EDIT: Maybe just for comments? Downvoats may still help with content quality control
There is some good in the concept of downvoating however in practice we've seen and continue to see the primary use a downvoat button will be an "I disagree with this person" button.
Removing downvoating entirely will not negatively impact the site. Misinformation will still be called out and not upvoated, spammers should be reported(hoping for that report button one day), ass holes will be called out, irrelevant posts and comments will be ignored/receive very few if any upvoats or get reported.
Removing the downvoat ability would also deal with any future issues with brigades, which was a big issue on that other place.
Sort: Top
[–] 650615? 0 points 10 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago
I disagree with removing downvoats. Not only will it allow worse quality content to reach the front page even more, but people will only see the upvoats, say 10 of them on a submission and think it's something people like when in fact they can't see that the post actually has double or triple the amount of people who dislike it than like it. Very bad idea to remove downvoats imo. I think the 100CCP is a good limit for it.
[–] umpaloompa 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The problem with 100 CCP is that eventually most of the site will get 100 CCP which will results in the same effects it had on reddit:downvoting = disagreeing.
I prefer to have the report as spam button remove content. If more people have reported something as spam vs. the amount it was upvoted. Then we could actually get rid of downvotes.
The best thing we, as a community can do is to have 2-4 day trial and see how it works out and if people prefer the idea of no sort of downvoting.
[–] boater 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
What about for comments which violate sub verse specific rule violations, such as posting spoilers in a no-spoiler thread?
People will want some way to hide these comments, and removing the ability to downvote will remove the ability of communities to do this themselves and instead force them to rely on the presence of extremely active moderators.
I think the ideal solution is to change "downvoting" to "downmodding", where in order to "downmod" a comment, users must select an objective and specific rule that the comment has broken from a finite list of choices specific to each subverse.
Upon clicking the downmod arrow, what will happen is that the site will create either a drop-down menu or overlay containing a list of radio buttons. Then, in order for the downmod to go through, the user must select a specific rule violation from the list, ex. "spoilers", "only contains insults", "spam".
This could encourage users to be more objective and impartial with their downvotes, rather than using them subjectively in the same manner as they would upvotes. It would also allow different subverses to maintain different rules for downvoting, and allow for no downvoting in subverses with no rules.
[–] 12_Years_A_Toucan [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
What about removing it just for comments?
[–] 650903? 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago (edited ago)
Even for comments I don't think they should be removed. But that's just me. I respect yours and others opinion and reasons for removing them though. I just feel that removing them altogether, the negatives of it will outweigh any positives that could come of it.
[–] Xelios 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
The main issue with this idea is this:
Let's say I post a news story. It's a hoax that I've made up, but currently there's no proof otherwise and it gains massive traction. 1000 upvoats in an hour. After the hour, it is later revealed that I lied as the manager of the person I made a story about denies it. What's the problem here? The only way people can know that is by viewing the comments (tags too by moderators). The problem with this is a lot of people only read headlines or the actual article itself and ignore the comments. This means it will still gain upvoats. The other problem is that people very rarely revisit threads they've already been to, unless a discussion crops up and they get constant inbox notifications. This means people will not retract their upvoats. Thus, my hoax will now continue to rise, albeit slower, but still substantially.
That's not the end though, this will also cause the rise of a subverse and multiple posts saying "Don't upvoat this/remove your upvaots from this/revealed to be a hoax" which will have all sorts of problems, particularly if they phrase it like the first two as that breaks vote manipulation rules. Reddit became popular because it was self regulating. Downvotes are apart of that. An upvoat system is not self regulating, it is only self promotion system (dunno if that's the right term or phrasing).
[–] forbidden_arts 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
In addition to spreading misinformation, we're bound to have people who post malicious content (e.g. gore in an inappropriate sub), and it is useful to have a mechanism to suppress those links or comments.
The one drawback is that people can and do use the downvoats to express disagreement, which leads to echo-chambers and circlejerks. Perhaps we could allow the Mods for a particular sub to regulate whether downvoats are allowed instead of making it a site-wide issue?
[–] Xelios 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Personally, my biggest gripe with the downvoat system is brigading against a user or subreddit or ideology, which sort of fits into disagreement. The problem I have with allowing Mods to regulate only is that it relies on having good mods. Some guy mgiht make a sub that becomes hugely popular but doesn't hire good mods or care to regulate it (we've seen it a lot over at reddit), which means that these sub's will have no effective regulation. It could also lead to suppression of content/censorship.
We'd see threads like "This mod has been suppresing users and censoring any time they try to speak up!" and even though the post would be well intention, you know what would happen because of it? Brigading.
This is why I'm not really for removing the power from the users entirely.
[–] 12_Years_A_Toucan [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Thoughts on leaving it for posts but not comments? Comments are easier to simply call out
[–] 12_Years_A_Toucan [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Thoughts on leaving it for post but not comments? Comments are easier to simply call out for being misinformation
[–] boater 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Downvoting is essential for comments in the instance that a comment contains spoilers in a no-spoiler comment thread in discussions about books, shows, or movies. Using comments to highlight something as spoilers without the ability for the post to become hidden would only make the spoiler worse. This is just one use case.
I think the ideal solution is to simply change the mechanic of the downvote button so that it requires the user to select the subverse specific rule which the comment has violated each time they press the button:
https://voat.co/v/ideasforvoat/comments/216460/656153
[–] Xelios 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Hm. That's actually not a bad idea. I can't think of any negatives for that right now. Especially since comments have the report spam feature, which would act to regulate that stuff. Pretty good idea actually! :D
[–] UlteriorMotives 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
I think this could work really well. The purpose of the voat mechanic is to push quality content to the top and crap content to the bottom, correct? If people can still upvoat quality content, it would rise to the top while the crap content would sink to to bottom because it has less upvoats.
[–] boater 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
Downvoting is necessary to enforce subverse specific rules in a decentralized manner in instances where a subverse does not possess a moderator available 24-7 and still wants to hold structured conversations.
For instance, suppose there is a collective desire for a subverse for discussing a series of books where the majority of participants want a strict "no spoilers" rule enforced in comments in threads without a spoiler tag in the title.
Removing the ability of users to downvote would require the presence of extremely active moderator, or for people to draw additional attention to the spoilers and spam by posting additional comments under them.
I think that a possible solution is to have the downvote button open a list of subverse specific rule violations each time it is pressed. This way in order for a downvote to go through, the downvoter must select the reason they are downvoting the comment from a finite list of options every time.
The list of rule violations which a downvote must fall into to be considered "valid" would be equivalent to the list of sidebar rules of each subverse, and determined by the subverse creator, the subverse moderation team, or perhaps by a majority of active subverse participants via a direct amendment process.
This would allow different subverses to develop different policies and cultures concerning the use of downvoats.
[–] UlteriorMotives 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I like the idea of the drop down. I still don't know that simple upvoats wouldn't accomplish that purpose though. If I post a spoiler to the Game of Thrones sub without a spoiler tag - it shouldn't be upvoated. By not upvoating me, you are condemning me to the bottom of the pile. It will still show up under "new," but you really shouldn't be browsing new if you're an episode behind.
Back to the drop down though. I like the idea in theory, but what's to stop me from just selecting anything regardless of whether or not it applies?
[–] 12_Years_A_Toucan [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
That's my general thought process as well!
[–] calyxa 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Copy-pasting a comment I made in a post in v/AskVoat:
I was thinking of a per-subverse parameter, call it "downvoat freeze" so each subverse could specify its own minimum. When a post gets to that point, it should alert the mods because if a post or comment is getting so many downvoats it probably needs some sort of moderator intervention.
That intervention could include - remove the post/comment, remove the downvoat freeze (thus allowing the post to continue sinking no longer limited by the freeze), or do nothing (i.e., allow the post/comment to stay as-is).
[–] umpaloompa ago
This is a good idea if the mods are active 24/7, which is not the case yet. With this we put a lot more pressure on the mods instead of acting as a community.
[–] calyxa ago
Something like a post/comment hitting its downvoat freeze CAN WAIT. It's not an urgent fire. But a post/comment being downvoat brigaded IS a fire.
[–] sng-ign 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
So, the grading scale would only be upvoat or nothing? IDK. So far, people seem to be okay with only upvoats for probation, and then "graduating" to downvoats later.
Maybe upping the upvoat restriction to 1K (1000) may do it, but all it will do is have newbies upvoating everything they see until they can downvoat ...
And thus the cycle continues.
[–] 12_Years_A_Toucan [S] 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
I just see in the long term it causing more harm than good. Maybe even just removing downvoating for comments? As that is a compromise that still helps with my main concerns of being a disagree button.
[–] sng-ign ago
@12_Years_A_Toucan // I would prefer blocking users, but the block feature has not been deployed yet on Voat ...
[–] Kleyno 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
But I whored myself out so hard to get enough CCP to use them.
You monster! You're ruining downvoating day!
[–] HowAboutShutUp ago
I'm 100% for an idea like this one or similar, I'd like to see a better kind of balance for handling disagree button usage and brigading. I think that the lack of granularity that, for example, reddit has, is what in part led to making every problem look like a nail and shadowbanning like a hammer on that site. Voat already does a lot of stuff in a better or more interesting way; this could be one of them too.
[–] Dissident_Aggressor ago
Upvote brigades are still a thing. Get a bunch of nutters or false flag dickasses upvoting their zany lizardman conspiracies to the top of every comments section. Not to mention the waves of spammers from SRS or wherever. That said, I'm all for putting up stricter limits on the numbers of downvoats you can use per day, or per # of upvoats, or something similar. They shouldn't be dropped all willy-nilly. Would be interesting to tie a downvoat to a comment, come to think of it. Like, you have to at least reply with something. Would mess with the "top comment" algorithm potentially, though, I'm not sure if that runs purely on the voating or also on the comments.