• Stoneykins@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    There were many subreddits that did not allow participation unless someone had a karma over a certain threshold. For many of them the threshold was pretty low, only meant to stop brand new accounts and trolls, but still.

    Additionally, the “people who farmed it” often did so because a reddit account with a high karma score was literally worth money to adspammers and people running bots.

    The karma system contributed to what made reddit bad.

    • DMmeYourNudes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      11 months ago

      You only lost 15 karma on any mass downvoted comment and 0 for posts. The only person who cared about people’s karma was you dude.

      • Stoneykins@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I don’t see how that addresses any of what I said. If anything this seems like this would mean the subreddits that blocked people with no karma weren’t even doing it to block trolls, just new users.

        I didn’t care about my karma or any specific persons, I like to get into arguments about stuff and that is how you get downvoted. I just don’t like the behaviour a karma system motivated.

        • DMmeYourNudes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          11 months ago

          If you’re getting downvoted in an argument, guess what, that means you’re bad at making arguments. And this system is exactly the same, regardless of if you can see it or not, sorting by top will still sort by the net sum of votes.

          • LegionEris@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            If you’re getting downvoted in an argument, guess what, that means you’re bad at making arguments.

            I pretty much agree with your second sentence/point, but this is bullshit. I got so many downvotes on reddit for literal descriptions of my perceptions and experiences as a gay woman. Half the time there wasn’t even a debate or argument happening. As reddit culture skewed more and more conservative, many technical and nerdy communities became actively hostile to the basic facts of my existence. Then there are all the downvotes I got for believing in human and minority rights while downthread with some bigots. My more visible posts on the same topic would be solidly upvoted, while everything below the arrow was smashed below zero because only angry little shits followed the discussion that far. I agree that the system on Lemmy isn’t meaningfully different and will inevitably have the same effects, but sorting by voting over-centralizes the meta and destroys real discussion and diversity of experience and opinion. It literally only works in limited circumstances within subjects that have objectively correct answers. Anywhere else it introduces so much chaos.

            • DMmeYourNudes@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              11 months ago

              I’m not saying people don’t pick sides in an argument, but the point is to convince someone you’re right, so if you’re not doing that, you’re getting downvotes meaning you’re either wasting your time or making bad arguments.

              • LegionEris@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I’m not saying people don’t pick sides in an argument

                What I’m saying is that these weren’t arguments. These were people weaponizing the voting system to keep minorities from self representing. I was downvoted below zero on a car repair sub for having runflats instead of a spare because I worked in and commuted through a bad part of town, often after midnight, where I wouldn’t feel safe stopping to change my tire. They made it clear that I was unwelcome because I am a woman, because my description of this gendered experience was unacceptable subreddit content.

                • HelloHotel
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  I’m not saying people don’t pick sides in an argument

                  You made yourself verry clear, he’s trying to stir you

                  there wasn’t even a debate or argument happening.

                  • LegionEris@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    Fuck off. You’re exactly the fucking same. If it didn’t happen to you, it doesn’t exist! Childish.

          • Stoneykins@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I mean, generally getting downvoted in an argument is a matter of course, at least until people who you aren’t arguing with chime in.

            Also a lot of what you are saying doesn’t really make sense to me? I feel like I’m not sure we agree what we disagree about.

            Honestly the shit I got downvoted the most for was just standing up for trans people, reddit is full of transphobes.

            • DMmeYourNudes@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              11 months ago

              You really don’t seem to understand the mechanics of link aggregators and their comment sections. The votes are for curating content and downvoting posts that are not relevant or are poor quality is the entire point of the system. If you remove the ability to downvote bad content, you degrade the content for all the users. This is exactly why YouTube removing the dislike counter was an issue.

              • Stoneykins@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                11 months ago

                You already said the youtube thing.

                Upvoting posts that are relevant or good quality and ignoring the rest does work though. There are several instances right now where it is working.

                It works perfectly fine as a content curation method. I have no way to prove this for this, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it works better.

                • DMmeYourNudes@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  You can’t ignore bad posts when they get inflated ranking because no one can downvote them off the front page lol.

                  • Stoneykins@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    They never are on the front page. Idk why you don’t get this. If I sort by new I see them but only then. If I did see a post on the front page that I don’t like, obviously it is just a matter of taste. It doesn’t bother me that I can’t downvote it.