Question I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on possibly making votes public. This has been discussed in a lot of other issues, but here's a dedicated one for discussion. Positives Could help figh...
Probably better to post in the github issue rather than replying here.
I have a particular set of people that actually follow me from community to community, just to downvote what I say and the articles I post. All because I posted a neutral article about the Green Party to the c/politics sub. That made them mad enough to be obsessed about me. lol
So if you are determined enough to do that, then ya shouldn't be upset that people can see what you're doing.
Hey, wow! What a coincidence. Funny that YOU of all people, would show up at the EXACT time I am talking about people following me. Crazy coincidence, don't ya think?
It'd be super fun to see who it is following me and downvoting me, right? I mean, not that YOU'D ever do that, right? All because I posted a Green Party article to a politics sub. You suuuurrreee wouldn't be the type of person to do that, I bet! Right?
Well in this thread, just now, he just posted yet another screenshot of how many posts I make. Which he has already done about me earlier today in unrelated communities, so...
He REALLY likes to keep track of how may posts I make and then takes screenshots of it. lmao
Hey, keeping posting screen shots of your interactions with me, when I haven't mentioned your name at all, sure doesn't make it look like you are stalking me. For sure it doesn't. Don't worry man, it's all good.
I haven't accused you of anything. And what does the amount I post have anything to do with this thread?
Other than, well the people who follow me around, def have a lot of work cut out for them. I mean, fingers must get sore with that downvote button.
But hey man, showing up in a thread at the exact same time I am talking about someone stalking me, and then throwing up screen shots of the number of posts I make doesn't make you look guilty at all.
Nope. No way could we be talking about you, friend.
@UniversalMonk@SatansMaggotyCumFart I don’t know you, I’ve never seen you before, and I’ll likely never see you again, so feel free to skip reading this, but I’m absolutely not surprised that your posts get downvotes if this is indicative of your average comment. Accusatory, sarcastic, and grating are not the adjectives that I associate with positive energy. I don’t think public voting is going to solve the issue you described.
Wow I want my obsessed about me haters too. Where are you people
Go post an article about the Green Party into the c/politics sub. Not only will you get plenty of people following you to downvote, but you'll get called a "russian troll farm employee" every single day. So double win!!
However, this particular user has deluded themself into believing this grandiose nonsense that they have a club of users who stalk them to downvote their stuff, when in reality we all come across them naturally because:
Lemmy is a pretty small place.
They're a reasonably prolific commenter.
Every time they show up somewhere, it's a woe-is-me victim complex about how they're being downvoted (immediately drawing attention) or making the absolute shittest political takes imaginable, which again draws attention and downvotes. This could definitely be survivorship bias where I only notice their username on comments that are doing these two things and not on normal ones.
I personally do not give enough of a shit about this user to waste any precious time or effort stalking them across Lemmy. (Source: I came across this post organically and would almost assuredly be one of the users Monk is talking about.)
I personally do not give enough of a shit about this user to waste any precious time or effort stalking them across Lemmy.
And I wish more people felt that way!
Got up to 49 downvotes for an article talking about a 90 year-old woman graduating college, brah. In a sub about college, with just 3 subscribers. So I deleted, and posted again. And 10 reports about it being an advertisement (which it wasn't so it didn't get removed). lmao
But yeah, I'm just being grandiose.
And one day after I got called a Russian Troll Farm employee after posting an article about the Green Party in the c/politics sub. With 20 DM's telling me to go back to Russia. Yeah, I'm just being grandiose. Probably all just a coincidence!
And by the way, me talking about doesn't mean I am crying and thinking I'm a victim.
I give zero real world fucks about my downvotes. I'll discuss it. It'd be cool to prove it with a public downvoting system.
But I don't really care if it happens or not.
And fuck all of you, I'm still gonna post any interesting article about third parties I see. :)
But hey, public voting names would def prove me wrong or right. So bring it on! :)
Moreover, they note that it's a small community with three subscribers, which could actually hold weight as evidence of brigading if we were on Reddit. But on Lemmy? Nah, you kind of just see everything.
If we're sorting by new on /r/all, I need to scroll back several pages on RiF to even see something that was posted 30 seconds ago; the chance that more than a few users will see the same feed there is tiny.
On Lemmy, by contrast, sorting 'All' by new gives me posts in the last 10-ish minutes on just the first page; things just move a ton more slowly. Consequently, there's a lot more outsiders who are liable to see and interact with your post in a small community.
I've seen a few "There's no record of this comment" and when I open up the thread in a private tab, it's someone I've bumped heads with but don't remember/care if I blocked them or they blocked me. I always wondered if it goes both ways, which it should, imo.
Yeah, that was what I thought to. It's just mute. Which is nice for the quiet, but I'd be great if the block would make them unable to downvote you and your posts as well. And it'd be nice if it wouldn't even let them reply to your posts. Because muting doesn't stop the poison the spread, just my personal ability to not see it.
I'd be great if the block would make them unable to downvote you and your posts as well. And it'd be nice if it wouldn't even let them reply to your posts.
I'm not entirely sure that's going to work out the way people think it will.
Suppose I'm some jackass that gets off on harassing you: if blocks prevented me from interacting with your content, and you blocked me, I would have confirmation that I've successfully gotten under your skin. I can then just make another account and continue what I'm doing.
If blocks don't notify or provide indication to the blocked party, they would either escalate their behavior (while you are blissfully unaware) and get banned by a moderator, or give up and move on to someone else.
There's also considering how that's going to work with moderators and admins: do they get to bypass the block and continue to comment and interact with you against your wishes? Does it hide your posts from them if they're blocked? It's a lot harder to design this type of blocking on a community-centric platform than it is to do for a microblogging platform like Twitter or Tumblr.
Because muting doesn't stop the poison the spread, just my personal ability to not see it.
That's what mods and admins are supposed to do. It's not the users' responsibility to moderate the behavior of others, and it's a lot less stressful than trying to stop toxicity when you only have words in your moderator toolbox.
I'm not sure which two trolls decided to downvote your comment saying "fair points," but here's an upvote for being a good sport about listening to me explain why your preferred implementation of blocking might not be more effective than what we have now.
Ahh, thanks. Truth be told, comments like yours (as in well thought out and logical) are why I love Lemmy so much.
I have a little downvote team following me around. Many in this thread have denied my theory about that, but meh, I can see when they're at work. So don't think that it had anything to do with your post, it was just my name that makes them rage out a lil bit.
To your points tho, I do think they are great, and I def wasn't seeing that side of things until I read your post. So great work!
If there was a team of downvoters following him around, then the number of downvotes he receives would be more consistent across his content, with older things having more and newer things having fewer.
Instead what we see is wildly varying downvote totals, seeming to depend on the specific thing he says. People disagreeing with his statements would not fuel his victimhood mentality though.
Personally I do check his account once a day to keep tabs on him. I don't generally downvote though, I prefer to fact check his statements.
The user above is wrong. Blocking is only one-directional and you won't see comments and posts from them any longer, but they still see the things you posts.
Well I'd call them out on it and ask why they feel the need to do that.
Maybe, just maybe, if they know people could see how obsessive they are, it would take the fun out of the stalking.
I mean, at the end of the day, I don't care THAT much one way or the other. I just think it would be funny to give them a shoutout and welcome them to another round of downvoting.
I posted an article about a ninety-year-old woman being the oldest person to graduate from Illinois University. 9 downvotes within one minute of posting it. lmao
Right now they are laughing and rubbing their hands together when I post something, just so they can downvote it. Which is funny and sad. Like am I really that important?! lol
So public or not public, I don't care, but we can vote for, I'd say yes.
But I won't cry if Lemmy doesn't make the votes public. And I doubt there will be many Lemmy users that want their votes public, so I don't think it's gonna happen.