[Suggestion] Remove the ability to "Like" posts

[HyoMinPark]

If you only get one view, then there's no point in having a forum. The "Likes" feature what it promotes is keeping ideas and concepts locked to a circlejerking consensus instead of arguing points and perhaps leading somewhere new. It becomes a game to farm as much likes as possible to be "correct" with the masses, and feel confident in their view. On a psychological level, when people start getting upvoted, they feel they are "correct" so at that point it just ends up no longer being a debate.

Upvotes and downvotes has always been a terrible concept for discussion forums.

Does it really though?

How many people continue to debate with raiders about parsers, despite “pro-parser” posts receiving more traction?
How many people debate with people who would like old PvP rewards to be purchasable with Wolf Collars?
How many people debate over BLU, despite both sides varying in the amount of “Likes” they get depending on the tone of the thread?

If people truly rely on the “Likes” to solidify stances on opinions, then that’s on them. Me, personally, I don’t care. I’ll say what I think and people are free to agree (“Like”) or disagree (don’t “Like” or argue with me). I don’t need Virtual Internet Points to stand behind my thoughts and opinions, and feel like my arguments are sound.

Nice assumption, you seem to not realize I have a lot of likes. Just look at the medals I have.

Medals are a combination of threads made, posts made, “Likes” given, and “Likes” received. Not “Likes” alone.

[KokonoeAiyoko]

Does it really though?

How many people continue to debate with raiders about parsers, despite “pro-parser” posts receiving more traction?
How many people debate with people who would like old PvP rewards to be purchasable with Wolf Collars?
How many people debate over BLU, despite both sides varying in the amount of “Likes” they get depending on the tone of the thread?

If people truly rely on the “Likes” to solidify stances on opinions, then that’s on them. Me, personally, I don’t care. I’ll say what I think and people are free to agree (“Like”) or disagree (don’t “Like” or argue with me). I don’t need Virtual Internet Points to feel like my opinions are sound.



Medals are a combination of threads made, posts makes, “Likes” given, and “Likes” received. Not “Likes” alone.

The point I'm making is that It's an ego stroke and it leads to nothing but toxicity because when it comes down to it, us humans as much as we like to think we aren't immature, we all are essentially. And on a forum the worst of us comes out and in turn this meter of "Likes" just ends up being the true way of being correct. That is the actual end-game in all the arguments when such a feature exists on a discussion forum.

Look at reddit for example, if your post isn't upvoted it's well ignored regardless if the content of your post may have been more "correct" than some of the others. Or let's look at it from a different angle, what if someone argued and only received a like or two, mentally most people are going to think at first that their view is incorrect based on that alone.

The psychological game is very real with this and it's been like this always. Which is why I feel "Likes" should be used by the developers when they create posts for pure feedback or contests or something, not in basic debating. It's a primitive concept and has no place here.

[HyoMinPark]

The point I'm making is that It's an ego stroke and it leads to nothing but toxicity because when it comes down to it, us humans as much as we like to think we aren't immature, we all are essentially. And on a forum the worst of us comes out and in turn this meter of "Likes" just ends up being the true way of being correct. That is the actual end-game in all the arguments when such a feature exists on a discussion forum.

Look at reddit for example, if your post isn't upvoted it's well ignored regardless if the content of your post may have been more "correct" than some of the others. Or let's look at it from a different angle, what if someone argued and only received a like or two, mentally most people are going to think at first that their view is incorrect based on that alone.

The psychological game is very real with this and it's been like this always. Which is why I feel "Likes" should be used by the developers when they create posts for pure feedback or contests or something, not in basic debating. It's a primitive concept and has no place here.

You’re welcome to your opinion, but I see no need for the removal of them. I don’t see specifically how the number of “Likes” leads to toxicity—I think that what generally leads to toxicity is the tone present in posts: I’m less inclined to be polite to someone who replies to me in an unnecessarily hostile or condescending manner, for example.

People who get mad that others have more Virtual Internet Points than them are certainly immature though, because really, what does it matter at the end of the day what’s said on the Internet?

[Dualgunner]

The point I'm making is that It's an ego stroke and it leads to nothing but toxicity because when it comes down to it, us humans as much as we like to think we aren't immature, we all are essentially. And on a forum the worst of us comes out and in turn this meter of "Likes" just ends up being the true way of being correct. That is the actual end-game in all the arguments when such a feature exists on a discussion forum.

Look at reddit for example, if your post isn't upvoted it's well ignored regardless if the content of your post may have been more "correct" than some of the others. Or let's look at it from a different angle, what if someone argued and only received a like or two, mentally most people are going to think at first that their view is incorrect based on that alone.

Which is why the like count is at the bottom of the post. You need to read--or at least skim--the post itself before you can see the like counter. Besides which you've yet to substantiate your claims, so I'm going to dismiss them with likewise no evidence.