Regarding the limitations of voting on this website.
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
i didnt know there was a limit to downvotes, i dont downvote at all- i just ignore wtv i dont like.. but i see your point
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
Can you perhaps stop flooding the thread with posts that are not constructive?
Additionally, I brought up the point of downvote bombing, and said what needs to be done, but, you, apparently, did not wish to continue reading my post.
-
Can you perhaps stop flooding the thread with posts that are not constructive?
Additionally, I brought up the point of downvote bombing, and said what needs to be done, but, you, apparently, did not wish to continue reading my post.
-
@Grind said in Regarding the limitations of voting on this website.:
@Idyll Okok me read just stop downvoting
English please
-
the down vote system is limited for each site user as our system automatically flags posts that reach 5 down votes, so to prevent flooding of our report tool, we keep it limited to 5 per day. If this was increased, I do believe that the downvotes tool would be more "popular" and used, which isn't the goal here. Furthermore, with our userbase and the fact that we don't have the most intellectual people, that would give more reasons to downvote, which adds more flags to us.
-
the down vote system is limited for each site user as our system automatically flags posts that reach 5 down votes, so to prevent flooding of our report tool, we keep it limited to 5 per day. If this was increased, I do believe that the downvotes tool would be more "popular" and used, which isn't the goal here. Furthermore, with our userbase and the fact that we don't have the most intellectual people, that would give more reasons to downvote, which adds more flags to us.
@Raven I am well aware of this. I used to moderate a similar forum to this one, and it also had the exact same mechanism where it would flag a post with 5 or more downvotes. Annoyingly, it kept opening the flag back up with each consecutive downvote a post received.
I have a simple solution that would fix this, though:
Just disable the downvote autoflag, if possible. It may seem silly, but if you really think about it, the mechanism is pretty much redundant, because of this:
As I mentioned, downvotes are a tool to communicate disagreement, and should be treated as such. The staff should not be nagged with pointless autoflags just because a post is extremely polarising but is not rule-breaking. If someone were to say something that violates the rules however, then users can simply manually flag the post themselves. I do not see a reason why keep the restriction around because of a flawed system mechanism.
Regardless, 5 downvotes is already highly unlikely unless the user was being quite uncivilised.Furthermore, with our userbase and the fact that we don't have the most intellectual people, that would give more reasons to downvote
That seems too much of a stretch. Even other forums like the one I used to moderate had its fair share of users that were not civil, yet the administrators never even thought of imposing a limit. And, instances of the aforementioned downvote bombing were quite rare.
I would say give it a try, and if it goes out of hand, then re-impose the restrictions.
Even then, dissent should not be limited just because of a few bad actors. A few bad apples should not spoil the whole bunch. -
Good evening. I have been debating making this post for weeks, but it is nigh time I get this out of my chest because I am getting sick and tired of keeping it in.
I would like to put forward a proposal to remove all the restrictions on downvotes. To keep it short, the 5 downvote per day limit is pretty ridiculous. Why are we limited on how many times we can disagree? What is the thought process behind it? On websites like Reddit, you are able to downvote as much as you want, and that is how it should be. The right to dissent is universal, and should not be obstructed in any way whatsoever. This restriction leads people to conserve their downvotes, and it limits freedom of expression. Before it is mentioned: no. Downvote bombing is not a valid reason as to why this limitation should be kept around. It is, at best, a flawed one. If you do get downvote bombed, contact a staff member to get it resolved. They have the ability to see which posts users upvoted/downvoted. Subsequently, reputation on this forum is just an arbitrary number that does not mean anything. One way I like to put it is that it is just useless virtual internet points.
Another limitation I would like to bring up is the 5-votes-per-thread one. Only being allowed to upvote or downvote up to 5 posts total in a thread is another restriction which needs to be abolished at once. The core issue with this restriction are the larger threads with multiple posts and replies. Much like above, it only leads to people conserving their votes. There are going to be more than 5 posts which you will agree or disagree with, no doubt about that. Both upvotes and downvotes are supposed to be a tool for communication between users, signalising agreement or disagreement respectively, without the need to state it in a reply.
Finally, the requirements you need to upvote or downvote in the first place should be lowered. Currently, for upvoting, you need 20 posts, and for downvoting, you need 50 posts and 200 reputation points minimum. This significantly disenfranchises and discriminates against newer folk who join the website. Personally, I'd lower it to 10 posts for upvotes, and 25 for downvotes, without any reputation requirement for either. It seems more reasonable, but I will not push for it as hard as the other two points.
This is the least I could articulate without the post becoming too lengthy. Let me know your thoughts, and feel free to add your ideas and proposals that I may have missed.
-
@Faust ayyyye rizz bro upppp
-
@Faust oh well congrats on you and your boyfriend
-
Good evening. I have been debating making this post for weeks, but it is nigh time I get this out of my chest because I am getting sick and tired of keeping it in.
I would like to put forward a proposal to remove all the restrictions on downvotes. To keep it short, the 5 downvote per day limit is pretty ridiculous. Why are we limited on how many times we can disagree? What is the thought process behind it? On websites like Reddit, you are able to downvote as much as you want, and that is how it should be. The right to dissent is universal, and should not be obstructed in any way whatsoever. This restriction leads people to conserve their downvotes, and it limits freedom of expression. Before it is mentioned: no. Downvote bombing is not a valid reason as to why this limitation should be kept around. It is, at best, a flawed one. If you do get downvote bombed, contact a staff member to get it resolved. They have the ability to see which posts users upvoted/downvoted. Subsequently, reputation on this forum is just an arbitrary number that does not mean anything. One way I like to put it is that it is just useless virtual internet points.
Another limitation I would like to bring up is the 5-votes-per-thread one. Only being allowed to upvote or downvote up to 5 posts total in a thread is another restriction which needs to be abolished at once. The core issue with this restriction are the larger threads with multiple posts and replies. Much like above, it only leads to people conserving their votes. There are going to be more than 5 posts which you will agree or disagree with, no doubt about that. Both upvotes and downvotes are supposed to be a tool for communication between users, signalising agreement or disagreement respectively, without the need to state it in a reply.
Finally, the requirements you need to upvote or downvote in the first place should be lowered. Currently, for upvoting, you need 20 posts, and for downvoting, you need 50 posts and 200 reputation points minimum. This significantly disenfranchises and discriminates against newer folk who join the website. Personally, I'd lower it to 10 posts for upvotes, and 25 for downvotes, without any reputation requirement for either. It seems more reasonable, but I will not push for it as hard as the other two points.
This is the least I could articulate without the post becoming too lengthy. Let me know your thoughts, and feel free to add your ideas and proposals that I may have missed.
@Idyll I thought thie was a "everyone should be involved on topics that are banned post" (I miss talking abt religion a little)
-
If anything, I'd recommend letting the people vote on how they want to go about this downvote limitation. Just a big poll with three options:
- Remove the restriction entirely. This is one of the main arguments in this post pointed out by Idyll. The restrictions themselves have proven to be frustrating to many on the website, and by removing said restrictions could allow people to express their disagreements much more. I was in a forums website much similar to this one and they never had to limit downvotes. That website had an audience arguably as adjacent as this one- yet they never called for such a thing. While getting rid of the downvoting limit could open the gate for more downvote bombing, those cases within themselves can easily be moderated and resolved upon proper reports.
- Keep the restrictions. Maybe not everyone on the platform is upset with the downvoting limitations and are rather content with said restrictions. If enough people vote for this, things will generally be kept the same. Nothing will change.
- Keep the restrictions, but allow more room for more downvotes. If this is voted in, there may have to be a secondary poll regarding a larger limit on downvotes per topic, post, or day. This will give the users of the website a choice on what and how they want in regards to those limits. Restrictions will not be entirely removed, rather the circumstances change.
Overall, this is just a suggestion. Additionally, I think that the whole "In order to start downvoting you need 50 posts and 200 rep" is ridiculous. I would prefer the rep limit being lowered, and if replies count as posts then I have no real issues with that aspect. In no way is this reply hostile, I'm just suggesting giving the community a chance to vote on how they want things
⋅⋆─𖤓─ ⋆⋅
-
If anything, I'd recommend letting the people vote on how they want to go about this downvote limitation. Just a big poll with three options:
- Remove the restriction entirely. This is one of the main arguments in this post pointed out by Idyll. The restrictions themselves have proven to be frustrating to many on the website, and by removing said restrictions could allow people to express their disagreements much more. I was in a forums website much similar to this one and they never had to limit downvotes. That website had an audience arguably as adjacent as this one- yet they never called for such a thing. While getting rid of the downvoting limit could open the gate for more downvote bombing, those cases within themselves can easily be moderated and resolved upon proper reports.
- Keep the restrictions. Maybe not everyone on the platform is upset with the downvoting limitations and are rather content with said restrictions. If enough people vote for this, things will generally be kept the same. Nothing will change.
- Keep the restrictions, but allow more room for more downvotes. If this is voted in, there may have to be a secondary poll regarding a larger limit on downvotes per topic, post, or day. This will give the users of the website a choice on what and how they want in regards to those limits. Restrictions will not be entirely removed, rather the circumstances change.
Overall, this is just a suggestion. Additionally, I think that the whole "In order to start downvoting you need 50 posts and 200 rep" is ridiculous. I would prefer the rep limit being lowered, and if replies count as posts then I have no real issues with that aspect. In no way is this reply hostile, I'm just suggesting giving the community a chance to vote on how they want things
@Araghie And the 7 day thing to upvote should probably be removed.I gotta wait a week to upvote
-
@Araghie And the 7 day thing to upvote should probably be removed.I gotta wait a week to upvote
@Chicken Oh my, I wasn't aware of that. That's.. a peculiar choice that was made, to put lightly.
⋅⋆─𖤓─ ⋆⋅
-
@Chicken Oh my, I wasn't aware of that. That's.. a peculiar choice that was made, to put lightly.
@Araghie yeah I can't upvote any post until I've been a member for 7 days. It used to not be like this
