I read a similar reasoning for not making it public before but i don't understand it. Could you elaborate on this please?
When you don't show it a user can harass someone and downvote anything just for fun.
We will just need to accept that no system is perfect, as anonymous voting is as important to us as being anonymous on Snapzu.
Anyone can see my username, the same would be true for showing the username when you voted. It's not more or less anonymous. A down vote should not be used as a disagree button in the first place so if someone only uses the down vote as it is supposed to be used there is absolutely no reason to not show the username. The big advantage is that you can see when someone abuses the system. An other advantage would be to get in touch with the user and even alter your post so he agrees with it.
Doing so can lead to witch hunts, retaliations and will generally make the mood of the community much worse as a result.
For this reason alone we will not be making voting public. Members abusing moderation tools (just for fun or otherwise) will be blocked from using them if their reports are false, this will be an automated process using the 3 strike rule. Members that continue to abuse the moderation tools may even result in losing their ability completely or ultimately having their accounts removed. We track all flags and reports, our system will be able to easily put together a list of abusers that an algorithm can handle based on admin responses to the moderation requests.
what do you mean by witch hunt? I mean, obviously i know what it means but i cannot imagine such a scenario if you use the voting system as intended.
How will you decide if someone abuses the system? For example. If someone down votes my post all the time with different reasons. I cannot imagine an automated system that can really handle something like that. Especially because i tried implementing something like this before (and gave up after a while because it did not work).
It is absolutely frustrating when you invested a lot of time in your snaps and 1 minute later see "down voted because copy pasta". It would help me immensely if i could see who down voted me and get in touch with them. Maybe making it public only to OP would be a solution?
Well, in the end i still don't understand why someone should have the right to stay invisible when downvoting but he can see my username when i post something. It's absolutely the same. But it's unfair how it is implemented right now because it only protects the down voter but not OP.
When flags & reports are processed via a queue, administrators can accept or deny them. These decisions are tracked via an algorithm that will put together trends based on users that abuse the moderation tools. Once a user starts trending due to administrators rejecting their reports, a system will track and remove moderation rights of certain users, a three strike rule will ultimately ban abusive accounts for life and can even lead to a termination. It's also good to note that members below level 15 cannot use the report function, and until you are level 10 you cannot use the moderation tools at all. I believe members with high enough profiles will not want to risk having their accounts deleted due to abuse. Either way, I wont reveal the details further as we don't want anyone to try and exploit this approach. I hope this answers your question /u/frootloops.
ok, so it's a semi automatic system, that makes more sense now. But that would mean all down votes for specifc reasons have to moderated actively, right?
Any more comments to my other questions / suggestions? If you don't want to answer them now that's ok, i am just making sure you didn't overlooked them.
1. Witchhunt example, i really don't get it?
2. Only public to OP?
3. Difference between OP and down voter protection?
\/
1. Not all profiles are anonymous, we don't force people to make anonymous profiles. Making any votes public can cause privacy problems, we don't want to encourage nor enable this sort of activity.
2. Nope, we are sticking with 100% anonymous.
3. Not sure I fully understand this question. Can you elaborate?
I think what /u/FrootLoops means to say is that while the downvoter is anonymous, the commenter isn't. The protection scale is different for one who voices his opinion through commenting, and one who voices his opinion through voting, which creates inequality.
Both options remain a choice, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Comments can be about anything and cannot be seen as irrefutable evidence of a vote and thus even if a comment is made, the vote remains anonymous.
I read a similar reasoning for not making it public before but i don't understand it. Could you elaborate on this please?
When you don't show it a user can harass someone and downvote anything just for fun.
Anyone can see my username, the same would be true for showing the username when you voted. It's not more or less anonymous. A down vote should not be used as a disagree button in the first place so if someone only uses the down vote as it is supposed to be used there is absolutely no reason to not show the username. The big advantage is that you can see when someone abuses the system. An other advantage would be to get in touch with the user and even alter your post so he agrees with it.
For this reason alone we will not be making voting public. Members abusing moderation tools (just for fun or otherwise) will be blocked from using them if their reports are false, this will be an automated process using the 3 strike rule. Members that continue to abuse the moderation tools may even result in losing their ability completely or ultimately having their accounts removed. We track all flags and reports, our system will be able to easily put together a list of abusers that an algorithm can handle based on admin responses to the moderation requests.
Hey /u/drunkenninja ,
what do you mean by witch hunt? I mean, obviously i know what it means but i cannot imagine such a scenario if you use the voting system as intended.
How will you decide if someone abuses the system? For example. If someone down votes my post all the time with different reasons. I cannot imagine an automated system that can really handle something like that. Especially because i tried implementing something like this before (and gave up after a while because it did not work).
It is absolutely frustrating when you invested a lot of time in your snaps and 1 minute later see "down voted because copy pasta". It would help me immensely if i could see who down voted me and get in touch with them. Maybe making it public only to OP would be a solution?
Well, in the end i still don't understand why someone should have the right to stay invisible when downvoting but he can see my username when i post something. It's absolutely the same. But it's unfair how it is implemented right now because it only protects the down voter but not OP.
-FrootLoops
When flags & reports are processed via a queue, administrators can accept or deny them. These decisions are tracked via an algorithm that will put together trends based on users that abuse the moderation tools. Once a user starts trending due to administrators rejecting their reports, a system will track and remove moderation rights of certain users, a three strike rule will ultimately ban abusive accounts for life and can even lead to a termination. It's also good to note that members below level 15 cannot use the report function, and until you are level 10 you cannot use the moderation tools at all. I believe members with high enough profiles will not want to risk having their accounts deleted due to abuse. Either way, I wont reveal the details further as we don't want anyone to try and exploit this approach. I hope this answers your question /u/frootloops.
ok, so it's a semi automatic system, that makes more sense now. But that would mean all down votes for specifc reasons have to moderated actively, right?
Any more comments to my other questions / suggestions? If you don't want to answer them now that's ok, i am just making sure you didn't overlooked them.
1. Witchhunt example, i really don't get it?
2. Only public to OP?
3. Difference between OP and down voter protection?
Thanks
\/
1. Not all profiles are anonymous, we don't force people to make anonymous profiles. Making any votes public can cause privacy problems, we don't want to encourage nor enable this sort of activity.
2. Nope, we are sticking with 100% anonymous.
3. Not sure I fully understand this question. Can you elaborate?
I think what /u/FrootLoops means to say is that while the downvoter is anonymous, the commenter isn't. The protection scale is different for one who voices his opinion through commenting, and one who voices his opinion through voting, which creates inequality.
Well, I think after reading your answer to 2) there is no point in discussing this further. If it's set in stone there is no point in it.
This is how the system works now, so the new functionality is focused on improving other areas but not changing our stance on making votes public.
Both options remain a choice, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Comments can be about anything and cannot be seen as irrefutable evidence of a vote and thus even if a comment is made, the vote remains anonymous.