I think the question becomes is whether if you agree, and have no additional perspective to add, is there a reason to post that at all? Particularly with rules questions, if you see the correct answer, and no one is disputing it, is there any need for anyone to post anything? If a question is answered in one or two posts, that's OK.

where I could see it possibly having value is when there is a discussion where there are two or more alternatives being debated, so showing support for one position or another could be useful.

Perhaps that's the answer. If there is an active debate going on, with back and forth discussion, a +1 could be a way to weigh in on the debate without repeating the facts, and people can see how the group of posters breaks out. But if it's just something with no dissenting opinion, then a bunch of +1s doesnt really serve a purpose besides filling up a thread.

If you want to +1 the reasonable opinion, maybe you should instead post a constructive reply to one of the idiots who disagree.

+1 is tolerable when there's a little bit of snark behind it, but it usually feels like attention-seeking behavior along the lines of people who like to post "first".

well done on the new rules post bowser, GL with the new gig.

this might be a good spot to break with the (real or incorrectly perceived) nittery of past moderation here and take Mat's advice.

Regarding "+1", I'm still hopeful that someday someone will figure out how to program this feature:

Thanks. Just a little correction on my name, though.

This is Bowser:




And this is Browser (dealing with not nice people):

I am not a fan of +1 and don't post as much as I used to. In the past I have received PMs asking me to comment on a specific thread. In these situations it isn't too much to say "I have seen it and the current in thread reasoning is correct" or to say "Here is why the current in thread reasoning is incorrect."

Can somebody please link me to a thread anywhere on the internet which was somehow ruined by posters using +1.

The issue isnt about ruining a thread. It's about how different forums have different guidelines about content. For example, you can go to NVG, and easily find threads where a topic is being discussed, and half or more of the posts are no content. And that's fine for them.

In LCP, we try and maintain a high signal to noise ratio. That is, have posts that add to the discussion and eliminate no content posts. We dont want the first reply in every thread to be "first!" And we dont want someone who asks what the minimum raise is to get "about $3.50! ". That way, as people read the threads they dont have to wade through a bunch of meaningless posts interspersed among the posts that actually answer the question.

So the question at hand is whether a +1 post actually adds any additional value to someone reading the thread, or is it just a throw away post where someone is reading a post and thinks "i agree" and feels the need to post that, because they are used to hitting a like button on sites that have those.

Partly it's a housekeeping question. Some have already posted that they dont mind one or two, but dont like threads with many. Some think the posts are just nonsense. But if we are going to delete the third or fourth +1 in a thread, why have them at all? Which one do we delete, the later ones or do we keep the ones from more experienced posters and delete newbies +1s?

My thinking so far is that either we allow them and say they add value, or we say they dont and dont allow them. It would just seem wierd to say they dont add value, but if you're one of the first two to post it, we'll let it stay and delete the rest. Maybe there are some types of threads were they do and some where they dont. I dont really see a logical reason to say the first two +1s posted have value but the next five dont.

But it's an open question, and we're interested in hearing what everyone who uses LCP thinks.

Loosening up and letting people have fun doesn't mean people will just start posting 1st and 350. I don't know how many forums you read but it doesn't happen except in 2 or 3.

Posting +1 is easily read and understood by the reader. And they don't need to watch your 7 or 8 regular posters repeat the same thing over and over in a thread by just rewording the same sentence. I would think +1 is better and makes threads better.

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter, and your opinion is welcome. I agree that if the alternative choices are either post a wordy answer that adds no value other than to say "i agree" or post +1, then we may as well go with the +1 for brevity. But the real question is why is there a need to just post "I agree"? If the question is how much is a min raise, and the first poster says 100, and that's the correct answer, is there any need for 5-10 other people to post +1 or I agree? It doesnt make the first answer any more correct.

Now if the first post gives 100, but doesnt elaborate on why, maybe someone adds additional info to explain it. Maybe someone posts to say at their casino it's 110, and why. But what value to the thread does a +1 add to an answer?

So i guess I'm still interested inhearing from those who post +1s to get a feel for why they do and if they feel they are adding anything to the discussion. i'm not saying they do or dont. I just so far havent heard the argument on the yes side.

I also think that while someone can write a response which amounts to nothing more than "+1" the difference betweeen those posts and the "+1" is that those posts require a greater investment of effort by the poster. I'm not saying that effort makes the posts better. What I am saying is that there generally are less of those kinds of posts than you get with "+1"s because fewer people want to make the effort. "+1" is so effortless that people make those posts more freely.

That's a good point as well. The effort required can act as a deterrent to the +1 equivalent.

I understand how a +1 would feel natural to those used to having a like button to click. If our software allowed that, I think most would agree that would be a good think. But I dont think it's practical to have people making actual posts in a thread of +1 just to substitute for the lack of a button

So I'm still open to learning from those who feel it adds something other than a like button vote to a thread. I'm sure they're out there and I hope they will share their thoughts on this with us.

There may be some reading this thread who are wondering why I'm putting so much effort into analyzing what ultimately is a relatively minor decision. Since I'm new as a mod, i might as well explain how I like to operate.

When seeking input on decisions, I like to "peel the onion" and get beyond the first layers of thought, which are usually things like "we always did it this way" or "it would be better that way" which dont really get to the facts of the issue. So when people say they like or dont like +1s, i want to find out why. For example, when someone says they are better than having a verbose post that just ultimately says "i agree" there is merit to that. But that begs the question is the answer to add +1s or stop the verbose I agree posts.

Do people actually feel constrained by not being able to post +1s? So far no one has made that claim. Are there people who enjoy LCP less because of no +1s, or are they really expressing their dislike of other modding policies that are no longer applicable, and just channeling that into this discussion.

I like to hear the thoughts of people minus any vitriol or anger. Ultimately it's how clearly you state your opinion, not how loudly that influences the decision. I get that this approach may be different than some forums but I really appreciate how everyone so far has kept the discussions civil and focused.

The ultimate goal we all have is to have a forum that the users enjoy the most. Your input is very much valued and thoughtfully considered. Of course someones side will not prevail in each decision, but I want to assure you it was not ignored or casually dismissed.

Thanks to everyone for your patience and support as we start implementing our modified policies.

But the problem is that there are usually more wrong opinions than right ones.

Let's say the first reply is something like, "Rules vary by room, here's what TDA has to say and here's what RROP has to say." If the mods are moving to a system where the thread is closed at that point, I agree there's no need for +1.

But then let's say the second reply begins, "Well, in my room," starting a debate about what exactly is the rule at a specific room. A few replies down, someone doesn't realize the OP is talking about a tournament and quotes a cash game rule. Then the OP clarifies this is a Czech room and the whole thing kind of starts over. When the thread moves past one page nobody even sees the first reply and people start reposting it anyway.

It has nothing to do with respected or not respected posters (on the smartphone app, which I use, it doesn't even show who's being quoted). It's more or less a democracy. And if there are 20 posts, 10 of which are +1ing the obvious best answer, people won't snowball the threads.

I agree it's kind of annoying when someone quotes three pages of text and just adds "+1" - but you could make it a rule that you can only quote X words or Y sentences if all you're adding is +1.

I was following your example about how the thread expands as people bring in other rooms rules, or OP gives additional info which alters the answer. So I see how a thread grows that way. Is that what you're referring to as "snowballing" ?But I'm not sure how you're connecting that example thread to the 10 +1s you mention next. Where would they fit in the thread example? Or was that referring to a different type thread?

I lost the point somewhere in there. Could you reword that so I can be sure I'm following you?

Thanks.

I'd rather see the snowball scenario than a bunch of +1's and I doubt +1's prevent that in most cases, anyways.

They usually continue on with +2, +3 etc. I don't see many long sequences.

I think you have to decide whether your overall goal is to moderate, or to micro-manage. The +1 being good or bad is very subjective. Reality is that it doesn't take up much real estate and is easily skimmed past. Who cares if a poster is too lazy or busy to write out a well reasoned post? It all seems to even out. Meanwhile, it's not like well-reasoned posts will bring home the 2+2 posting bracelet at the end of the season.

Moderation in a high signal to noise forum like LCP naturally involves managing no content posts. But I'm not actually clear on your opinion on the value of +1s. Do you post them in other forums and if so do you feel they add any value other than serving as a like button?

In the forums where I normally post, there are times when I would feel that way.

I don't often post "+1", or "this", but I certainly have a number of times. Aside from times when it's something light-hearted, it's usually in a thread that involves some complex or nuanced discussion. I'll be planning to reply to someone's post, and then see pretty much the perfect reply to the post has already been made. If that seems to have ended the discussion, or it's getting very little disagreement, I likely won't post. But if there is still a big debate raging, I may simply quote the post with a simple agreement of my own (sometimes adding to the content, sometimes not). This can serve the purpose of letting people know someone else in agreement as well as bringing the post to everyone's attention again, as posts can often be missed - especially if some newbie with a dozen posts to his name makes a great post. There are those people who will skim or even skip over a post that probably should have been given more attention, and some of these same people will tend to look more closely when someone with 40,000 posts that has been here for several years "endorses" it. I'm not saying that's right, as I sure don't get everything correct and have thousands of stupid posts to my name, but unfortunately in this age of information overload, many people tend to filter content however they feel appropriate.

As for the idea that there will be instances where someone posts the obviously correct answer (min raise is 100) that will get a bunch of needless "+1"s, that just seems silly. Is anyone actually seeing that happen? I agree we don't need that; I just don't think it's a big concern.

Finally, I think you want to avoid being overly prescriptive; a little bit of gray area isn't always a bad thing. In fact, it's often good. Don't get hung up right now on stuff like where you cut off the "+1"s, and why you should allow 2 or 3 of them but not a 4th or 5th. See if it's a problem, and if it is, decide on how to deal with it.

+1

I have never posted "+1" here or elsewhere. But I can easily ignore those posts that contain nothing more than a +1.

My point is: if you're going to start micromanaging the value of posts, where will you draw the line? This week it's +1, next week it's some other "value" . How many values will be too many?

Except that this forum has already not permitted low content posts like +1 and we haven't been expanding that to other measures of value as you suggest will happen

The question isnt about managing the value of posts per se. It's deciding what types of posts are categoized as no content in our efforts to keep a high signal to noise ratio. So it's a matter of do certain types of posts have value in the sense of adding content, not whether they are particularly good posts For example, someone typing"first" in the first reply to a new post is categorized as no content and deleted. Now, I guess someone could try and make a case that the post was funny and therefore should be allowed; or that we should not micromanage posts like that and just let (or others would say force) people to read through them. The same goes for all types of meaningless posts like "inb4 whatever" or "its dissapoint".

The people who post those obviously think they are funny and add to the thread. But many find them an obnoxious waste of space that does nothing other than detract from the ease of following a discussion without breaking the flow of the arguments with babble.

Until now, +1s have fallen into the no content category in LCP. A user asked if that was going to remain the case under the new guidelines. So I opened it up for discussion. As you can see from the responses, there has been no big groundswell of support for allowing them, particularly among frequent posters in LCP. But I am also interested in the thoughts of those who dont currently post here to see if not posting +1s has kept anyone away. So far no one has claimed that.

So I am going to wait a few days to give time for people to find the thread and post their opinions. I'm certainly open to hearing the case for why +1s should not be categorized as no content posts. But the topic of whether or not we should manage no content posts at all is not up for debate at this time.

Your forum won't be overtaken by +1 and first posts because the regs don't do it.

Stop trying to overmod before you even start regular modding.

Thanks for your input. The policy change under discussion would be loosening a rule already in existence, not tightening one. And as you said, no one has been using +1s so I certainly haven't deleted any. I don't think seeking people's opinion on a suggested change represents overmodding.

I noticed from your posting history that you have only made around four posts in LCP outside of the moderation discussion thread in the last 6 months. I'd like to welcome you and encourage you to start participating in our forum as a poster in our poker related threads as well as our moderation thread. I think you will find that the moderation policies will not constrain your ability to make valuable contributions to the forum.