You're viewing part of a thread.
You only lost 15 karma on any mass downvoted comment and 0 for posts. The only person who cared about people's karma was you dude.
I don't see how that addresses any of what I said. If anything this seems like this would mean the subreddits that blocked people with no karma weren't even doing it to block trolls, just new users.
I didn't care about my karma or any specific persons, I like to get into arguments about stuff and that is how you get downvoted. I just don't like the behaviour a karma system motivated.
If you're getting downvoted in an argument, guess what, that means you're bad at making arguments. And this system is exactly the same, regardless of if you can see it or not, sorting by top will still sort by the net sum of votes.
If you’re getting downvoted in an argument, guess what, that means you’re bad at making arguments.
I pretty much agree with your second sentence/point, but this is bullshit. I got so many downvotes on reddit for literal descriptions of my perceptions and experiences as a gay woman. Half the time there wasn't even a debate or argument happening. As reddit culture skewed more and more conservative, many technical and nerdy communities became actively hostile to the basic facts of my existence. Then there are all the downvotes I got for believing in human and minority rights while downthread with some bigots. My more visible posts on the same topic would be solidly upvoted, while everything below the arrow was smashed below zero because only angry little shits followed the discussion that far. I agree that the system on Lemmy isn't meaningfully different and will inevitably have the same effects, but sorting by voting over-centralizes the meta and destroys real discussion and diversity of experience and opinion. It literally only works in limited circumstances within subjects that have objectively correct answers. Anywhere else it introduces so much chaos.
I'm not saying people don't pick sides in an argument, but the point is to convince someone you're right, so if you're not doing that, you're getting downvotes meaning you're either wasting your time or making bad arguments.
I’m not saying people don’t pick sides in an argument
What I'm saying is that these weren't arguments. These were people weaponizing the voting system to keep minorities from self representing. I was downvoted below zero on a car repair sub for having runflats instead of a spare because I worked in and commuted through a bad part of town, often after midnight, where I wouldn't feel safe stopping to change my tire. They made it clear that I was unwelcome because I am a woman, because my description of this gendered experience was unacceptable subreddit content.
I’m not saying people don’t pick sides in an argument
You made yourself verry clear, he's trying to stir you
there wasn't even a debate or argument happening.
It's crazy the stories people string together to confirm their biases.
Fuck off. You're exactly the fucking same. If it didn't happen to you, it doesn't exist! Childish.
I'm not going to argue with someone about the story they tell me and how it made them feel because an individual's biased perspective is not an objective observation of how the vote system works. This isn't about you.
You've declared someone you disagree with is making things up while criticizing the debate skills and tactics of those who disagree with you. What a fucking joke. You got some peer reviewed numbers to support your position about votes and arguments? Because from where I'm sitting, this nonsensical notion that people vote rigorously based on debate acumen and never with their emotions and libido along the lines of their existing beliefs is just as much a made up story. I'm not going to find numbers for a bad faith participant like you, but we already know people vote for real, important, world changing things with their emotions. The idea that the general populace is wildly more reasonable and responsible when the votes don't matter at all is ludicrous.
LegionEris, I have seen what you describe many times, and you have put the case eloquently. I just wish you didn't have to.
Meanwhile, as a latecomer I'm laughing my ass off because this comment now stands at -11:
If you’re getting downvoted in an argument, guess what, that means you’re bad at making arguments. And this system is exactly the same, regardless of if you can see it or not, sorting by top will still sort by the net sum of votes.
im not going to entertain an unverifiable story from a random person on the internet.
I mean, generally getting downvoted in an argument is a matter of course, at least until people who you aren't arguing with chime in.
Also a lot of what you are saying doesn't really make sense to me? I feel like I'm not sure we agree what we disagree about.
Honestly the shit I got downvoted the most for was just standing up for trans people, reddit is full of transphobes.
You really don't seem to understand the mechanics of link aggregators and their comment sections. The votes are for curating content and downvoting posts that are not relevant or are poor quality is the entire point of the system. If you remove the ability to downvote bad content, you degrade the content for all the users. This is exactly why YouTube removing the dislike counter was an issue.
You already said the youtube thing.
Upvoting posts that are relevant or good quality and ignoring the rest does work though. There are several instances right now where it is working.
It works perfectly fine as a content curation method. I have no way to prove this for this, but it wouldn't surprise me if it works better.
You can't ignore bad posts when they get inflated ranking because no one can downvote them off the front page lol.
They never are on the front page. Idk why you don't get this. If I sort by new I see them but only then. If I did see a post on the front page that I don't like, obviously it is just a matter of taste. It doesn't bother me that I can't downvote it.
You really don't understand how removing the recourse from users to downvote bad content is a negative to any link agregator? Do you just never go to small subs and see less than 5 posts from the last week and not understand that someone could just flood those communities with poor content and the only recourse is for mods to ban that user who could have not even violated their rules? This is to say nothing of how bad nitch communities are already on Lemmy, if we remove the users ability to group moderate it would be even worse.
If I was moderating a small community and someone flooded it with unwanted content, I would consider that spam, which I would have against the rules.
So it would be a perfectly reasonable ban for an explicit rules violation.
It's not spam, it's content within the rules, it just bad. That's the situation we're trying to avoid so that bad content is seen by the least amount. Of users. When you can't downvote bad content, the moderators have to remove the content so we have just pushed more work onto moderators. Congratulations.