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.
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.
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.
A good fix is to move this community to one of these instances:
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.