Silent Pool | 19 May 2015 10:46 a.m. PST |
…that can be used when a TMPer says something for/against another TMP member, or for/against TMP policy or procedures, or for/against other miniatures website that is not the opinion held by the TMP reader? For example, if someone says "I think the TMP front page ought to be reduced in size because Blue Dull Ache is posting far too little, someone with the opposite opinion need do no more that submit the emotion 'Not in My Name'. Less heated discussion, Dawghousing, and Locked Accounts. |
Mute Bystander | 19 May 2015 10:53 a.m. PST |
Do you think it will be so easy to muzzle some? |
Silent Pool | 19 May 2015 10:55 a.m. PST |
I was thinking of others. |
Winston Smith | 19 May 2015 11:11 a.m. PST |
"Less heated discussion, Dawghousing, and Locked Accounts." No. Not really. And that would be "fewer", not " less". |
Patrick Sexton | 19 May 2015 11:18 a.m. PST |
|
Rebelyell2006 | 19 May 2015 11:22 a.m. PST |
I don't understand the proposal. Please explain what you mean by it. |
Silent Pool | 19 May 2015 11:31 a.m. PST |
Rebelyell2006, For example, you don't like a proposal, comment, or action on TMP and you don't otherwise feel like contributing to the post then you can slap a NIMN emotion on the thread. You have spoken. Like a Unicorn, or Sock Ppppet, or Troll emotion. Winnith, cheeky! |
Rebelyell2006 | 19 May 2015 11:51 a.m. PST |
Wouldn't it be easier to just say "that is a terrible idea", or say "that is a terrible comment"? For example, Blue Dalek, your proposal is poor and confusing. |
Silent Pool | 19 May 2015 12:11 p.m. PST |
(Bit like that, Rebelyell2006) |
Rebelyell2006 | 19 May 2015 12:22 p.m. PST |
Why should we dance around what we think and mean? |
Winston Smith | 19 May 2015 12:29 p.m. PST |
It takes as much time to type an emoticon as it does to say you are full of what makes the grass grows green. |
Tgerritsen | 19 May 2015 12:31 p.m. PST |
Don't most websites do this by having a thumbs up and thumbs down option so you can agree or disagree with a sentiment? (Note that most people ignore those in any event.) |
nazrat | 19 May 2015 12:59 p.m. PST |
Meh. This is a useless and unnecessary suggestion. |
Winston Smith | 19 May 2015 1:15 p.m. PST |
The Lads at Frothers are now arguing over my "less vs fewer" pedantry above. I am right. They are wrong. And I would respond over there, except their website which is even creakier and crankier than TMP's will not let me post over there. Apparently on days that are prime numbers (and most that are not) my ISP is SPAM. Maybe if I stopped clearing porn site cookies I would be able to post there. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 19 May 2015 1:59 p.m. PST |
|
David Manley | 19 May 2015 2:40 p.m. PST |
If they are arguing then surely some of them think you are right and so they'd be right too :) Assuming you were, of course |
Cyrus the Great | 19 May 2015 3:24 p.m. PST |
|
Old Contemptibles | 19 May 2015 3:41 p.m. PST |
I probably would never use it. Easier just to say what you mean. |
Robert Kennedy | 19 May 2015 5:10 p.m. PST |
|
KSmyth | 19 May 2015 6:30 p.m. PST |
Isn't this a board or a forum that exists for the exchange of ideas by like minded visitors? Perhaps it's just that I'm old, or the English teacher in me, but what is the purpose of an emoticon? It avoids examination, explanation and sharing at all. If you can't be bothered why are you here? |
jpattern2 | 19 May 2015 7:13 p.m. PST |
Actually, Winston, both you and the OP are wrong. "Locked Accounts" can be counted and should take "fewer," but "discussion" and "Dawghousing" can't be counted and should take "less." One solution: Use "less" and change "Locked Accounts" to "locking of accounts": "less discussion, Dawghousing, and locking of accounts." Or go the other way: "fewer discussions, Dawghousings, and Locked Accounts" (because discussions, Dawghousings, and Locked Accounts can all be counted). |
Rebelyell2006 | 19 May 2015 7:21 p.m. PST |
Isn't this a board or a forum that exists for the exchange of ideas by like minded visitors? Perhaps it's just that I'm old, or the English teacher in me, but what is the purpose of an emoticon? It avoids examination, explanation and sharing at all. If you can't be bothered why are you here? That's the inherent contradiction of TMP. It is supposed to be about gaming, but the most popular boards are either off-topic or current event/"Ultramodern". It is supposed to operate on "freedom of speech", but there is a laundry list of unapproved words and ideas. And enforcement of that laundry list is incredibly inconsistent and up to the whims of the moderating team. And so many wargaming threads can be boiled down to "me too". |
svsavory | 19 May 2015 7:30 p.m. PST |
And so many wargaming threads can be boiled down to "me too". Yes, I agree. |
Henry Martini | 19 May 2015 8:12 p.m. PST |
'Less heated discussion…' is correct. However, 'Fewer heated discussions,…' would be correct. 'Less … dawghousing, …' is correct. Were it '…,dawghousings,…' fewer would be correct. 'Less … Locked Accounts' is incorrect. '…, and fewer locked accounts.' would be correct. The capitalisations are redundant. |
Editor in Chief Bill | 19 May 2015 9:01 p.m. PST |
I think the "baloney" emoticon works wonders. |
Winston Smith | 19 May 2015 10:30 p.m. PST |
I now to you Henry Martini. I had assumed (and you know what happens when we assume … ) plurals. |
Martin Rapier | 20 May 2015 6:07 a.m. PST |
Isn't the OP essentially proposing a 'like' and 'dislike' feature. That works really, really well on the BBC 'Have Your Say' forums. You may read 'really, really well' as either sarcasm or literal truth. |
Klebert L Hall | 20 May 2015 6:38 a.m. PST |
I tend to find that emoticons obfuscate, rather than clarify. -Kle. |
Legion 4 | 20 May 2015 8:11 a.m. PST |
I agree with Bill … |
CeruLucifus | 20 May 2015 8:46 p.m. PST |
Well … given that I don't understand what "Not In My Name" means, I wouldn't use that response even if that's actually how I felt, and I'm certain I would be confused by an emoticon that meant that. |
John Treadaway | 25 May 2015 11:14 a.m. PST |
I generally care little for emoticons. So no, not really. John T |