I agree with these arguments, but you did bring up a potential good reason for distinguishing between liking and laughing
What if someone writes up an argument that can be interpreted either as a joke or as a serious defense of a position? With just likes people who interpret it as a serious argument might just think “ah look at all these people agreeing with this argument” while those who interpet it as a joke think “ayupp, really good joke, everyone agrees” I feel like this kind of situation occurs not often, but once in a rare while for sure, and in such edge cases / could add something.
I can agree with this, but changing the core experience for rare edge cases is a bit overkill in my opinion, and I think the few times this happens with only likes we can clarify with replies if necessary. ^^
But it might be the first (small) benefit I’ve seen so far where I could actually agree it could reduce confusion. However, we would still have added an option that can be abused for trolling and being mean. Does the moderators need more work to clear out laughing emojis on sad posts?
Actually, that is another thing to moderate overall isn’t it? Extra reactions I mean? Would users who keep trolling with reactions need to be (temporarily or permanently) banned from using reactions? Also would the rules need to clarify that using inappropriate reactions can be cause for warnings/bans?
Because otherwise this area could become ripe for trolling.
Maybe what I’m saying seems doomsday-y but I’m just offering up potential problems.
Counterpoint: the poster was making a serious argument and people responding with laughter makes it seem like they are laughing at the poster’s expense. The benefits of actually replying is that people can explain and clarify what they mean. So if someone responds based on it being a joke, the confusion can be cleared up through conversation. Reactions on the other hand can be more easily misused or misinterpreted, with less opportunity to clarify.
Perhaps this is a needless fear, but I’m worried this will hurt the community by making existing users participate less or leave and by scaring away potential new users from participating.
I think they are valid concerns, a on a sad post would usually imply sympathy so it can’t be used for being mean, that can’t be said for or … these could be abused in ways that break the forum rules, adding more work (and ambiguity) for moderators.
edit:
Exactly, I totally agree and I’d like to point out that my argument for / was a lighthearted half joking one. More of an amusing observation than anything
On another forum I frequent, they have the following reactions:
Like
Happy
Love
Laugh
Surprise
Sad
Angry
Super Like
I find it useful, all basic human emotions that covers different scenarios though I’d like a little more sarcasm. But a sad or angry reaction doesn’t make the forum any more ‘toxic’ from what I see, denying them just makes it a weird cult incapable of a an emotional spectrum (which is maybe the idea, lol ) But might as well just keep ‘likes’ if it’s just going to be positive reactions.
After reading some of the replies—and skimming through most—I have come to the decision that the lone “like” heart is all our forum needs in terms of “reactions”.
More than anything else, the potential for trolls/bad-faith actors to find a way to turn the forums into a toxic locale is what leans me away from wanting more than the “like” option we have now…
..And because of how so much of the internet behaves, and how us users have been trained to engage with internet communities, I believe it likely that that which is ambiguous will be received with distrust and an assumption of bad-faith engagement. So keeping the forums simple in design and good-faith in temperament is what I think is best. It is pleasant in the WK Community. Let us keep it that way.
A few times I’ve found myself considering giving a “like” to a post which I am not sure I understand the tone/another facet of the post. In these cases I typically lean towards not giving a “like” and, if I am interested enough, will ask for clarification from the post’s writer. More often then not I chose to withhold interacting with the post in order to inhibit a potential awkward situation (and out of being shy).
It comes down to the writer of whatever post in question to convey with clarity the tone they wish to get across using their words/the content of the post, and any who are unsure of said post’s purpose to ask for clarification.
Since you’ve already put the work into making it. Maybe it’s possible to just add a setting to toggle between the new and old style.
Personally I do much prefer the old style as I find this one distracting and it’s position has moved.
If that’s not possible you could always POLL it and find out what the majority thinks, maybe someone will even make a user script to revert it, if you decide to keep it.
This means that I, and other people in this thread, think that this addition is bad because it was already ideal (to us, goes without saying). You like something if you agree, think it’s useful, find it funny, etc. No need to specify.
If it’s not sensible to you that people don’t want the forum they visit, and are used to, and agree with how it’s done, to change, then .
Ohhhh! They’re back!
Before, long-pressing just hit like as usual, but it showed some of other peoples reactions next to it and when I tapped them, it just opened the list of who tapped what.
And then it all suddenly disappeared, but now they’ve returned and I can plague people with reactions until they get taken away! Thank you!
I’m the type of person who can “read into stuff” way too much…
I think very sarcastically, so sometimes I can project feelings onto a response/reaction -
feelings that were not actually felt or even trying to be conveyed by the original poster at all.
I like discord and having access to every emoji + a ton of homemade ones…
but I am gonna have to put myself in the camp of sticking with the hearts only set-up -
the meanest thing you can do is nothing, which = neutral,
and there really isn’t anyway to take a as a mean or sarcastic response -
also, having to spend more time trying to decide which emoji won’t be taken as mean or sarcastic when I’m reacting to a post is a huge downside for me personally - I liked how I just had one decision to make before = did I love this post?
We should also be able to quantify how much a post is flagged. For example, if I flag a post, I should be able to say this post is “barely flagged”, “very slightly flagged”, “very tiny flag that you can only see with microscope”, “big red fluttering flag”, “galaxy-sized flag”, etc.
I can say the forum I referenced, ‘like’ is probably used 90% of the time. But it’s a new toy ATM here, so probably will overused in the short term and probably normalize eventually.
The forums here are already pretty moderated here from what I seen over the years, actually over-moderated for my taste, so I can’t imagine that would change. There were a few threads where I thought the discourse was actually healthy and informative but then just got shut down preemptively because the tension was uncomfortable…which is fine if thats what they want, there are always other forums. But sometimes problem solving, learning something new or just having a discussion requires reading something one may not agree with. I’m fine with that, I guess others are not. But reaction is just a lazy response post, still responsible for the content if you give a sad or angry reaction. Someone can still respond with a wide range of emojis if preferred too.
I feel like this kind of situation occurs not often, but once in a rare while for sure, and in such edge cases 
/ 
could add something.
or 
… these could be abused in ways that break the forum rules, adding more work (and ambiguity) for moderators.
) But might as well just keep ‘likes’ if it’s just going to be positive reactions.
.
