You are viewing a single comment's thread:
RE: Although subjectively downvoting posts to zero is anathema to me, the Layer 1 ability to do so must remain (for now at least)
yeah I could imagine it would get tedious making an explanation every time. But my point is that it would at least make the process more transparent. I mean, we could also not care about DV and just use it when we subjectively or objectively feel like it. But I would certainly like to know the reason when someone is downvoting me (especially when it happens repeatedly). I have seen many posts where there is no "objective" reason (like the one mentioned above), which then seems more like an abuse of power.
0.08890780 BEE
Yeah I get what you're saying, people need to get used that mostly (hopefully) it's just for disagreement of rewards, else you'll also find hivewatchers on you if it's otherwise.
With our OCD project we do make an effort to let people know why they're being downvoted when it's about abuse/plag, that way we can also reward the finder with a vote for their time on the comment. Other than that I guess people can also calculate why by checking who and what that account is known for downvoting in the past, something sites like Reddit don't give you the privilege to ever find out behind their closed databases.
View more
Honestly, back when I had a considerable stake in a web 2.0 community, we would openly censor anyone shilling our direct competitors on our site. No dissent. No second thoughts. Our house, our rules.
Without offerring my POV on the specific case (I openly enquired about the comepetitor somewhere else ITT) being right/wrong/fair/unfair (not so easy when everyone is a stakeholder), I just want to challenge your premise there is no objective reason for a stakeholder to DV the linked post.
I can agree your scenario happens elsewhere, though.