Limited Downvotes

[ZombieSlayeR.8702]

No idea if this is already answered anywhere.

Are Downvotes in general limited ? I imagine there will be People mass downvoting everything for no reason otherwhise ?

[Just a flesh wound.3589]

You can see the icons of who voted. If someone is mass downvoting then their icon will show up on post after post, making it obvious what they are doing. In such a case you could try reporting the person for trolling the forums and let the mods handle it.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

Of course, that's no longer possible, as we can't see who 'votes' which way, anymore.

[Panda.1967]

> @"Inculpatus cedo.9234" said:

> Of course, that's no longer possible, as we can't see who 'votes' which way, anymore.

 

hopefully this is only until they sort out the icon clutter... it's better in the long run to allow people to see who voted which way on a post. It creates a sense of personal accountability and leads to a more accurate representation of how people feel on a subject rather than just mob mentality and anonymous downvoting.

[Danikat.8537]

As far as I can tell 'down voting' doesn't do anything except show a count of the number of people who have done it.

 

It doesn't hide the posts, or move them down the topic or anything like that, and it doesn't appear to affect the posters rank or ability to post etc. either. So there's no real benefit to mass downvoting. At worst it creates a false impression of how popular an idea is...but then if people felt the need to vote it down is it really false? Unless of course someone votes down absolutely everything a person says just because it was them who said it.

[Omar Aschi Popp.7496]

> @ZombieSlayeR.8702 said:

> No idea if this is already answered anywhere.

> Are Downvotes in general limited ? I imagine there will be People mass downvoting everything for no reason otherwhise ?

 

Was there absolutely any basis for someone to downvote OP? Like is this satire? Help me understand.

[Danikat.8537]

> @"Omar Aschi Popp.7496" said:

> > @ZombieSlayeR.8702 said:

> > No idea if this is already answered anywhere.

> > Are Downvotes in general limited ? I imagine there will be People mass downvoting everything for no reason otherwhise ?

>

> Was there absolutely any basis for someone to downvote OP? Like is this satire? Help me understand.

 

And this is the trouble with this system - a total lack of context.

 

Although I have noticed any post about down votes tends to get down voted. I'm not sure if it's a joke or because they imagine the posted is objecting to them because seeing their own posts down voted would upset them and they want to do that, or what. But it certainly seems to be a theme at the moment.

[Rauderi.8706]

@"Danikat.8537"

I mean, there was already a post about seeing how many icons the community could stack due to (down)voting.

I imagine that's why the icons were removed. (That, and probably privacy issues.)

[MithranArkanere.8957]

One way to keep fribolous downvotes in check could be limiting them daily. Every day you'd get 25 downvotes and unlimited upvotes and helfuls, and whenever any of your posts is marked as upvoted or helpful at least once, you'd get 1 extra downvote to use.

[Menadena.7482]

> @Rauderi.8706 said:

> @"Danikat.8537"

> I mean, there was already a post about seeing how many icons the community could stack due to (down)voting.

> I imagine that's why the icons were removed. (That, and probably privacy issues.)

 

I am not sure how privacy issues apply? If you are concerned about it then do not vote on posts. Or have an account for that matter because your name goes on posts you make.

[Leo G.4501]

I see no purpose in limiting any sort of vote here. Like it was said previously, it has zero effect on anything. Posts/threads don't have a "grade" that goes up or down by how many votes it gets.

 

The only possible use for the metric would be as an argument against someone's post ("see how many downvotes you got? You're obviously wrong"...of course, that's not a viable argument what so ever but people will use it) or to easily say you "agree" or "disagree" without needing to make a post saying it, in which case, I feel it's important people can see who voted and how. Not only so you don't have to wade through dozens of posts with curt replies that amount to "I disagree" or "I agree" but also so you can get context to those votes (again, if I'm going to take the time to express why I don't agree or do agree with a post, I'm likely not going to bother thumbing that post while on the other hand, if you're trolling a particular poster in a thread with less respectful posts while also downvoting everything that person posts, they can understand how petty you and your argument is).

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

> @Menadena.7482 said:

> > @Rauderi.8706 said:

> > @"Danikat.8537"

> > I mean, there was already a post about seeing how many icons the community could stack due to (down)voting.

> > I imagine that's why the icons were removed. (That, and probably privacy issues.)

>

> I am not sure how privacy issues apply? If you are concerned about it then do not vote on posts. Or have an account for that matter because your name goes on posts you make.

 

Some folks will use records of someone else's upvotes (or downvotes) to decide whether they upvote (or downvote) the other person's posts. Publicizing voting often leads to self-censorship for other reasons.

[Cyprien.4208]

So are you going to limit the amount of up votes as well? There a great number of topics already made none which I see mass down voting on.

[kKagari.6804]

Does anyone see OPs avatar with prison bars?

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

I don't. But, I guess some posters do. Not sure what enables one to see said prison bars.

[Unholy Pillager.3791]

> @Rauderi.8706 said:

> @"Danikat.8537"

> I mean, there was already a post about seeing how many icons the community could stack due to (down)voting.

> I imagine that's why the icons were removed. (That, and probably privacy issues.)

 

Well, on another forum I frequent, I've seen individual posts get 150+ upvotes on occasion. I can see why they opted to remove the icons, because displaying that many would be an issue.

[kKagari.6804]

Hmm, there are prison bars on the OP when using the phone version

[Leo G.4501]

> @kKagari.6804 said:

> Hmm, there are prison bars on the OP when using the phone version

 

I guess a thumbs up wouldn't express that I'm having the same experience. On my laptop, it looks normal but on my phone, I see prison bars. I also see prison bars on another topic that's closed. At first I thought the thread got locked.

[Omar Aschi Popp.7496]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> I see no purpose in limiting any sort of vote here. Like it was said previously, it has zero effect on anything. Posts/threads don't have a "grade" that goes up or down by how many votes it gets.

>

> The only possible use for the metric would be as an argument against someone's post ("see how many downvotes you got? You're obviously wrong"...of course, that's not a viable argument what so ever but people will use it) or to easily say you "agree" or "disagree" without needing to make a post saying it, in which case, I feel it's important people can see who voted and how. Not only so you don't have to wade through dozens of posts with curt replies that amount to "I disagree" or "I agree" but also so you can get context to those votes (again, if I'm going to take the time to express why I don't agree or do agree with a post, I'm likely not going to bother thumbing that post while on the other hand, if you're trolling a particular poster in a thread with less respectful posts while also downvoting everything that person posts, they can understand how petty you and your argument is).

 

Not true. At least you do not know the whole setup.

 

Take infractions. Besides glaringly obvious violations of tos, you got/get infracted almost exclusively on the number of times you get reported on a post.

 

Let's be real. Most of the times the flag/report was used was REALLY because "I don't like your opinion"

 

I know this because I was moderated on a post only saying "as a casual, I love rng in open world and love limited content. And do not like Marjory."

 

DELETED

 

...my point is. You personally have NO idea how the system works or is implemented other than how it is at face value.

 

You should ask.

 

Inb4 I get moderated for talking about moderation.

[kKagari.6804]

> @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > @kKagari.6804 said:

> > Hmm, there are prison bars on the OP when using the phone version

>

> I guess a thumbs up wouldn't express that I'm having the same experience. On my laptop, it looks normal but on my phone, I see prison bars. I also see prison bars on another topic that's closed. At first I thought the thread got locked.

 

I wonder if its because maybe I have that person on my blocked list in game? Or he got banned from forums?

[ZombieSlayeR.8702]

> @kKagari.6804 said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > @kKagari.6804 said:

> > > Hmm, there are prison bars on the OP when using the phone version

> >

> > I guess a thumbs up wouldn't express that I'm having the same experience. On my laptop, it looks normal but on my phone, I see prison bars. I also see prison bars on another topic that's closed. At first I thought the thread got locked.

>

> I wonder if its because maybe I have that person on my blocked list in game? Or he got banned from forums?

 

For some reason you can only see the bars on the mobile Version.

Nah its a "soft" ban resulting in restricted Forum usage, in my case 3 days.

The reason for it is a bit ridiculous but you can still comment on posts so its fine.

[Danikat.8537]

> @"Omar Aschi Popp.7496" said:

> > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > I see no purpose in limiting any sort of vote here. Like it was said previously, it has zero effect on anything. Posts/threads don't have a "grade" that goes up or down by how many votes it gets.

> >

> > The only possible use for the metric would be as an argument against someone's post ("see how many downvotes you got? You're obviously wrong"...of course, that's not a viable argument what so ever but people will use it) or to easily say you "agree" or "disagree" without needing to make a post saying it, in which case, I feel it's important people can see who voted and how. Not only so you don't have to wade through dozens of posts with curt replies that amount to "I disagree" or "I agree" but also so you can get context to those votes (again, if I'm going to take the time to express why I don't agree or do agree with a post, I'm likely not going to bother thumbing that post while on the other hand, if you're trolling a particular poster in a thread with less respectful posts while also downvoting everything that person posts, they can understand how petty you and your argument is).

>

> Not true. At least you do not know the whole setup.

>

> Take infractions. Besides glaringly obvious violations of tos, you got/get infracted almost exclusively on the number of times you get reported on a post.

>

> Let's be real. Most of the times the flag/report was used was REALLY because "I don't like your opinion"

>

> I know this because I was moderated on a post only saying "as a casual, I love rng in open world and love limited content. And do not like Marjory."

>

> DELETED

>

> ...my point is. You personally have NO idea how the system works or is implemented other than how it is at face value.

>

> You should ask.

>

> Inb4 I get moderated for talking about moderation.

 

But on the old forum you could only get reported once per post. If someone 'beat you to it' then instead of the report window you'd get a message saying it had already been reported and a moderator would resolve it. So I don't see how the number of reports could be a factor.

 

Without knowing the context I'd guess you were infracted for going off-topic. That was certainly the main reason I got infractions - either posting something directly off topic or responding to an off-topic comment and therefore dragging the threat further off-topic. (Which I know I shouldn't do, but sometimes it seems like a natural part of the conversation so it's hard to know what is and is not off topic.)

[Omar Aschi Popp.7496]

> @Danikat.8537 said:

> > @"Omar Aschi Popp.7496" said:

> > > @"Leo G.4501" said:

> > > I see no purpose in limiting any sort of vote here. Like it was said previously, it has zero effect on anything. Posts/threads don't have a "grade" that goes up or down by how many votes it gets.

> > >

> > > The only possible use for the metric would be as an argument against someone's post ("see how many downvotes you got? You're obviously wrong"...of course, that's not a viable argument what so ever but people will use it) or to easily say you "agree" or "disagree" without needing to make a post saying it, in which case, I feel it's important people can see who voted and how. Not only so you don't have to wade through dozens of posts with curt replies that amount to "I disagree" or "I agree" but also so you can get context to those votes (again, if I'm going to take the time to express why I don't agree or do agree with a post, I'm likely not going to bother thumbing that post while on the other hand, if you're trolling a particular poster in a thread with less respectful posts while also downvoting everything that person posts, they can understand how petty you and your argument is).

> >

> > Not true. At least you do not know the whole setup.

> >

> > Take infractions. Besides glaringly obvious violations of tos, you got/get infracted almost exclusively on the number of times you get reported on a post.

> >

> > Let's be real. Most of the times the flag/report was used was REALLY because "I don't like your opinion"

> >

> > I know this because I was moderated on a post only saying "as a casual, I love rng in open world and love limited content. And do not like Marjory."

> >

> > DELETED

> >

> > ...my point is. You personally have NO idea how the system works or is implemented other than how it is at face value.

> >

> > You should ask.

> >

> > Inb4 I get moderated for talking about moderation.

>

> But on the old forum you could only get reported once per post. If someone 'beat you to it' then instead of the report window you'd get a message saying it had already been reported and a moderator would resolve it. So I don't see how the number of reports could be a factor.

>

> Without knowing the context I'd guess you were infracted for going off-topic. That was certainly the main reason I got infractions - either posting something directly off topic or responding to an off-topic comment and therefore dragging the threat further off-topic. (Which I know I shouldn't do, but sometimes it seems like a natural part of the conversation so it's hard to know what is and is not off topic.)

 

I did not know this. I never report anyone for anything.

 

Helpful.

And to be honest it probably was not off topicness. Also I CANT BELIEVE YOU YOU EVER GOT INFRACTED!!! You are like, the poster child of manners and shit.

[Einlanzer.1627]

If they're going to keep downvoting, what they need to do is show who up and down voted, but hide total up and down votes in peoples' profiles. Basically, the opposite of what they have now.

[Omar Aschi Popp.7496]

I should behave. Im not sure if it was a mistake, but Im supposed to be permabanned. But I guess with new forum the slate has been wiped clean.

 

3 years later: Hello again Danikat! :)