Numis Forums Suggestions

[DonnaML]

9 minutes ago, Egry said:

I respectfully disagree.

Most of these coins were legal tender in North America up unit the 1850's. They deserve better representation than a thread in 'World Coins'

However, I'm not going to die in a ditch about it, just a suggestion.

 

thanks

 

E

But don't forget: U.S. coins themselves are also just included under World Coins here!

[Egry]

34 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

But don't forget: U.S. coins themselves are also just included under World Coins here!

I wonder if that has limited the growth of the forum?

I guess there are many other forums for coins other than ancients. Depends what the aim is of the forum, unfortunately not a question I can answer.

 

[DonnaML]

9 minutes ago, Egry said:

I wonder if that has limited the growth of the forum?

I guess there are many other forums for coins other than ancients. Depends what the aim is of the forum, unfortunately not a question I can answer.

 

I think it's safe for me to say that this group was quite deliberately created not to be a US-centric forum, by contrast to the place from which most of the original members came.

[Salomons Cat]

A question: There is this „confused“ smiley and I think that it is often used in a disrespectful way. Yesterday I got a bit angry when someone opened a thread and other people reacted with this smiley to the thread and only posted short meaningless responses. I have noticed a few times already that some people use this smiley as a kind of „insult“ or to stall discussions -  and I don‘t find this okay. At the same time, I think that many people are offended when they get this smiley as a reacton to one of their posts. If this here is a discussion forum, then people should be able to discuss with words and not in such an immature way with this smiley. 

Or am I wrong? Am I the only one who has this impression?

If not, then I would suggest to replace this smiley with something less offensive.

[Salomons Cat]

Well, maybe I‘m just a bit overly sensitive? I‘m really curious what you think 😅

[Prieure de Sion]

Sorry... der musste sein, bei so einer Steilvorlage - nimm es mir nicht übel bitte 😉 

----

3 minutes ago, Salomons Cat said:

If not, then I would suggest to replace this smiley with something less offensive.

I agree with him in part, perhaps this "confusion" smiley could be replaced / amended with an "I'm surprised now". 

Disrespectful smileys should not be used here in this forum. 

IF you don't find something OK - you should communicate this openly and honestly in writing in a (small) text. Then (constructive criticism) can also become a fruitful discussion.

I already find it bad on Facebook and the like when people put a "laughing smiley" on serious topics. 

If you don't like something - then write something about it! But don't just put a smiley and not dare to write more!

[Salomons Cat]

… and even IF someone wrote complete nonsense, I still believe that this person should get a real answer and not only such a smiley. Because you‘re completely taking away from the other person the possibility to learn why you disagree with their post, if the only answer is this smiley.

(But I‘m actually more worried that it is just offensive and impolite)

Edited October 23, 2023 by Salomons Cat

[Prieure de Sion]

6 minutes ago, Salomons Cat said:

… and even IF someone wrote complete nonsense, I still believe that this person should get a real answer and not only such a smiley. Because you‘re completely taking away from the other person the possibility to learn why you disagree with their post, if the only answer is this smiley.

I can only agree. 

I think it's also impolite to express your "displeasure" with just a smiley. Even if someone writes "nonsense" - he also deserves to know why the other person does not agree. It is also an act of politeness. 

[Kaleun96]

I don't care about the smiley personally, I can take it or leave it, but there should be some form of "I disagree" or "I doubt that" smiley because if there are only positive ones, it will give the impression that everyone agrees with what has been said. Yes, of course you can also reply to have your voice heard but then by that argument there is no use for smileys at all and they should be removed.

I think the use of the "confused" smiley is driven by the lack of a clear disagree/not sure smiley. Even the "cool think" smiley is ambiguous as to whether it's a "I'm sceptical of that" or "that's interesting" smiley.

Quote

Yesterday I got a bit angry when someone opened a thread and other people reacted with this smiley to the thread

This wasn't the "why aren't gangbangers doing 25 years to life instead of our lord and saviour Richard Beale" thread, was it? Because if there was ever a thread deserving of a "confused" smiley, it was that one.

[DonnaML]

I hadn't really thought about this, but I have to agree that people tend to use that emoji in a sarcastic or insulting way, and that maybe it should be retired as an option. And if we were going to add an emoji to replace it, I wouldn't mind seeing a "sympathy"/"caring" emoji like the one on Facebook, to use when the "crying face" emoji isn't quite warranted.

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

I like the confused emoji. Please keep it

[Ryro]

5 hours ago, Salomons Cat said:

Well, maybe I‘m just a bit overly sensitive? I‘m really curious what you think 😅

I 100% agree. It's clearly a dick move generally used by trolls and pompous jerks when being condescending. I don't see the intellectuals of the group, not that I am one, using that one. 

When someone drops one on me they can... keep it to themselves.

But yeah, it should be retried.

Edited October 23, 2023 by Ryro

[CPK]

5 hours ago, Kaleun96 said:

I don't care about the smiley personally, I can take it or leave it, but there should be some form of "I disagree" or "I doubt that" smiley because if there are only positive ones, it will give the impression that everyone agrees with what has been said. Yes, of course you can also reply to have your voice heard but then by that argument there is no use for smileys at all and they should be removed.

I think the use of the "confused" smiley is driven by the lack of a clear disagree/not sure smiley. Even the "cool think" smiley is ambiguous as to whether it's a "I'm sceptical of that" or "that's interesting" smiley.

I agree. The "confused" emoji doesn't bother me.

It might be nice having a "disagree" option but as @Prieure de Sion said, merely disagreeing without offering anything else doesn't do much to further discussion.

Quote

This wasn't the "why aren't gangbangers doing 25 years to life instead of our lord and saviour Richard Beale" thread, was it? Because if there was ever a thread deserving of a "confused" smiley, it was that one.

The sentiments expressed in that thread were of frustration that certain areas/authorities seem far more interested in prosecuting and punishing white-collar crimes than dangerous, violent street crime. That's certainly not an unreasonable concern. This Forum may not be the place for such a discussion, but it's not confusing.

[zadie]

2 minutes ago, CPK said:

I agree. The "confused" emoji doesn't bother me.

It might be nice having a "disagree" option but as @Prieure de Sion said, merely disagreeing without offering anything else doesn't do much to further discussion.

The sentiments expressed in that thread were of frustration that certain areas/authorities seem far more interested in prosecuting and punishing white-collar crimes than dangerous, violent street crime. That's certainly not an unreasonable concern. This Forum may not be the place for such a discussion, but it's not confusing.

Not to bring that topic in here, especially considering it was removed as to not generate more discussion but I have to say that your characterization of the thread is colorful to say the least. Comparing Beale's punishment for committing fraud involving millions of dollars to that of a genocidal dictator currently conducting a war of aggression in Europe is extremely unreasonable. If anything warrants an emoji like the one being discussed, it was definitely that thread.

[CPK]

40 minutes ago, zadie said:

Not to bring that topic in here, especially considering it was removed as to not generate more discussion but I have to say that your characterization of the thread is colorful to say the least. Comparing Beale's punishment for committing fraud involving millions of dollars to that of a genocidal dictator currently conducting a war of aggression in Europe is extremely unreasonable. If anything warrants an emoji like the one being discussed, it was definitely that thread.

Maybe we do need a "disagree" emoji. 😉

I won't go further.

[Prieure de Sion]

6 hours ago, CPK said:

Maybe we do need a "disagree" emoji. 😉

I think your statement is not bad at all.

A "disagree" symbol is usually more neutral and expresses emotionlessly that I don't agree with the contribution in the first place.

The "confused" smiley with its rolling eyes has something derisively pejorative about it.

But of course this is my subjective personal impression.

[sand]

This is an interesting discussion, regarding the various reactions (Confused, Laugh, Cry, Cookie, Like, etc). I vote for eliminating all of the reactions.

Edited October 24, 2023 by sand

[Rand]

Personally, I do like debating and being disagreed with, and I am more than happy to clarify my point or writing. My best experience from this forum was the criticism of my ideas about some coins.

I am not offended by the current emoji. Previously, I clarified my writing with such emoji and saw the emoji removed. I deleted a post when I could not understand what caused the confusion and did not feel like debating further.

Still, the emoji looks rather non-friendly, and I can see how it may be used for confrontation.

I would prefer it to be replaced by three emojis
1. A friendly ‘I do not understand’
2. A friendly ‘I disagree’
3. A friendly ‘I quite disagree’
Their use does not always need elaboration in writing. We do not always explain what we like when we put a like.

While not putting a like is another option, this also includes other feelings like ‘boring’, or ‘too busy to reply’. Sadly, I do not have time to read every excellent post on the forum.

I went through the previous threads and removed two confused emojis that I placed: one meant ‘I disagree’, which was explained, and one ‘I do not understand’. I apologise if this upset the authors and if I missed any other such emojis.

I agree with @Salomons Cat that some comments are beyond what a friendly forum should have.

Edited October 24, 2023 by Rand

[Kaleun96]

8 hours ago, CPK said:

I agree. The "confused" emoji doesn't bother me.

It might be nice having a "disagree" option but as @Prieure de Sion said, merely disagreeing without offering anything else doesn't do much to further discussion.

The sentiments expressed in that thread were of frustration that certain areas/authorities seem far more interested in prosecuting and punishing white-collar crimes than dangerous, violent street crime. That's certainly not an unreasonable concern. This Forum may not be the place for such a discussion, but it's not confusing.

I won't touch the other bit you mentioned suffice to say that it's certainly confusing in the way it was characterised (e.g. Beale has not even been sentenced and the sweeping generalisations offered without an ounce of evidence). Such a thread only plays to peoples confirmation biases, it offered nothing useful.

But I did want to touch on one point that has come up a few times here: "merely disagreeing without offering anything else doesn't do much to further discussion". I could say the same about any emoji, not only the "confused" one, so it sounds like people are happy to be smiley-agreed-with but not smiley-disagreed-with unless that person also comments.

The other aspect is that people often do react with a smiley and then comment. The purpose of the smiley is to make it much easier for someone viewing the thread to quickly weigh up the opinions of a particular message without having to read the entire thread and tallying the yays and nays based on the comments left. In the "Beale" thread in question, I believe everyone who reacted with the "confused" smiley also left a comment.

[Rand]

14 hours ago, Kaleun96 said:

This wasn't the "why aren't gangbangers doing 25 years to life instead of our lord and saviour Richard Beale" thread, was it?

This post reads sarcastic to me, irrespective of what the OP might have meant.

[Kaleun96]

6 minutes ago, Rand said:

This post reads sarcastic to me, irrespective of what the OP might have meant.

It could almost be a direct quote, I assure you.

[TheTrachyEnjoyer]

The whole point of a forum is for conversation that entails agreement and disagreement. If people would like exclusively positive reactions, many groups like facebook exist explicitly for showing off purchases. 

[CPK]

3 hours ago, Kaleun96 said:

But I did want to touch on one point that has come up a few times here: "merely disagreeing without offering anything else doesn't do much to further discussion". I could say the same about any emoji, not only the "confused" one, so it sounds like people are happy to be smiley-agreed-with but not smiley-disagreed-with unless that person also comments.

That doesn't follow, at all. If you agree with or like somebody's post, you're not putting forth a different opinion and there's not necessarily any obligation to write a follow-up post just to reiterate what that person already said. Whereas if you disagree, you are by definition taking a different or opposing view of the matter, and unless you state what exactly that view is, there can't be a discussion about it, and nobody will benefit.

They are not the same thing.

[Kaleun96]

27 minutes ago, CPK said:

That doesn't follow, at all. If you agree with or like somebody's post, you're not putting forth a different opinion and there's not necessarily any obligation to write a follow-up post just to reiterate what that person already said. Whereas if you disagree, you are by definition taking a different or opposing view of the matter, and unless you state what exactly that view is, there can't be a discussion about it, and nobody will benefit.

They are not the same thing.

Fair, though there are occasions where I rather not reply with an opinion (like the Beale thread) because it's not worth my time for touchy subjects where people get triggered very easily. Let's be honest, people aren't using the "confused" emoji for level-headed numismatic discussions, they're using it when there's one of those heated discussions about something inconsequential and someone says something unhinged (like Beale's unknown criminal sentence being worse than what a murderous gangbanger supposedly gets).

There's also my second point to address.

Anyway, I'm already regretting participating in this thread. Perhaps I should have just reacted with the confused emoji and moved on.

[Rand]

I agree with all the comments above that negative emojis are mostly unhelpful. 

Still, non-verbal communication is a huge part of human communication; emojis are meant to imitate this.

We do not always have to say something to support communication. We may nod of agreement, change expression (or say ‘pardon’) if we do not understand something or have a blank face if we disagree. It is hard to replicate this on a forum.

I hope the smile above is still acceptable - meant to be a friendly smile.