Please don’t downvote posts in this comm because you think a ban was justified. That defeats the purpose of this comm.
You must log in or # to comment.
I’m sorry, I couldn’t help myself, I had to downvote this
Y’all make me gonna power trip all over youse arses!
The irony
Yes, daddy
My brother likes your username
Downvoted - I disagree…
it’s funny the amount of downvotes this has
If a ban is justified, then there is (pretty much by definition) no power tripping, right? So I feel like it definitely makes sense for this community to downvote if the ban is justified.
“Justified” is far more subjective than “breaks a written rule”. People are indeed voting with their emotion (as opposed to assessing whether a rule was broken which is much less subjective).
“It is justified that that asshole who disagrees with me got censored”.
no this just buries the post and doesn’t transfer the info, that this is why the downvote was cast (and not, say because it’s off-topic). We have text votes for this, check the sidebar
Ah okay - I will say, the community name is a little misleading. The name makes it sound like it’s for exposing power-tripping mods, but the sidebar suggests it is for asking whether a mod action is justified or not. Perhaps a different name would be more appropriate.
[email protected], the irony. I’ll use the downvote button to show that a ban was justified. The entire purpose of this comm is to show mods power-tripping and I shall downvote content that does not fit the theme of this comm.
Then when should posts be down voted?
Optimally never. I can’t see a reason to downvote in this comm
Can’t you just disable it then or that a sitewide only option?
It’s site wide
I agree with your whole thesis here, however unpopular. The voting is so arbitrary it’s useless.
The sidebar is unclear:
“Do not downvote posts if you think they deserved it. Use the comment votes (see below) for that.”
The side-bar still today fails to answer @[email protected]’s question. It does not specify how the voting should be used.
In principle, the interesting question is whether a mod action is consistent with the rules. Folks often post here because a mod took action against a rule-abiding post. Yet they get down-voted anyway because of distaste for the user who is being oppressed (thus the down-voter simply agrees w/oppressing opposing viewpoints).
Even IF the side-bar were well written to cover this, the crowd doesn’t give a shit. It’s plainly evident that voters vote to push their emotion. Too many undisciplined brains. So really, the only sensible fix is this.
People are allowed to call the rules shit as well.
The current state of the ambiguous sidebar is cause for people to call the rules shit.
Having well articulated rules is not generally for the haters. It’s to properly guide those with goodwill – at least in this case, where it’s an unenforcable rule.
Of course the best fix is to move to a well-configured node.
I only downvote comments in this community reciprocally when the person has downvoted my comments.
But… the meta for the posts appears to have emerged:
- PTB : Upvote
- YDI : Downvote
And the totals:
- Overwhelmingly positive upvotes - Lemmy thinks this was a PTB
- Balanced - You probably deserved it
- Overwhelmingly negative upvotes - You deserved more.
I worked for a website with up- and down-votes before reddit ever existed. Let me tell you that, no matter what you do or say, the downvote button will always be a disagree button.
I’m sorry, but I had to downvote this post.
Agreed, in general actually, not just for this comm. But it’s impossible to enforce, it’s too difficult for most humans to upvote/downvote only to promote relevancy and quality, rather than agreement. I don’t see any solution for this in a public internet forum.
I don’t see any solution for this in a public internet forum.
A good fix is to move this community to one of these instances:
- libretechni.ca
- crazypeople.online
- beehaw.org
because downvotes are rightfully disabled on those nodes.
That just makes the scale a bit smaller and less emotionally negative. But people are still going to mostly upvote based on agreement rather than quality.
It ends silent downvotes and forces transparency. Then they are inclined to reply and say “the mod action was justified for X… Y… Z.” Then the mod supporters upvote that, which in turn shows us what feedback and votes are sensible and which can be disregarded (e.g. when the reaction is unrelated to enforcing rules).
Makes no sense to support downvotes on the basis that upvotes don’t change. Lack of upvotes does not have the silencing effect that downvotes has, or the misleading sum of votes that conceals upvotes.
Instead drop a “this ban was justified” comment and enjoy people upvoting it
Db0, how do you feel about having one of the most downvoted posts on the fediverse ever? :D
I am a simple man. I can only embrace or reject. Nuance is not part of my vocabulary.
If you really wanted to have fun, do a weekly wall of shame where you list the downvoters
I see a few people who don’t really dare comment on this community are currently on my profile mass downvoting.
Greetings to Russia! Enjoying your autocratic shithole?
I suggest to stop jumping to conclusions
As soon as someone proves even one of them wrong, I will.
But pointing out painfully obvious spam as spam isn’t “leaping to conclusions” any more than 1+1=2 and no matter how many bots people get to spam "you can’t be sure 1+1 is two!!! ", it won’t be.
