Comment on User "threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works" is banning users for downvoting his posts.
Skavau@piefed.social 5 weeks agoIf you look at Reddit, most new posts on any given community get hit with a flurry of downvotes right out of assembly. Because it's all private.
Having upvotes and downvotes public keeps people, broadly, honest and fair minded in how they vote - and mitigates downvote trolls.
remon@ani.social 5 weeks ago
I’d rather have the “downvote trolls” than abusive mods with a stalking tool.
Skavau@piefed.social 5 weeks ago
I banned 5 accounts from my community who were downvoting, between them, every single post. Sometimes straight out of the box. Should I not do that?
Also users profiles are already viewable and usable as a "stalking tool" by the same logic. Do you also object to that?
remon@ani.social 5 weeks ago
No, I don’t think you should ban people for voting and mods shouldn’t even have that info. That is something admins should deal with … and 5 accounts seems hardly worth bothering over.
No, they are different. Comments are primarily about expressing your opinion, wouldn’t make sense for them to not be public (that would just be 4chan). Votes don’t need that.
Skavau@piefed.social 5 weeks ago
5 accounts who between them downvoted everything I posted. 3 of them literally had no post history, and had multiple bans from other communities for the same behaviour. They were literally just doing the equivalent of vandalism.
They hurt the growth of my community and offered it nothing.
Die4Ever@retrolemmy.com 5 weeks ago
This is why it would be good to limit downvoting to subscribers only
Skavau@piefed.social 5 weeks ago
It should absolutely be an option (it is on Piefed) - not mandatory, but anyone could subscribe to downvote anyway - and doing so would also in itself be harmful for small communities trying to gain new users as they wouldn't have enough subscribers to upvote content posted on the community.