Comment

Comment on User "threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works" is banning users for downvoting his posts.

remon@ani.social ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

It is almost always mass downvoters who get banned by community moderators for that conduct, not people who upvote or downvote selectively in good faith based on specific grievances with the content of the post.

Right and that’s exactly why I think it should be private. Because it shouldn’t be up to moderators to decide what “good faith” is. If someone wants to just have lurker account and downvote stuff on /all all day … that’s legitimate use of a the feature.

If you are one person with one account, you should be able to vote however you like without repercussions.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Skavau@piefed.social ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

Right and that's exactly why I think it should be private. Because it shouldn't be up to moderators to decide what "good faith" is.

I disagree. Mods can make these decisions, the modlogs are public and accountable (I'm for accountability in both ways) and the community - and instance admins can intervene if they think the moderators themselves are responding in bad faith. Private voting across the fediverse, where plenty of users have multiple accounts spread out across the fediverse on different instances would invite a ton of mass-downvoting as it could be done with relative ease.

If someone wants to just have lurker account and downvote stuff on /all all day ... that's legitimate use of a the feature.

And it's my legitimate use as a moderator to determine that someone who does that is not part of any community I am building, and is actively vandalous towards it.

source
- remon@ani.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  
  Private voting across the fediverse, where plenty of users have multiple accounts spread out across the fediverse on different instances would invite a ton of mass-downvoting as it could be done with relative ease.
  
  If it is proper coordinated or autmated mass-downvoting campaign that should be a job for the admins.
  
  And it’s my legitimate use as a moderator to determine that someone who does that is not part of any community I am building, and is actively vandalous towards it.
  
  Yes, that’s how it currently works. I’m arguing it shouldn’t work like this for votes.
  
  source
  - Skavau@piefed.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    
    If it is proper coordinated or autmated mass-downvoting campaign that should be a job for the admins.
    
    It would just be one person. But it wouldn't even necessarily be noticed to be reported to the admins.
    
    Yes, that's how it currently works. I'm arguing it shouldn't work like this for votes.
    
    Oh well. It's been like this for years now and I think broadly speaking, it has majority approval because of how it cultivates a high-trust culture.
    
    source