKFIN 493]

There is a way around these fools that shrug at everything. When you ignore a user it should also ignore any reaction they give, (problem solved) then these clowns can shrug away their boring existence in blissful ignorance that their comments do not exist, cause we can't see them.