Question I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on possibly making votes public. This has been discussed in a lot of other issues, but here's a dedicated one for discussion. Positives Could help figh...
Probably better to post in the github issue rather than replying here.
T_D was the leadership betraying the community. Spez supported those assholes. That’s why they weren’t simply banned, very early on, for all of that abuse.
And your systemic proposal is to give users even less ability to push back against a minority of noisy bigots.
“Push back” means “stop dead,” right? Otherwise that’s not what I fucking said.
We’re talking about tools and their impact. You even pointed out: accountability changes behavior. People seeing a negative number next to their shit takes has an impact. The same goes for outright bigotry, even if we’d both prefer that earn a moderator’s boot in the ass.
Relying on a tiny minority of special users to do all the work and never be wrong has downsides. They can be overzealous. They can be inattentive. They can be apathetic. They can be outright Nazis. It is better when sites like this don’t need moderator intervention. Ideally - because nothing bad ever happens. But we don’t live in “ideally.”
You’re the one who wants this to be the only interaction between users.
I am addressing the points you chose, in the words you used. When you misrepresent what I said - that’s not a “[your] logic and reasons” problem. You are lying to me, about me. I object.
And what I did with that objection was highlight your initial comment to try and connect that rationale with the reality of randos interacting on websites like this. You want accountability? Downvotes are it. Downvotes are a novel and effective means of shaping behavior. If you want to argue that just talking it out is better, don’t act offended when someone disagrees with you in detail.
Every time someone insists downvotes should go away, I try to do what they want and just talk to them about how that’s a bad idea, and they bruise like a summer peach from the slightest pushback.
‘Downvotes are soft moderation.’ ‘But they don’t stop bigots!’ ‘No, hence: soft. But you want even that soft consequence removed.’ ‘How dare you speak to me that way.’
I am what you are asking for. I am the kind of person who will tell you when you’ve lied about me, to my face, and steer the conversation back toward what we fucking wrote. You don’t get to clutch pearls at that point. You are explicitly arguing against the bloodless option to downvote my tone and move on with your life. You wanted this. This is what it looks like, when someone engages with the things you said.
T_D was the leadership betraying the community. Spez supported those assholes. That’s why they weren’t simply banned, very early on, for all of that abuse.
And your systemic proposal is to give users even less ability to push back against a minority of noisy bigots.
deleted by creator
“Push back” means “stop dead,” right? Otherwise that’s not what I fucking said.
We’re talking about tools and their impact. You even pointed out: accountability changes behavior. People seeing a negative number next to their shit takes has an impact. The same goes for outright bigotry, even if we’d both prefer that earn a moderator’s boot in the ass.
Relying on a tiny minority of special users to do all the work and never be wrong has downsides. They can be overzealous. They can be inattentive. They can be apathetic. They can be outright Nazis. It is better when sites like this don’t need moderator intervention. Ideally - because nothing bad ever happens. But we don’t live in “ideally.”
deleted by creator
Then I don’t know why you wrote that.
Meanwhile: the rest of the comment, please.
deleted by creator
You’re the one who wants this to be the only interaction between users.
I am addressing the points you chose, in the words you used. When you misrepresent what I said - that’s not a “[your] logic and reasons” problem. You are lying to me, about me. I object.
And what I did with that objection was highlight your initial comment to try and connect that rationale with the reality of randos interacting on websites like this. You want accountability? Downvotes are it. Downvotes are a novel and effective means of shaping behavior. If you want to argue that just talking it out is better, don’t act offended when someone disagrees with you in detail.
deleted by creator
Every time someone insists downvotes should go away, I try to do what they want and just talk to them about how that’s a bad idea, and they bruise like a summer peach from the slightest pushback.
‘Downvotes are soft moderation.’ ‘But they don’t stop bigots!’ ‘No, hence: soft. But you want even that soft consequence removed.’ ‘How dare you speak to me that way.’
I am what you are asking for. I am the kind of person who will tell you when you’ve lied about me, to my face, and steer the conversation back toward what we fucking wrote. You don’t get to clutch pearls at that point. You are explicitly arguing against the bloodless option to downvote my tone and move on with your life. You wanted this. This is what it looks like, when someone engages with the things you said.