I have no idea who you are, so any slight against your person is purely your imagination.
I was curious, though, so I scrolled a bit on your profile. Out of over four hundred posts you’ve made, I saw I had downvoted three. The only comment of yours that I saw that I voted on, I upvoted.
I think the other comment about obsessiveness may be right.
Edit: and to be clear, I downvoted your comment here because it is off-topic in this post.
Thanks for bringing their instance to my attention. Their behavior is NOT ok, makes me want nothing to do with their project, and I have defederated their instance over it.
Because OP titled it only “Fediverser” and gave essentially no further info. To borrow from reddit’s FAQ: “Remember that adage about not judging a book by its cover? No one actually follows it. So choose your title carefully — make it useful, provide context, and be descriptive.” I feel that high-quality posts should be elevated, and low-quality posts should be reduced.
Downvotes usually signify “you posted something rude, objectively incorrect, off-topic, or instance/community rule-breaking” and people who think they did not do anything wrong might understandably be frustrated when they are getting the signal they did something like that, but they can’t figure out what bad behavior they’re getting downvoted for at all. They might want to know what the downvoter thinks they are doing that is inappropriate so they can stop it, or if it is just a troll trying to make people unhappy and thus ignorable. And given the “lol why do you even care, are you that sensitive over internet points” kind of view, it makes it even more annoying because asking what they did wrong might just get them a response like that and no further clue to what offensive behavior they’ve committed. I know some people use downvote for a mere disagreement as well as for actual objectionable behavior, and trolls exist so downvotes are often safe to ignore, but I’d imagine a reasonable person who does not care about internet points might start getting a little “oh god what did I do wrong” if it’s more half-up half-down or mostly downvoted, especially since I usually see rude/spammy/incorrect things downvoted more heavily than things politely pushing against the grain of popular opinion.
Also somewhat relevant: I subscribe to some really small magazines/communities. Some of them are full of posts that might appear bad or controversial by vote count (think 3 upvotes vs 3 downvotes, 4 upvotes vs 3 downvotes), but the posts are entirely on topic and are not particularly biased or incorrect. I feel bad for them because it makes that post look low-quality or like they are about a controversial topic when it is really just a tiny community that probably attracted a couple trolls but not enough legit users to outvote them. I can see that getting the community creator a little upset, having their regular content look to onlookers as if it’s trash when it’s normal content, and lowering their hopes of attracting people to the community. Although hopefully people can recognize that at that small a number of people it might just be trolls and not low-quality content.
Reddit promoted “downvote to disagree” and this is a consequence of the userbase having migrated from there.
You can say whatever you want about how it should work, but the bottom line is that most people using vote-based systems are voting up and down based on if they agree with what’s posted. It hasn’t been “downvote for off-topic” for over a decade.
This guy wants to bring more redditors to the site, the people actively perpetuating downvote to disagree.
Downvotes usually signify “you posted something rude, objectively incorrect, off-topic, or instance/community rule-breaking” and people who think they did not do anything wrong might understandably be frustrated when they are getting the signal they did something like that, but they can’t figure out what bad behavior they’re getting downvoted for at all. They might want to know what the downvoter thinks they are doing that is inappropriate so they can stop it, or if it is just a troll trying to make people unhappy and thus ignorable.
I disagree with bringing in more redditors to this site. I think the community ambassador system is a quick way of creating a bunch of powermoderators on a system that’s supposed to be designed to resist that kind of behavior and centralization.
If you hate being downvoted because of disagreement, why would you want to bring more users who default to that behavior?
I also do not believe you should have any more power or capacity in the fediverse. It’s clear to me by your behavior in this thread that even basic things like being downvoted can set you off and make you decide to try to start a witch hunt.
You calling somebody out publicly is entirely to illicit a reaction from the crowd. Surely, a direct message would have been more appropriate for a disagreement over a series of downvotes?
By doing this publicly you’ve definitely made the situation way, way worse than it had to be.
I have no idea who you are, so any slight against your person is purely your imagination.
I was curious, though, so I scrolled a bit on your profile. Out of over four hundred posts you’ve made, I saw I had downvoted three. The only comment of yours that I saw that I voted on, I upvoted.
I think the other comment about obsessiveness may be right.
Edit: and to be clear, I downvoted your comment here because it is off-topic in this post.
Thanks for bringing their instance to my attention. Their behavior is NOT ok, makes me want nothing to do with their project, and I have defederated their instance over it.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Because OP titled it only “Fediverser” and gave essentially no further info. To borrow from reddit’s FAQ: “Remember that adage about not judging a book by its cover? No one actually follows it. So choose your title carefully — make it useful, provide context, and be descriptive.” I feel that high-quality posts should be elevated, and low-quality posts should be reduced.
Modified it a bit. Never understood why reddit never allowed people to edit a title.
It’s so that someone can’t get a post to the front page and change it to something offensive.
I don’t know if that’s going to be a problem on Lemmy. Maybe in the future, if there are more users.
Can you please explain why it matters?
Downvotes usually signify “you posted something rude, objectively incorrect, off-topic, or instance/community rule-breaking” and people who think they did not do anything wrong might understandably be frustrated when they are getting the signal they did something like that, but they can’t figure out what bad behavior they’re getting downvoted for at all. They might want to know what the downvoter thinks they are doing that is inappropriate so they can stop it, or if it is just a troll trying to make people unhappy and thus ignorable. And given the “lol why do you even care, are you that sensitive over internet points” kind of view, it makes it even more annoying because asking what they did wrong might just get them a response like that and no further clue to what offensive behavior they’ve committed. I know some people use downvote for a mere disagreement as well as for actual objectionable behavior, and trolls exist so downvotes are often safe to ignore, but I’d imagine a reasonable person who does not care about internet points might start getting a little “oh god what did I do wrong” if it’s more half-up half-down or mostly downvoted, especially since I usually see rude/spammy/incorrect things downvoted more heavily than things politely pushing against the grain of popular opinion.
Also somewhat relevant: I subscribe to some really small magazines/communities. Some of them are full of posts that might appear bad or controversial by vote count (think 3 upvotes vs 3 downvotes, 4 upvotes vs 3 downvotes), but the posts are entirely on topic and are not particularly biased or incorrect. I feel bad for them because it makes that post look low-quality or like they are about a controversial topic when it is really just a tiny community that probably attracted a couple trolls but not enough legit users to outvote them. I can see that getting the community creator a little upset, having their regular content look to onlookers as if it’s trash when it’s normal content, and lowering their hopes of attracting people to the community. Although hopefully people can recognize that at that small a number of people it might just be trolls and not low-quality content.
Reddit promoted “downvote to disagree” and this is a consequence of the userbase having migrated from there.
You can say whatever you want about how it should work, but the bottom line is that most people using vote-based systems are voting up and down based on if they agree with what’s posted. It hasn’t been “downvote for off-topic” for over a decade.
This guy wants to bring more redditors to the site, the people actively perpetuating downvote to disagree.
Agreed
Removed by mod
I disagree with bringing in more redditors to this site. I think the community ambassador system is a quick way of creating a bunch of powermoderators on a system that’s supposed to be designed to resist that kind of behavior and centralization.
If you hate being downvoted because of disagreement, why would you want to bring more users who default to that behavior?
I also do not believe you should have any more power or capacity in the fediverse. It’s clear to me by your behavior in this thread that even basic things like being downvoted can set you off and make you decide to try to start a witch hunt.
Removed by mod
You calling somebody out publicly is entirely to illicit a reaction from the crowd. Surely, a direct message would have been more appropriate for a disagreement over a series of downvotes?
By doing this publicly you’ve definitely made the situation way, way worse than it had to be.