this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2023
435 points (97.4% liked)

Lemmy

12444 readers
92 users here now

Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.

For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to !meta@lemmy.ml.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Rule #2 is possibly our most important one:

Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.

Learn to disagree without being rude or disrespectful.

It can be difficult sometimes, since western social media thrives on collective outrage, and they knowingly ingrain this into us for years. But please do adhere to this rule, and it will make this place much more enjoyable.

We will not hesitate to issue temp bans (usually a day or two) for those who make everyone's experience unpleasant.Hit the report button if you see this behavior.

Thanks!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] d3Xt3r@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (30 children)

Could we also have a rule saying that downvotes should not be used for disagreements? Downvotes should be meant for off-topic, or factually incorrect content. Disagreements should be debated in the comments, respectfully of course.

[–] SolarSailer@beehaw.org 19 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Beehaw just removes the downvote button entirely, so there is a community for that.

[–] DrQuint@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

I can get behind this, because upvotes/downvote serve a purpose of telling the website "more people should see this". But we don't need to know what needs to be seen less. Upvotes will, on their own, already tell us what's the top content and sort things out things. Late, Average and Middling posts aren't really going to be seen by most people and are fine with a lesser rating accuracy.

But what about de-constructive comments? What if something TRULY deserves to be seen less? Well, here's a stance I don't particularly believe everyone would get behind but has some merit: People should post their reasoning why their post was not very good as a response. As that not just generates discussion points, but also informs other onlookers of their rationale. And if a response gathers upvotes (ratio'd), then that signals a better message than a simple downvote ever would. Yeah, that means the only response to a troll is actually responding, and that may make a community appear less welcoming, but overall I don't know if that's a big issue in practice.

[–] SolarSailer@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hmm you raise an interesting point. I do agree that it's helpful to explain to someone why they're being downvoted.

An experimental feature might be to allow downvotes only if you reply, or else you can choose to down vote a comment if you also upvote a response to the downvoted comment.

[–] Adda@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Never heard this idea before. Some food for thought, indeed. Simply for its unique approach, people should keep this idea in mind when talking about down votes.

[–] randomredditor12345@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

I think this idea is absolutely brilliant. I would love a platform that would force some level of accountability on those who put down other people's perspectives.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)