In-depth conversation shouldn't be the only option. With people I'm in the same room as, sometimes a smile or a nod is the only necessary response. I see upbears as being in that category of response—a simple positive acknowledgement—and vastly prefer it to a series of “This”es. I do not see smiles and nods as manipulative (usually), and disagree that upbears must always be so.
If you want to post long comments, then go ahead. I remember your username from some good comments the other day—that, yes, I gave upbears to—so I'm sure those comments will be read. You seem bothered that people who "just want to laugh" won't read them, but do you really believe that what's stopping them is upbears? You can't please all of the people all of the time, or have them agree wholeheartedly. Differences are good.
I can see that a method for hiding such numbers from users who dislike them could be useful, but you should be aware that there may be other users who find value in an approval system beyond needy gaming or an addiction to popularity.
I really do not think upbears remove the ability to have in-depth conversations, but they are a friendly reminder that there are other people interacting even if they aren't actively conversing.
Do you really think that I don't have a basis for giving upbears? Are you really trying to insult my motives, or are you just not thinking about why I think something?
The most upbeared comments I've seen have been on long, incredibly educating posts, so I think your sampling method may be biased.
And what the hell is wrong with "expressing vague approval"? Should every one of our interactions be dour, interminable discussions?
Assuming hostility from everyone and everything is pretty corrosive to actual discussion too.
And how, exactly, do upbears "enforce" a posting style hostile to non-cynical discussion? You keep making this assertion but, if it were actually true, there'd be nothing else here. That isn't the case, though, is it?
[T]he problem with upbears is that you don’t have to express [your reasons for them].
Why should we be forced to? When I smile in response to someone, it'd be quite strange to then explain my reasons for doing so.
I also don’t get the chance to express my own thoughts.
Who is stopping you? Not anyone here.
I think it is telling that most arguments against removing them have been short and lacking any real basis or reason.
In-depth conversation shouldn't be the only option. With people I'm in the same room as, sometimes a smile or a nod is the only necessary response. I see upbears as being in that category of response—a simple positive acknowledgement—and vastly prefer it to a series of “This”es. I do not see smiles and nods as manipulative (usually), and disagree that upbears must always be so.
If you want to post long comments, then go ahead. I remember your username from some good comments the other day—that, yes, I gave upbears to—so I'm sure those comments will be read. You seem bothered that people who "just want to laugh" won't read them, but do you really believe that what's stopping them is upbears? You can't please all of the people all of the time, or have them agree wholeheartedly. Differences are good.
I can see that a method for hiding such numbers from users who dislike them could be useful, but you should be aware that there may be other users who find value in an approval system beyond needy gaming or an addiction to popularity.
deleted by creator
I understand the argument. I disagree that it must always be true.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I really do not think upbears remove the ability to have in-depth conversations, but they are a friendly reminder that there are other people interacting even if they aren't actively conversing.
deleted by creator
You might not think it friendly, but I do.
Do you really think that I don't have a basis for giving upbears? Are you really trying to insult my motives, or are you just not thinking about why I think something?
The most upbeared comments I've seen have been on long, incredibly educating posts, so I think your sampling method may be biased.
And what the hell is wrong with "expressing vague approval"? Should every one of our interactions be dour, interminable discussions?
deleted by creator
Assuming hostility from everyone and everything is pretty corrosive to actual discussion too.
And how, exactly, do upbears "enforce" a posting style hostile to non-cynical discussion? You keep making this assertion but, if it were actually true, there'd be nothing else here. That isn't the case, though, is it?
Why should we be forced to? When I smile in response to someone, it'd be quite strange to then explain my reasons for doing so.
Who is stopping you? Not anyone here.
Lacking any real basis or reason? Really?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator