The downvote's main function seems to be to act as a spam-deterrent. Users will inevitably abuse it and downvote dissenting opinions. How would you handle this?
I really like the idea of downvotes inviting a comment on why you used it. No comment results in no impact on the post or reply being downvoted. An objection was raised because sometimes the options listed don't match the reason, but I presume an "other: fill in the blank" might be possible.
Many of us have experienced or seen cases of community leaders abusing their power. Oftentimes, the common user is unable to seek justice. What systems can we put in place to keep our leaders accountable, and even remove them if need be?
I've seen entire communities be unable to seek justice. :/ One of the problems is that the admins in the other forum remained strictly neutral and wouldn't take sides no matter how many members of the community petitioned for help. The only way I can think of to address this is for the admins to come before the community and arbitrate, or perhaps set up a tribe specifically for mediation. Naturally, this means more work for the admins so I don't assume this is automatically the correct answer.
For those lamenting the lack of content, it's no mystery — posts and comments will come with new users. Still, there are areas of Snapzu enjoying lively conversation. So, where have you all been spending most of your time?
I made my own tribe that I post to almost exclusively but I don't advertise, and somehow it's not getting any traffic! /s
Unfortunately, the downvote-with-reason system can also be abused. A few users who dislike a comment can mark it as spam, for example. But I agree that it's better than nothing.
I think a tribe for mediation is a great idea. caelrath suggested something like a tribunal. I think we'd need to involve Team Snapzu at the highest level, regardless.
Unfortunately, the downvote-with-reason system can also be abused. A few users who dislike a comment can mark it as spam, for example. But I agree that it's better than nothing.
Granted. Nothing is fool-proof. Someone determined to do harm will find a way around any obstacles. But it should help discourage the casual troll and serve as a reminder that the downvote really is not a button for "I disagree."
Alternatively, one of the options could say "I disagree" and when selected has no impact on karma.
Lol. We should give the option of an automated "I disagree" response. They can also have the opportunity to send an automated "I disagree" PM, and even automatically change their profile title message to "I disagree". Maybe that would satisfy them.
Did you hear about the thought experiment of the monkeys in a cage with a banana?
You put four monkeys in a cage and when the first one goes for the banana, you spray all of them with a garden hose. You continue every time it happens and eventually, they'll stop each other before one gets the banana.
Then you replace a monkey with a new one. It'll try to go for the banana but the others will stop it. You continue replacing monkeys until none of the orginal ones are left and they'll still stop each other from getting the banana even if no one knows why.
That worked for early reddit (and by early, I mean when I created my account 9 years ago). Admins would stress that the downvote is not a disagree button. Then users would tell each other. The new one would tell newer ones.
At one point, the admins made a mobile version that said "I agree / I disagree" in its voting area. The community was outraged, the downvote is not a disagree button they said.
Then monkeys got in so fast that they didn't know about the downvotes.
And nowadays, if you say that the downvote is not a disagree button, you get downvoted.
So idea would be to ensure it's clearly featured to every new user so they can perpetuate the culture. Maybe an explanation popup for the first time it's pressed?
I've seen entire communities be unable to seek justice. :/
So have I. One moderator jumped on my case because I posted a Prairie Home Companion link in the sandbox on a forum I favored....It got so bad on this forum with the power hungry mods that people left in droves. Finally,one admin asked me why the place was starting to look like a ghost town...I told him in a very long, detailed pm. I left the website soon after and it eventually was made up of just the mods and their groupies. The website finally died and that was that.
I was part of this one forum at one point in time. These guys wanted to make the forum the "next big thing", with their only offering being that you could express yourself and use the site as a platform of free speech, without being censored (barring illegal content). What it ended up being was a group of power-abusing mods and admins trolling the very small user base very early on, driving people out before it even got the chance to grow into anything. From there, a few database mishaps and the entire forums getting lost on more than on occasion lead to everyone leaving except for the mods and admins themselves. Anybody who was friends with them didn't remake their accounts after everything had been lost.
Moderators can make or break a system, and it really comes down to whether they're lax about thing and intervene appropriately, or if they're in it for a power trip.
I really like the idea of downvotes inviting a comment on why you used it. No comment results in no impact on the post or reply being downvoted. An objection was raised because sometimes the options listed don't match the reason, but I presume an "other: fill in the blank" might be possible.
I've seen entire communities be unable to seek justice. :/ One of the problems is that the admins in the other forum remained strictly neutral and wouldn't take sides no matter how many members of the community petitioned for help. The only way I can think of to address this is for the admins to come before the community and arbitrate, or perhaps set up a tribe specifically for mediation. Naturally, this means more work for the admins so I don't assume this is automatically the correct answer.
I made my own tribe that I post to almost exclusively but I don't advertise, and somehow it's not getting any traffic! /s
Great points.
Unfortunately, the downvote-with-reason system can also be abused. A few users who dislike a comment can mark it as spam, for example. But I agree that it's better than nothing.
I think a tribe for mediation is a great idea. caelrath suggested something like a tribunal. I think we'd need to involve Team Snapzu at the highest level, regardless.
Granted. Nothing is fool-proof. Someone determined to do harm will find a way around any obstacles. But it should help discourage the casual troll and serve as a reminder that the downvote really is not a button for "I disagree."
Alternatively, one of the options could say "I disagree" and when selected has no impact on karma.
But then just by being a choice we are almost accepting that "I disagree" is a valid option. If only this was less complicated!
Or we put it there to acknowledge that people are going to do it anyway, so let's be honest about it.
Yep, at this point might as well accept it as the reality of things and find a way to mitigate as much as possible.
Lol. We should give the option of an automated "I disagree" response. They can also have the opportunity to send an automated "I disagree" PM, and even automatically change their profile title message to "I disagree". Maybe that would satisfy them.
Did you hear about the thought experiment of the monkeys in a cage with a banana?
You put four monkeys in a cage and when the first one goes for the banana, you spray all of them with a garden hose. You continue every time it happens and eventually, they'll stop each other before one gets the banana.
Then you replace a monkey with a new one. It'll try to go for the banana but the others will stop it. You continue replacing monkeys until none of the orginal ones are left and they'll still stop each other from getting the banana even if no one knows why.
That worked for early reddit (and by early, I mean when I created my account 9 years ago). Admins would stress that the downvote is not a disagree button. Then users would tell each other. The new one would tell newer ones.
At one point, the admins made a mobile version that said "I agree / I disagree" in its voting area. The community was outraged, the downvote is not a disagree button they said.
Then monkeys got in so fast that they didn't know about the downvotes.
And nowadays, if you say that the downvote is not a disagree button, you get downvoted.
So idea would be to ensure it's clearly featured to every new user so they can perpetuate the culture. Maybe an explanation popup for the first time it's pressed?
So have I. One moderator jumped on my case because I posted a Prairie Home Companion link in the sandbox on a forum I favored....It got so bad on this forum with the power hungry mods that people left in droves. Finally,one admin asked me why the place was starting to look like a ghost town...I told him in a very long, detailed pm. I left the website soon after and it eventually was made up of just the mods and their groupies. The website finally died and that was that.
I was part of this one forum at one point in time. These guys wanted to make the forum the "next big thing", with their only offering being that you could express yourself and use the site as a platform of free speech, without being censored (barring illegal content). What it ended up being was a group of power-abusing mods and admins trolling the very small user base very early on, driving people out before it even got the chance to grow into anything. From there, a few database mishaps and the entire forums getting lost on more than on occasion lead to everyone leaving except for the mods and admins themselves. Anybody who was friends with them didn't remake their accounts after everything had been lost.
Moderators can make or break a system, and it really comes down to whether they're lax about thing and intervene appropriately, or if they're in it for a power trip.