Context: PugJesus often spams low quality posts across the dozen or so communities they mod, apparently downvoting low effort spam on my frontpage is trolling. The only other action in the modlog is a different ban for 74 years for “Mass downvoting innocuous content,” so it definitely seems they are just banning people that dislike their spam. Glad we’re not missing out on the reddit mod experience here.
I don’t regard downvotes as a valid contribution if that’s all you do. If someone for instance dislikes metal music, and went onto [email protected] and downvoted every post there, I would consider it perfectly legitimate to ban them for that. They’re not meaningfully contributing. They don’t like metal music. Their interaction is effectively vandalism.
I don’t really see how this has anything to do with disagreement. This has to do with communities not having their reach negated by people who disagree with the community itself.
Which leads to the obvious question really still unanswered: Why would anyone care if they’re banned from a community for bulk downvoting in the first place? They clearly don’t use it other than to show how they don’t like it. So why would it matter?
What things about me would this be?
Your hard on for control and mental gymnastics to justify it.
The goal posts are changing now it is people to come into the community with malicious intent this whole time? No we are talking about people curating their own feeds with the upvote and downvote feature always have been.
Given the context of the thread and explicit clarity it is obvious what you are doing. You keep trying to paint individuals using provided means express themselves in ways which you happen to dislike as evil doers who need banning.
Be real, if you truly feel the way you do, without malice, isn’t the righteous thing to try to change the system instead of banning those participating in it? Have you made an attempt to change how downvotes affect smaller communities?
I don’t see how I’ve done any mental gymnastics here. I’ve given you my logic plainly.
No? The intent doesn’t matter. I can’t know why someone is bulk downvoting, but all the same - if it’s all they’re doing, I reserve the right to ban them for negatively decreasing the visibility of posts on the community without having any evidence of engagement via posts or comments. If it seems they fundamentally dislike the entire community itself, then I will ban them. It doesn’t happen very often though.
I refer you to my [email protected] example.
In what ways should the system change here? I don’t necessarily think the upvote-downvote system is sacrosanct and irreplaceable, but it’s clearly going nowhere anytime soon - so I work within the confines of that.
How could I do that?
Perfection. Thanks:
Your example is my example for how you keep changing the goalposts and trying to frame the people we are talking about as acting with malicious intent.
Yea no I would not have imagined more than that from you.
Great excuse 10/10 moral high ground statement
How is that changing the goalposts? It’s exactly the type of scenario I’m referring to here. People who have no interest in a community just instantly downvoting any post they see from there.
I obviously can’t know what the intent of someone who say, mass-downvotes every post on [email protected] is (the community I run) but the impact is the same. If they downvote almost everything on there, and never post or comment, they obviously aren’t that interested in it.
What? You realise I am not a Lemmy dev, right?
Excuse for what?
Intent does matter intent doesn’t matter you really are confusing me dude I can’t imagine this is easy for you, either.
It would be wrong to think only a developer could fix something especially when it isn’t broken technically.
Your actions?
In terms of mass downvoting, it doesn’t. From my perspective, they would just be a user who downvotes every post and who has no interest in the topic of the community. My instinct is that they likely just don’t like the community.
You’re right, the downvote-upvote system is working as intended - and community moderators respond as they choose to towards it. I think it’s working much closer to “as intended” compared to Reddit actually.
They’re not excuses, they’re perfectly valid and justifiable reasons.
So now it is EVERY post and you know how they feel about a community? Has anyone you banned in the past met these latest requirements?
It shifts blame it is an excuse that is extremely basic. You should have absolutely no authority you are stupid as fuck
Most posts. And I obviously don’t know, but I’m thinking if someone comes into a community and downvotes everything that they probably just don’t like it. It’s not that deep.
Shifts blame to what? Who is blaming anyone?
So you’re getting personal now?
I absolutely do literally have ‘authority’ over the community I run, and it’s considered entirely acceptable by most instance owners for community owners/mods to ban people for mass downvoting without post/comment contribution.