How should Lemmy & Piefed handle voting activity from banned/deleted accounts?
-
Buddy I don’t care how hard you’re trying I’m not going to let you move the goal posts. Answer the original question.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but since that isn’t what I said, implied, or alluded to, and what you asked is literally the exact opposite of what I was suggesting, your question is fucking stupid and maybe you should learn how to read English if you’re going to join in a conversation written in it.
-
Every single time I see someone with a low reputation warning, they are toxic users.
It’s an imperfect tool, but it helps identify trolls and sea lions.
Basically if someone goes against hive mind once or twice can cause getting removed or limited on their instance.
Except it appears designed for that not actually detection of the bad users. And does nothing when the toxic users just say on their own instance or comm. (like goat, pugjeasus and with recent db0 votes the feddit.org admin)
-
That’s already the case, the question is what should happen to the votes before the ban
-
Basically if someone goes against hive mind once or twice can cause getting removed or limited on their instance.
Except it appears designed for that not actually detection of the bad users. And does nothing when the toxic users just say on their own instance or comm. (like goat, pugjeasus and with recent db0 votes the feddit.org admin)
If “going against the hivemind” is insulting people (which is what I’ve seen most of the time with users with both warnings), then it works as intended.
Also, giving a lot of downvotes is usually a sign of toxicity, and that’s only based on the user’s actions, not the downvotes they receives.
And does nothing when the toxic users just say on their own instance or comm
As I said, it’s not a perfect tool. To solve toxic users creating their own communities where they reign alone would require admins stepping in. And in the case you mention, when the person is an admin themselves, there isn’t a lot you can imagine, no tool would be able to address that.
-
If “going against the hivemind” is insulting people (which is what I’ve seen most of the time with users with both warnings), then it works as intended.
Also, giving a lot of downvotes is usually a sign of toxicity, and that’s only based on the user’s actions, not the downvotes they receives.
And does nothing when the toxic users just say on their own instance or comm
As I said, it’s not a perfect tool. To solve toxic users creating their own communities where they reign alone would require admins stepping in. And in the case you mention, when the person is an admin themselves, there isn’t a lot you can imagine, no tool would be able to address that.
There has been many times on lemmy and reddit where that is not the case, just saying what people didn’t like was enough. From games to politics people love to dogpile. Making a system that helps do that is asinine.
Blaze you do so much for the fediverse but defending this type of system is very disappointing to me.
-
There has been many times on lemmy and reddit where that is not the case, just saying what people didn’t like was enough. From games to politics people love to dogpile. Making a system that helps do that is asinine.
Blaze you do so much for the fediverse but defending this type of system is very disappointing to me.
I said it above, but I’ll rephrase:
- a user giving way more downvotes than upvotes than is a sign of toxic behaviour (I insist on “giving”, so the user is the only one doing that action, we are not talking about other people’s actions)
- every time I see a user with warnings, they have both, meaning that they give a lot of downvotes (see previous points), and indeed get downvoted back
The point you are making with people going against the hivemind is related to people receiving a lot of downvotes, but doesn’t explain people giving a lot of downvotes.
Blaze you do so much for the fediverse but defending this type of system is very disappointing to me.
I indeed do a lot, and I’ve seen toxic users going rampant at a few moments. The lemm.ee shutdown due to trolling and toxicity is a sign that we needed a way to identify bad faith trolls and toxic users better to avoid mods and admins burnout.
-
I said it above, but I’ll rephrase:
- a user giving way more downvotes than upvotes than is a sign of toxic behaviour (I insist on “giving”, so the user is the only one doing that action, we are not talking about other people’s actions)
- every time I see a user with warnings, they have both, meaning that they give a lot of downvotes (see previous points), and indeed get downvoted back
The point you are making with people going against the hivemind is related to people receiving a lot of downvotes, but doesn’t explain people giving a lot of downvotes.
Blaze you do so much for the fediverse but defending this type of system is very disappointing to me.
I indeed do a lot, and I’ve seen toxic users going rampant at a few moments. The lemm.ee shutdown due to trolling and toxicity is a sign that we needed a way to identify bad faith trolls and toxic users better to avoid mods and admins burnout.
The point you are making with people going against the hivemind is related to people receiving a lot of downvotes, but doesn’t explain people giving a lot of downvotes.
Because it’s treated differently in piefed but still an example of how the software is designed to punish those who do not act the way the creator wants.
It just doesn’t seem like a way to actually address bad faith trolls or bad actors just make it easier to purge. Especially with instances that love to keep those types around, see world and shit just works.
-
I have felt there needed to be a specific type of vote available only to the original poster and to the users individual reply.
An up/downvote from the OP or the user I responded to I think should be differentiated from another user who isn’t either.
If the OP or commentator votes that should be noted alongside the X number of random votes. It isn’t an anonymous vote, but those votes would be public acknowledgements tied to the user making the public post/comment.
-
If “going against the hivemind” is insulting people (which is what I’ve seen most of the time with users with both warnings), then it works as intended.
Also, giving a lot of downvotes is usually a sign of toxicity, and that’s only based on the user’s actions, not the downvotes they receives.
And does nothing when the toxic users just say on their own instance or comm
As I said, it’s not a perfect tool. To solve toxic users creating their own communities where they reign alone would require admins stepping in. And in the case you mention, when the person is an admin themselves, there isn’t a lot you can imagine, no tool would be able to address that.
giving a lot of downvotes is usually a sign of toxicity
Emphasis mine. When is it not a sign of toxicity? Rules are defined by their exceptions, so I am curious as to how this exception is navigated, if at all?
Essentially someone who posts with high frequency has a capacity to issue more downvotes without compromising this admittedly imperfect tool.
Now I was never really a reddit user, but the problematic karma farming of accounts associated with that place was directly linked to these kinds of tools and metrics, no?
-
giving a lot of downvotes is usually a sign of toxicity
Emphasis mine. When is it not a sign of toxicity? Rules are defined by their exceptions, so I am curious as to how this exception is navigated, if at all?
Essentially someone who posts with high frequency has a capacity to issue more downvotes without compromising this admittedly imperfect tool.
Now I was never really a reddit user, but the problematic karma farming of accounts associated with that place was directly linked to these kinds of tools and metrics, no?
Emphasis mine. When is it not a sign of toxicity? Rules are defined by their exceptions, so I am curious as to how this exception is navigated, if at all?
In my experience, it is almost always the case, but I said usually in case someone came up with a very unique situation.
Essentially someone who posts with high frequency has a capacity to issue more downvotes without compromising this admittedly imperfect tool.
Are you saying that because they would get more upvotes, they could offset the downvotes they receive? Potentially, but this is where the second metric comes in (giving a lot of downvotes), and as we said, the two are almost always present at the same time.
Now I was never really a reddit user, but the problematic karma farming of accounts associated with that place was directly linked to these kinds of tools and metrics, no?
Karma farming is an issue when users can see karma as an absolute value. It’s not possible on Piefed, which only shows a percentage of attitude (downvotes given, visible to everyone: https://piefed.zip/u/Blaze ) and reputation (downvotes received, visible only to admins)
-
The point you are making with people going against the hivemind is related to people receiving a lot of downvotes, but doesn’t explain people giving a lot of downvotes.
Because it’s treated differently in piefed but still an example of how the software is designed to punish those who do not act the way the creator wants.
It just doesn’t seem like a way to actually address bad faith trolls or bad actors just make it easier to purge. Especially with instances that love to keep those types around, see world and shit just works.
Because it’s treated differently in piefed but
Then Piefed is fine?
Especially with instances that love to keep those types around, see world and shit just works.
Instances who tolerate bad faith trolls or bad actors are going to do so with or without tools such as Piefed’s.
-
Emphasis mine. When is it not a sign of toxicity? Rules are defined by their exceptions, so I am curious as to how this exception is navigated, if at all?
In my experience, it is almost always the case, but I said usually in case someone came up with a very unique situation.
Essentially someone who posts with high frequency has a capacity to issue more downvotes without compromising this admittedly imperfect tool.
Are you saying that because they would get more upvotes, they could offset the downvotes they receive? Potentially, but this is where the second metric comes in (giving a lot of downvotes), and as we said, the two are almost always present at the same time.
Now I was never really a reddit user, but the problematic karma farming of accounts associated with that place was directly linked to these kinds of tools and metrics, no?
Karma farming is an issue when users can see karma as an absolute value. It’s not possible on Piefed, which only shows a percentage of attitude (downvotes given, visible to everyone: https://piefed.zip/u/Blaze ) and reputation (downvotes received, visible only to admins)
Are you saying that because they would get more upvotes, they could offset the downvotes they receive? Potentially, but this is where the second metric comes in (giving a lot of downvotes), and as we said, the two are almost always present at the same time.
Right, though it’s a mitigating factor. I guess there’s something I don’t know about piefed: Lemmy comments all have a default upvote from the user that makes it. But it can be revoked by the user. Does Piefed work the same way? My thought only applies if that’s the case.
-
Are you saying that because they would get more upvotes, they could offset the downvotes they receive? Potentially, but this is where the second metric comes in (giving a lot of downvotes), and as we said, the two are almost always present at the same time.
Right, though it’s a mitigating factor. I guess there’s something I don’t know about piefed: Lemmy comments all have a default upvote from the user that makes it. But it can be revoked by the user. Does Piefed work the same way? My thought only applies if that’s the case.
The upvote you give yourself is there, but IIRC it doesn’t count for your score.
While we are talking, this is the kind of users who gets the two warnings: https://piefed.zip/u/[email protected]
-
The point you are making with people going against the hivemind is related to people receiving a lot of downvotes, but doesn’t explain people giving a lot of downvotes.
Because it’s treated differently in piefed but still an example of how the software is designed to punish those who do not act the way the creator wants.
It just doesn’t seem like a way to actually address bad faith trolls or bad actors just make it easier to purge. Especially with instances that love to keep those types around, see world and shit just works.
While we are talking, example of a user with the two warnings: https://piefed.zip/u/[email protected]
-
The upvote you give yourself is there, but IIRC it doesn’t count for your score.
While we are talking, this is the kind of users who gets the two warnings: https://piefed.zip/u/[email protected]
That’s an interesting example of a user this is designed for/around.
The general system of up/downvotes seems to be doing its job quite as intended: their views appear routinely unpopular and there’s a seemingly pretty strong community consensus around that.
It looks like their threads have comments that solidly and clearly refute the garbage manosphere stuff. For some people it’s the opportunity to express a refutation of it publicly and directly. The public viewer gets to read those responses too.
So with that example: what do the flags do that the content of their posts don’t already communicate?
-
I miss slashdot. My opinion is that if somebody was banned because of vote related chicanery, then their votes should disappear with them. If it didn’t have anything to do with votes, the votes should stay. Not sure if that’s feasible.
-
Because it’s treated differently in piefed but
Then Piefed is fine?
Especially with instances that love to keep those types around, see world and shit just works.
Instances who tolerate bad faith trolls or bad actors are going to do so with or without tools such as Piefed’s.
Because it’s treated differently in piefed but still an example of how the software is designed to punish those who do not act the way the creator wants.
If the part after the but is ignored sure. But that part is also the issue so
.The point is the tools of piefed will amply the bad actors by allowing them to do the worst parts of reddit in the fediverse.
-
While we are talking, example of a user with the two warnings: https://piefed.zip/u/[email protected]
And here’s an example of a bigger troll who it surprise surprise doesn’t get flagged https://feddit.online/u/FiniteBanjo
-
And here’s an example of a bigger troll who it surprise surprise doesn’t get flagged https://feddit.online/u/FiniteBanjo
Would discard a tool that identifies 90% of trolls just because it doesn’t reach 100% accuracy?
-
Because it’s treated differently in piefed but still an example of how the software is designed to punish those who do not act the way the creator wants.
If the part after the but is ignored sure. But that part is also the issue so
.The point is the tools of piefed will amply the bad actors by allowing them to do the worst parts of reddit in the fediverse.
Piefed system doesn’t punish those who do not act “the way the creator wants”.
Downvotes given are only actions from the user, no interaction from the Piefed dev.
Downvotes received is feedback from other users, no interaction from the Piefed dev either.
allowing them to do the worst parts of reddit in the fediverse.
Trolls are already around, as you pointed out in another comment. I would rather have a tool that works 80% of the time to detect trolls than no tools at all.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login