Insulting or attacking other users, even so much saying "fuck you", "fuck [this group of people]", "you're an idiot" or anything like that while debating IS against the rules of Lemmy.ml. This goes for every political view, you DO NOT get free passes no matter if you're leftist, rightist, communist, anarchist, liberal, etc. If you're confident of your position you should be able to debate in a civil manner without cursing someone else out. I understand that debates can get heated and frustrating, hell I've debated with a good bunch of users, but you can still express that without resorting to name calling or insults.
Check the modlog, we HAVE removed replies of this nature from every political view, and even if we don't say it every time, we DO keep track of both removals per user and general behaviour even if it doesn't get removed, and too many infractions WILL result in a ban.
That said, it is NOT against the rules to present countering facts or opinions, or to have political opinions in general. Don't report comments for "being pro communist" or "being pro China" unless they have broken an actual rule, namely the ones about being civil. Don't attack or insult people from Lemmygrad just because they're from Lemmygrad or they're arguing for Marxism-Leninism or supporting a country you don't. If they're presenting their points in a civil manner (which had been the case for almost everyone from Lemmygrad), you can either read it and respond in kind with your questions or counterpoints, or just move on. People coming over from other instances is not brigading if they're mostly being civil, that's the whole point of federation.
Things people disagree with getting down voted is also acceptable, it's not considered an attack on you if your comment has a negative score, and it doesn't even significantly affect the ranking because of the relatively low comment volumes currently on Lemmy. It's just imaginary internet points, relax.
What does decent mean? Something popular? Or something with quality content and comments?
All three I suppose? Here's an example from xdadevelopers of what dealing with old-school forums is like. A 17-page thread of people trying to discover the best practices / things to do for battery life. Without any scoring or voting, you have to read through hundreds of replies.
Some threads have thousands of comments, going through each of them to find what's good might take days.
So you think that popularity equals quality?
For the most part. If you have a thread of 10k comments, would you rather read through each of them individually, or have them be sorted by collective preference?
That's not at all what I'm talking about. I argue that using votes as "likes", instead of how the Reddiquette originally meant it, is a bad idea for the very reason you are stating. Sorting by popularity is not going to highlight the best solution or argument, but the most popular one.
How do you dictate how people use preference buttons? They're going to use them however they see fit, and that's a good thing.
And how do you find good content without some sort of collective preference? Any site should be able to answer this question: you have a thread with 10k comments, what's the best way to sort them so that users don't have to read every comment?
Why do you want to dictate it?
If that's a good thing is the very thing we argue about right now. I disagree that this is a good thing. Especially if you mean that everybody should any system however they like, instead of how it is supposed to be used. If everyone uses any system differently, be it a 5 star system, or upvotes/downvotes, the system is not going to show what people think it shows, but a mix of all interpretations mangled into a number.
If half of the people use "3 stars" for an average product, but the other half uses "5 stars" for an average product, the rating is off for both halfs. It's the same with rating the delivery. If the rating system is meant for the product only, using it for other reasons distorts the result of that system.
I hope you can see what I mean.
As I said elsewhere in this thread: By having a metric that shows how well written and thought through an argument is. You don't have to "like" what is written or said, but you can acknowledge the quality of the argument.
Depends on what your goal is: Do you want users to read what they LIKE to read? Then you go for likes/dislikes, so what people want to read most is always at the top, creating a filter bubble, also called an echo chamber.
If you want to encourage quality discussion, where arguments are higher rated than emotional replies, then you should not do that.
How would you implement this? Because if its by user preference, then you're back to step one, except you're dictating how a user should use their preference button. And if its by something strange like comment length, AI's reading comments, then all of those can be easily gamed
I'm sorry, but I think you are avoiding to talk about the merits of such a system based on the fact that you can't dictate how users use a system. Your solution is to simply stop caring about it, my solution would be to encourage the correct usage of the system and educate everyone about it.
You argue for a good system, while at the same time you argue that no system can be good, because you can't dictate anyone, and there are bots.
So... why even talk about this, if there is no reason for you that any of this makes sense?
How does one "enforce correct usage" of a like button? Why do you get to dictate how ppl use that button?
You can't really enforce it, but in smaller community sizes self-enforcement can occur through a community culture that's self-reinforcing. This is typically done through repeated reminders and a constant back and forth between community management and the membership, often through a regular post of sorts.
There is a tipping point in size where that stops working too though but it's somewhere in the 40k-100k users range.
Alright, you don't want to talk about it. So please do stop. You repeating already answered questions doesn't do anyone any good.