Downvoting Abuse

Service: Narrative

So I just keep it short because someone asked. And I know it's been issued before.

I just sent my last article;

https://www.narrative.org/post/there-will-be-blood

And it received immediate downvotes in less than 3 mins! and it's just 7 people. I think there is an abuse going on the platform. And somehow some automation, like a bot.

If you want to know more and track those 7 downvote you can check this post, which my post refered to it;

https://www.narrative.org/post...ehold-the-screenshot

It's so easy to track these votes and their timing. this kind of act is just without any moral and against AUP. And I think this is not the first one issuing this downvoting circle, I hope this is the last one!

Original Post

Activity Stream

I don't know, it was supposed to be power in hands of community. But for now it's in the hands of evil I guess! 

Because no one has power to stop this bad conduct! And Narrative HQ is busy for now on gathering resources!

 

 

I do not believe that we will ever get away from people who cannot agree to differ and who will abuse the tools at their disposal.  I do think, though, that there needs to be mechanisms for dealing with them.  I am not sure how, and I need to read up a bit more on the governance issues, so I hope the tribunal will help.  I like the concept of the freedom of the play pen.  I also recognise that it's the 80:20 principle coupled with high reputation that makes this all quite a conundrum.  

The other challenge is how to prevent things from becoming personal.  And ugly.  I've been the subject of downvotes and some pretty nasty comments on Steemit - based on opinion, not fact. It's not nice.  No, actually, it's horrible.  So if the behaviour could be tempered, it would make Narrative a better place.

@hgn66. Unfortunately, the original post incited passion which has caused both upvotes and downvotes.  Your post which refers to that post may have resulted in some down voting as well. 

Earlier this week, we addressed that we have not seen any significant issues with voting circles or downvotes.  This Cupcake Screenshot post may have riled some folks up.  

We will continue to review and collect data on voting, voting blocks, down voting, etc as we continue to refine the reputation model.  

Right now, the best thing the community can do is not add fuel to this fire and let things calm down. 

@MOLLY O I don't think any of us would be calling people out for bad behavior if we could see that there were negative consequences for those engaged in bad behavior. My screenshot post was triggered by a giant bubble of frustration that exploded in an inadvisable way. But...that's how meltdowns work. IRL, I lose the ability to speak during meltdown...but I don't lose the ability to type. Which...can be unfortunate. I dislike having public meltdowns, and I've edited some of the inflammatory language in my post and apologized for the harshness. But my concerns are still valid.

I'm off to see what today's color challenge is and dig through my photography archive.

MOLLY O posted:

@hgn66. Unfortunately, the original post incited passion which has caused both upvotes and downvotes.  Your post which refers to that post may have resulted in some down voting as well. 

Earlier this week, we addressed that we have not seen any significant issues with voting circles or downvotes.  This Cupcake Screenshot post may have riled some folks up.  

We will continue to review and collect data on voting, voting blocks, down voting, etc as we continue to refine the reputation model.  

Right now, the best thing the community can do is not add fuel to this fire and let things calm down. 

Dear @MOLLY O

I totally understand you can't do anything because Narrative is just gathering resources and USDs.

If you really have read my post you should understand I just pointed to that post as an example, and my intention was to lead this argument to a greater good. (Funny, I was thinking about Narrative while wasting my time!)

They just downvoted all comments on that post, and then without even reading my post (I received first 5 downvotes in less than 30 sec, which completely is abusing because they didn't even read first paraghraph). So you can't find any problem, maybe we should look at bigger picture and actually we are inside the problem and that's why we can't see it!

So I'm totally disappointed in your moderation. Although I respect that you need resources and you should keep everyone in the circle for now.

But this doesn't mean I'm giving up on platform, because this made me more consistent on my work.

Sorry if I talked a little too loud, or it looks like offensive. But just wanted to let you know those downvotes didn't hurt me, your respond was actually the thing hurt me. You could leave this post without any respond. I could feel better in that way... But considering community... I rather stop here.

Thanks anyway! (I'm also aware this response have some consequences for me, but I rather breath open air instead of hiding in a rat hole afraid of those stupid high rep downvotes!)

Well @Former Member (sorry I'm not sure how to tag someone here!)

It was my first thought to start a downvoting war... But a second later I just thought what's the difference between me and them if I go do the exact thing?

I wasn't even going to talk about the issue here, but someone asked me and I did it, because I can't talk about accepting community if I don't believe it!

At least the people here can now work on platform with more insight.

And you know what's funny? I got this replay from a friend who told me they will say this to me... I was actually ready.

I don't think we can set fire while we are all on the same ship!

@Former Member

I was not criticizing anything, it was just an example, metamorphic, or anything like that! I'm not concerned anymore, this is what it is, I already said that on @Christina Gleason post, we can't blame anyone, because it is supposed to be moderated by ourselves. So if it's like this, it's kinda our choice!

The wisest words I've seen in the thread are those mentioning the lack of consequences for abuse.  As soon as the platform has a convincing mechanism that overtly deters abuse, all of this will go away.  In fact it would probably go away if the Team would just message about the fact that it is in development.  It is the perception of inaction of the Team that is causing the actions to become more virulent and escalate.

@Christina Gleason admits her reaction was over the top, but that's not an excuse to ignore where her frustration came from: many Narrators have been voicing the frustration.  And when it all escalates, and one group clearly downvotes indiscriminately against peacemakers as well as the object of their anger, the Team's only communication is to chastise those who actually give a damn about Community Governance.

We've been saying we're between a rock and a hard place, for a long time now.  Revenge downvotes for normal community governance actions like appealing niches that the Tribunal agreed had problems...  that's how it started.  Then protecting serial plagiarists in their midst - who drew virtually no messaging response from the Team or from the niche owners they were posting for.  The first Team response to plagiarism I saw came from @MOLLY O, maybe a couple of months after the whole fiasco.  It was like a mirage - I could barely believe what I was seeing.  A mixture of happiness and disbelief - I realised in that moment that I had lost hope long ago, so it was weird. 

On the other hand, the Community members who, taking the mandate of Community Governance and the laissez-faire of the Team as a clear message, decided only we were there to act, got thoroughly chastised for doing so, with concomitant rudeness on occasion.

We've been minding our own business since then, until a bunch of completely out of character downvotes, high rep this time, came down out of the blue on a Narrative Carnival post, and some of its comments.  Nothing to see, said the Team, move along.

That's the build up to the cupcake fiasco (lovely name).

ALL OF THIS IS PREVENTABLE.

Put a field in for giving a downvote reason in text, and don't allow the downvote to register unless the field is populated with at least a few words.  Boom.  Half the job is done.  Even with no further follow up, people will know that even though still anonymous, their BS downvotes will be recognised as BS.

Then you can develop at your leisure, infrastructure for appealing downvotes down the line, sharing the burden between moderators who will be underemployed anyway, algorithms, and the Tribunal.

Bad actors will simply not respect Narrative at all, if you don't set boundaries.  Always messaging against the Narrators who care about the rules, and very seldom messaging against the bad actors, AND setting no boundaries?  Well, all I can say is, here we are.

 

How is having @hgn66's post receive 5 downvotes within seconds of being posted NOT abuse of the system?  If a post is downvoted by a GROUP without even being read first, then every comment downvoted - what would the Tribunal's definition of abuse be??  The answer cannot be to bury our heads in the sand like ostriches and hope the issue goes away.

Dear @Malkazoid I kinda have respect for you. While feeling pain and frustration from your words, there is still hope in there... I'm not that high rep or even a month old on Narrative!

But we all know what's going on here... @MOLLY O said it loud and clear:

Right now, the best thing the community can do is not add fuel to this fire and let things calm down. 

In other words better to fuel the ship while we have pirates, abusers here. Let's forget about the fact while this community grow bigger, these abusers will also grow and spread. We just need to grow!

Dear @blueeyes8960

I'm not a a professional developer, but I think it's really easy to track those act... They just rather ignore community and let us deal with it! But can you fight a dragon with a spoon?!

While you have no control on what's happening, it's like a sad joke.

I think reading all replays can clarify the exact problem, I'm now sure it's not downvote abuse!

blueeyes8960 posted:

How is having @hgn66's post receive 5 downvotes within seconds of being posted NOT abuse of the system?  If a post is downvoted by a GROUP without even being read first, then every comment downvoted - what would the Tribunal's definition of abuse be??  The answer cannot be to bury our heads in the sand like ostriches and hope the issue goes away.

Exactly @blueeyes8960 - there are a lot of reasonable folks here, but at some point, you have to consider you're being played for a chump when you're told 'nope, no abuse'.  'No abuse but we're working on a fix to reputation'.

a) if there's no abuse, what are you fixing?

b) please, for the love of Narrative, stop trying to fix everything with the algorithm alone.  Making the text field is far more expedient and will almost certainly be more efficient as a deterrent.  The Community offered this idea months and months ago.  What an awesome mini-update that would be, considering incremental updates have completely ceased of late.

This is currently a huge problem indeed.

One of my comments recently got downvoted and buried as "Low Quality" by 6 different accounts just hours after posting it. And while the comment didn't add anything to the fierce discussion at hand, it was merely meant to bring some harmless friendliness into the comments section of @Christina Gleason's post while remaining on-topic. If the owners of those abusing accounts wanted to discourage engagement on the platform, then well, they are starting to get successful at testing my patience.

My take on this? Just remove the downvote entirely and keep the upvote (and the AUP Violation report). Because guess what? There already is a third option and that is to not vote. It's simple. Vote if you like, agree, and/or approve of content and don't vote if you don't. Burying/deleting or otherwise pruning inappropriate content should be the task of actual human moderators elected by the community, and not by niche owners or algorithms. If the community disagrees with a moderator, then they should just appeal against that moderator.

 

I like your suggestion @Slaz.  For two reasons - one is the simplicity.  The other is if someone disagrees, s/he must say so.  However, based on my experience on Steemit and other social media platforms, it is often these individuals who are incapable of agreeing to differ and who indulge in bullying and other nefarious tactics.  This is why, in my original comment, that there need to be constructive mechanisms for identifying these accouns (and the individuals behind them), and dealing with them.  In other words, there needs to be consequences for behaviour that is contrary to the rules and social norms of mutual respect and integrity.

I still see the utility of the downvote, but with every passing day that the Team denies the abuse problems, and actively resists messaging clearly that abusing the downvote is a violation of Acceptable Use, I am becoming more and more in favour of its removal.

I think the downvote is quite central to the way the @Narrative Network Team have designed the Content Economy.  It actually serves a purpose if insincere voting inflates the visibility and rewards of certain content, it allows others to provide a balancing influence.  As we know, that is sometimes necessary.  Consider the voting circle activity that gave silly amounts of upvotes to our serial plagiariser not so long ago.

The downvote can work, but it requires one of two things.  Either the Community is resolute in using it responsibly, or the Company must be resolute in enforcing that it be used responsibly.

Quite a few Narrators in the Community, some of them very high Rep, are failing to use the downvote responsibly.  

And the Company is failing in enacting enforcement - even in projecting the intent to enact enforcement.

That's an all-around fail, right now.  I'm sure we can do better.  It is just extremely frustrating to be told there's no problem by some of the people who are failing to make this functionality viable.

If there is not a solution to this issue soon, I will support the removal of the downvote functionality.  If I felt the Team were taking the issue seriously and respecting the feedback they are being given, I'd have a large supply of patience... but when they don't have our backs, it is hard to be supportive in return.  I get the sense our feedback and support is taken for granted some times, and is kept at arm's length - like we're in an aquarium at the far end of their office.  

They've maintained a large distance with the Community, ignoring offers for more efficient catch-ups that would actually help them integrate feedback into their development cycle.  The consequences of this are manifest: incremental updates are pretty much inexistent, and adding Publications, a whole new realm of functionality with a fairly substantial development cost, has taken precedence over implementing even the easiest of fixes to the Beta, that us aquarium fish have been requesting over and over.

As long as these requests were about functionality improvements, we've been super patient.  But when it comes to the well-being of the Community, and stopping an increasing outbreak of hostility and abuse, I don't think it is good for the project that we remain patient.

They acted eventually to reduce the troll activity.  I'm hoping they will act soon to prevent anonymous weaponising of the downvote.  It is seriously turning off newcomers, and old timers alike.

Apologies, I have just entered this discussion so disregard if the suggestion below was mentioned before. I completely agree with what @Malkazoid expressed above and how the dv abuse frustrates newcomers and old users alike, but I am not certain the functionality should be removed entirely, for it serves a purpose.

So as a temporary and easy fix against automatic bot upvotes and downvotes, hoe about setting a captcha safeguard? Prove you are a human and then cast your vote.

I also agree with a text box for the downvote. It would prevent abuse and help Narrators understand where they went astray.

 

I don’t think any of the recent abuse was caused by any bot, just voting circles formed by Narrators that think alike on certain subjects.

I agree that the downvote can still work if Narrative is given the time to grow. Right now, the amount of (voting) Narrators on the platform is low enough to allow a small circle of 5 or 6 high rep Narrators to become an unstoppable force. That shouldn’t be allowed. The ‘wisdom of the crowd’ can only be applied if there is a crowd, and right now Narrative is more or less an upcoming movement in social-media land.

A potentially effective solution would be to stop up- and downvotes from being anonymous. On one hand it would make voting more personal than what is necessary for its intended purpose. But on the other hand, we people are ‘personal’ and should take personal responsibility for our votes.

 

Another possibility could be a voting system with more than 2 states of weight. I know a certain popular Dutch tech news site that does this succesfully for it’s comments sections. Basically, any logged in user can select 5 different voting options on each comment:

  • +3 - Spotlight
  • +2 - Informative
  • +1 - On-Topic
  • 0 - Off-Topic / Irrelevant
  • -1 - Spam / Abuse

 

The guideline is that +3 is only meant for comments that add essential info to the post, such as important additions from the author or by an employee of the company the post is about. +2 is for comments with info made by insightful people that are very knowledgable on the posts subject. +1 is for most comments, they can be reactions or compliments but don’t have to be more meaningful than that as long as they’re on-topic. 0 is for comments that are not relevant to the post but aren’t spammy either. -1 is the only real downvote but is only meant for true spam and abusive content.

Voting weight of each person is a formula comprised of their account creation date, past voting behavior, and overall site engagement. There are a few noteworthy points to voting weight with this system:

  • If a user voted, say, +1 and it remains on +1 after 24 hours, the user is rewarded with weight.
  • Early voters are rewarded. If an unmoderated post gets voted +1 and remains on +1 after 24 hours, the user is rewarded a little more weight.
  • Moderators rule supreme! They can flip the vote at will.
  • A moderation forum is there to call out wrong votes and let them look at it, and act if necessary.

 

Of course, this system needs a vast crowd of voters each day to work. After several years of small adjustments, said website has a pretty stable formula that saves the moderators a ton of time, otherwise they’d have to moderate thousands of comments every day. I don’t think it would work for Narrative in it’s current shape and form but it would definitely beat the current system.

Dear @Slaz@Fiona@Malkazoid and @Nuno Moreiras...

While your discussion about the nature of downvote button is really good and inspiring, I should just remind you one thing. The main problem here isn't even downvoting abuse... It's the big ignorance of Narrative team about any problem with that...

If it even comes to changes, there will be some problems again. As long as Narrative team ignores these issues we will face lots of things like this. So maybe we should first ask them to hear members and then try to change!

We have a rule of ABC in emergency situations, you have to check Airway before Breathing before Circulation (blood circulation). So I think before talking about existence of downvote we should check that Airway (which is having someone care about members demands!)

hgn66 posted:

Dear @Slaz@Fiona@Malkazoid and @Nuno Moreiras...

While your discussion about the nature of downvote button is really good and inspiring, I should just remind you one thing. The main problem here isn't even downvoting abuse... It's the big ignorance of Narrative team about any problem with that...

If it even comes to changes, there will be some problems again. As long as Narrative team ignores these issues we will face lots of things like this. So maybe we should first ask them to hear members and then try to change!

We have a rule of ABC in emergency situations, you have to check Airway before Breathing before Circulation (blood circulation). So I think before talking about existence of downvote we should check that Airway (which is having someone care about members demands!)

Agreed.

The Team is aware of the importance of feedback.  I think the problem is more in their workflow.

They spend 8+ hours together every day of the week, meeting and working in sync with each other, reinforcing their reality centred around a vision they haven't had much luxury to question or adapt since the Alpha began.

During that time, they've devoted some energy to interfacing with the Community through the Community Support site, and very occasionally, in platform comments - so they might feel that our assessment is too harsh.  But the reality is, a live, face to face component to the Beta interaction phase, can build a bridge to the ivory tower of their command centre, making the issues more real inside their reality bubble.

 

The Committee

They understand this in theory: they've designed the Committee as a bridge between the Narrative Company and the Community with regularly scheduled, live meetings.  But that is far in the future of the roadmap.  It will be formed after the Tribunal is elected, so probably no sooner than May 2020, 8 months from now.  By then, they'll have completed 12 months of Alpha, and 12 months of Beta, for a total of 2 years of development, without ever speaking face to face with representatives of the Community.

So though they understand the importance of communication with the Community, they have severely underestimated the benefits of this for early development.  

 

The roots of appreciation

Part of the problem is that human beings have less appreciation for things they do not pay for.  They don't pay us, their Beta-testers, a salary for Beta-testing.  When a company pays a real salary to have asses in seats evaluating their project, they tend to then want to milk every bit of information from them and make sure regularly scheduled interfacing takes place - in turn they benefit from the feedback being truly integrated into the vision and schedule of their project.  

The same is true for software development when there is a valued outside client with drop-dead deadlines on a contract.  This makes things real.  The company servicing this contract knows:

a) if they miss deadlines, they will lose the client which can mean big losses to their bottom line, and perhaps bankruptcy

b) their code being used in the production of the service is being used daily to try to meet those deadlines, so the requests of the operators for fixes and new functionality are taken extremely seriously: this helps the leadership to keep things real.  They might secretly dream of their software being supremely automated and elegant, and they may have long term visions of adding big new packages to it, but they have a clear and present requirement to not indulge in those dreams in a way that damages the demands of keeping their current projects viable and on schedule.

c) the operators who use the code are on site, or at the very least have regular meetings with their project leaders, so the feedback loop is super tight, and the developers can be optimally responsive.  Working as a technical director at a multitude of visual effects companies gave me an appreciation for the efficiency of this high pressure environment: there is no room for getting lost in the woods, and the users of the code are listened to avidly, with sometimes multiple updates per day pushed out for them.

None of these factors are present with Narrative.  The Narrative Company, as far as I know, answers to nobody for their development of the platform, and has no pressure, except for the muted fish voices coming from this virtual aquarium, and the vague notion that there is a competition out there they need to not fall behind.  They can and do tune out the fish voices whenever they want to, and the real people behind those voices are not real to them, the way people you meet with regularly are.  We are virtual, in their reality.

Cognisant of these factors, I suggested to them that they pick some Community members to interface with live, perhaps monthly.  A 1 hour skype call per month perhaps.  They ignored it.

One cannot underestimate the power of carving out a space of time that is dedicated to making something your sole focus, and giving it substance within your reality.  When this is not done, it is impossible to allow new intelligence to be properly integrated into the great momentum of your operations.

Along the way, I've suggested repeatedly that the sooner the feedback loop is tightened between the Team and their Beta-testers/customers/Community, the better Narrative will perform as a project. 

Incidentally, it is the only way that trust and respect can truly be built, and those things also play a big role in successful collaborations.  Some of the rude treatment received by long time Community members from Narrative Staff would never have happened if we interfaced in a way in which we saw each other's faces, even infrequently.

 

Solutions

Quite honestly, I don't have any beyond what I've been trying to do all along.  The culture at Narrative HQ is what it is.  Something might come along to make them feel like they need to make a change, but that is completely up to their individual psychologies, and from within the fishbowl, we can only hope...  And if we run out of hope, we can go belly up and float to the top of the fishbowl, and hope for a better fishbowl in our next digital incarnations.

With their small team and very long development cycle, the odds are quite high that their current way of operating will be unsustainable. 

Long development cycles with insufficient incremental feedback leave VERY little room for error, and budget is more likely to become a limiting factor, requiring cash injections. 

There is a fairly high chance they will run low on funds before the project starts to earn external revenue in sufficient amounts, in which case outside capital, and with it perhaps outside leadership influence, might change the situation.  Perhaps for the better, from a work flow perspective, but who knows what it might do to the spirit of the project?  That's anyone's guess.

 

Sol Cycler posted: 

Although I'm not set up for it yet(I plan to), getting a podcast up and running could really increase interaction with staff on a wider scale than just interfacing with a select few.

We have two community Discord server's set up, both with rooms for podcasts. Once some shows start up, I'd hope staff makes themselves available for interviews by the community podcasters.

Also, if downvotes don't really affect earnings unless they rate below 25% then they really aren't an issue. Though, I do find this a bit hard to believe. It doesn't make sense that a 62% post would earn the same as a 100% with the same amount of upvotes(by equivelent reps) on each, but one receiving many downvotes.

If true it's only negative affect is psychological, which a few article's explaining could reduce.

From messages from lead developer @Brian Lenz, I'm fairly convinced the Team is using the same rationale: if the financial viability of the post isn't being affected, people will settle down.

They also have denied, semi-convincingly, that the visibility of a downvoted post is harmed by abusive downvotes.  The fact is, blue star posts get better featuring, and you won't get a blue star if your post is getting heavily downvoted.

But the real point is that these facts are somewhat immaterial.

The psychological effect is what matters.  The complexity of explaining to people how little their post is affected means we will not win against the primal impression of being under attack when a horde of downvotes arrive.  It is also completely counterintuitive because people will automatically wonder: what is the point of the downvote, and the quality rating, if it doesn't matter?

I'm not even really convinced myself, and I think I know the platform as well as any other Narrator.  This actually feels a bit like the Team is trying to downplay the effect of downvotes so they don't have to address the problem - in quite the same way they have tried to say abusive downvotes aren't happening (but are natural, and we're adjusting rep algorithms to fix it)...

The damage against the healthy atmosphere of the site will be done no matter what story is told, especially when abusive high rep downvotes arrive.  This undermines the trust in the rep system in a way that cannot be sustained long term.

Most people will discover the platform and leave again before they ever get schooled in the esoteric truths of how much their post gets affected by downvotes.  Those who do stay long enough to get schooled will likely not succeed in letting the facts overcome the emotions of the moment, and the implications about the culture of the platform.

 

Of course. abusive downvotes should not be seen in isolation.  The problem is inseparable, in its damage, to the sense that behind them are voting circles of people who do not participate on the platform in the spirit we want people to come to Narrative for.  When the downvotes swarm a post as revenge for a network-positive act of community governance, like making an appeal on a problematic niche, or leaving a helpful comment, or even a peace-making one... and when it comes from a group of accounts, some high rep, the impression is immediate and extremely negative... that there are anonymous, organised bullies who will use the downvote to try to stay above the rules.  That impression is completely divorced from any financial loss caused by a downvote, and I would argue is much more damaging than if people were actually losing a buck or two here and there.

The psychology of platform use is crucial to success, and it seems the Narrative Team doesn't have the bandwidth or desire to examine it closely enough right now.

Dear @Malkazoid

Thanks for being aware of this psychological effect. As far as Narrative team look into every issue as a financial and economic problem, situation like this will persist.

I don't think anyone on this specific issue was concerned about rewards after that abuse, but all this discussion is about abuse itself... And I have bad feeling that with this approach Narrative can't keep up to the rivals!

While Steemit has shaken hands with Medium, the two giants on this kind of social media, Narrative is still concerned about growing this circle not by dedicated and loyal users, but with selling stuffs... I'm not sure about this approach, whether they decided to gather money and then make this platform work, or they have really invested something. If it's the first option, well they are on the right pass, which in my opinion will lead to a site filled with them and their investors! But if it's second... They are just losing the biggest power in blockchain system, the community...

They rather to have some high quality posts or just some daily posts which are no one else concerns on the internet... And with this you will never get redirected to this site after searching on search engines! That's the biggest difference between Medium on one side and Steemit and Narrative on the other side!

And the fun part still no one else from HQ reached this long discussion to address some concerns...

As you said, they don't feel pressure to answer anything...

And this is why I believe Narrative is risking a big opportunity... 

@Former Member

I'm looking forward for those podcast, I would like here something more than just:

Right now, the best thing the community can do is not add fuel to this fire and let things calm down. 

I would like to see some insights. 

 

hgn66 posted:

Dear @Malkazoid

Thanks for being aware of this psychological effect. As far as Narrative team look into every issue as a financial and economic problem, situation like this will persist.

I don't think anyone on this specific issue was concerned about rewards after that abuse, but all this discussion is about abuse itself... And I have bad feeling that with this approach Narrative can't keep up to the rivals!

While Steemit has shaken hands with Medium, the two giants on this kind of social media, Narrative is still concerned about growing this circle not by dedicated and loyal users, but with selling stuffs... I'm not sure about this approach, whether they decided to gather money and then make this platform work, or they have really invested something. If it's the first option, well they are on the right pass, which in my opinion will lead to a site filled with them and their investors! But if it's second... They are just losing the biggest power in blockchain system, the community...

They rather to have some high quality posts or just some daily posts which are no one else concerns on the internet... And with this you will never get redirected to this site after searching on search engines! That's the biggest difference between Medium on one side and Steemit and Narrative on the other side!

And the fun part still no one else from HQ reached this long discussion to address some concerns...

As you said, they don't feel pressure to answer anything...

And this is why I believe Narrative is risking a big opportunity... 

I need to look at what kind of connection there is between Steemit and Medium.  That would be a real blow for Narrative, as people have had the sense this project would result in material more suitable for Medium, than Steemit's.  I suppose their deal is not exclusive, and other platforms may be able to build a similar relationship with them tough...

To be fair to HQ, @MOLLY O has participated in this discussion early on.  But odds are she has missed most of it judging from how early in the discussion her last post was, and from the fact that zero accounts from the Team have 'liked' this thread, which I assume means they are not receiving any notifications about how active it still is.

@Malkazoid

Steemit is just promoting itself right in the middle of Medium! And they just openly asked for Medium to step in the business with them!

And about HQ notification, I think that's exactly why they are avoiding this discussion! Because they have already used their ticket, that copy pasted response to this concern (as they did on other posts), so now everyone is looking for real answers because one simple issue turned into this engagement from users. So maybe they rather stay away from this, because they are afraid of firing things up! While this fire could boost the platform, they tend to keep this fire away from their investments!

Maybe I'm not sending my message with proper words and this discussion looks offensive, but please if anyone from HQ is still out there and somehow alive, please, from deep of my heart, I would like to see you here.

I've found that practically all developers involved in the blockchain-based social sites have the same blindness. They want to "incentivize" content creation, but the best incentive in the world, and one that would benefit the entire community, is to ensure that bad content creators don't get the upper hand. Giving people unfettered access to a platform--ANY platform--is a recipe for bad behavior. Pay them AND give them unfettered access and you are simply encouraging the worst of human nature to come out. I don't know why this can't be seen.

It's for this reason that controls are necessary to curtail bad behavior. This should be a no-brainer.

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, so I will only remind the team (and this is from experience in Start Ups on the Web) "Perception is Reality", so whether there is a "real" problem or not from a tech standpoint, there is a perceived problem that will damage the platform in ways that tech will not be able to recover from. Someone on the team needs to liaise with the Beta Users and "fix" this. No action or waiting is not going to keep people happy and supportive. Some of your finest Narrative Contributors have raised this time and again. Trust me when I say I have seen this happen in the past and it has a 50/50 chance of ending well with no action, and a much higher chance with some action. I am not asking you to drop everything to work on this...but surely you can show some movement in the right direction by at least telling people it is going to be addressed in some way. Sorry, this was far longer than I intended it to be. I am willing to volunteer, in order to help this along. And I'll bet others who are equally as passionate would be happy to assist in testing or whatever is needed. We are reaching out to you, please reach back.

Dear @Serroc

As I mentioned last night and today again, that downvoting is not my concerns anymore! You exactly addressed the problem and now that's the only reason I just keep getting back here to keep this conversation alive, attracting more people for a greater good. We want to see some action from team, and you described it perfectly, not everything can be solved by technology!

 

Dear @Garden Gnome Publications

I'm not quite sure if this is going to work. I think while some moderation needed, in the end it's better to be in the hand of a bigger group instead of some people. I just think moderation is needed while some abusive behavior is going on and it's beyond the power of regular users. How can I say it, Like God acting!

So this moderation should rarely happen, but when it happens, it should be loud and clear for everyone so they can behave the proper way! Like God's wrath! We don't see that often

@Bashar Abdullah just told me "I sincerely am sorry to say this, but I won’t waste time anymore when my effort falls on deaf ears" - to explain why he is not participating in this thread.

He is an excellent Narrator, and one of his posts has been featured in independent press coverage of the platform.

I must admit, from the ongoing lack of balanced response to the issue from the @Narrative Network Team, I suspect Bashar is a wiser man than me.  I doubt the effort I have put into communicating the problems to the Team over the past 2-3 days was a wise use of my time.

In other news, @Robert Nicholson, also an extremely high quality contributor, recently wrote this comment on the platform.

Because of the aforementioned lack of connectivity between Team and Community, I doubt the Team realises the extent of the problem.  This is so easily resolved...  it is truly a shame.

 

I know @Malkazoid

I'm totally new to Narrative, but I totally agree with @Bashar Abdullah. The only reason I started this thread was just to act as I speak. Otherwise it was somehow clear... I'm not disappointed anyway. I found lots of good people here. So even if Narrative goes down, I know some people that I can trust and maybe some other day on a new platform we can make it work!

I truly believe in power of community, and in my opinion I have already found some good friends!

hgn66 posted:

Dear @Garden Gnome Publications

I'm not quite sure if this is going to work. I think while some moderation needed, in the end it's better to be in the hand of a bigger group instead of some people. I just think moderation is needed while some abusive behavior is going on and it's beyond the power of regular users. How can I say it, Like God acting!

So this moderation should rarely happen, but when it happens, it should be loud and clear for everyone so they can behave the proper way! Like God's wrath! We don't see that often

There is one problem with that approach @hgn66 - from the responses of the Team, I don't think they can be trusted to be a fair 'God'.

They have systematically, as well as recently, expressed more displeasure at the messengers than they have at the bad actors.  It has happened time and time again.  You would be appalled if I listed the times I am aware of, and detailed their responses.  And I probably am not aware of all instances.  Others have alluded to their own experiences without me asking for details.

This leads me to believe, for instance, that in the recent case, @Christina Gleason would have received a heavier penalty than any of the abusive downvoters. 

After all, the official word from the @Narrative Network Team is still that abusive downvoting is not happening.  But they have communicated great displeasure at @Christina Gleason's awkward way of addressing the problem.

So I stand by my proposal that the easiest solution is to first add a text field to downvoting reasons, and only register the vote if a reason is typed in.  That buys time.

Then as a second stage, develop Community moderation of downvote reasons, if a reason is appealed... and algorithmic assistance in this.  But the field alone will almost certainly reduce the problem to levels that buy us plenty of time.

My confidence that the Team will prioritise implementing this is dwindling to zero, however.  I'm going to make the Switcheo how-to tutorial I promised recently, and it will be my last post until Narrative's horizon looks more promising.

 

Malkazoid posted:

My confidence that the Team will prioritise implementing this is dwindling to zero, however.  I'm going to make the Switcheo how-to tutorial I promised recently, and it will be my last post until Narrative's horizon looks more promising. 

I'm trying to take a similar step back, having just posted my apology for the way I said things but not for pointing out things that needed to be said. I'm going to keep my posts light and fluffy for the time being. After all, photos seem to be easy mode for earning rewards. (Although I always feel obligated to provide some sort of narrative to accompany my photos.)

Other quality narrators who aren't vocal about their platform concerns are making similar decisions, just more quietly. Many of them won't be back because they have no investment in the platform one way or another. I've invested money that I never expected to be a gamble, buying niches, just a matter of time until I at least broke even. I can't just throw in the towel. But I can coast along with mostly low-effort posts that aren't mediocre but also aren't my best work.

Sol Cycler posted:

That's too bad and I guess my initial judgement of a few character's was a ways off.

The resignation here is disappointing. Yes we need some more tools to be fully effective, but we also have tools. Those tools will suffice for now if we organised effectively and the active quality user's are involved. I mean more involved.

A few here are effectively using those tools, strengthening the platform and creating bonds. A few of you are not, only interacting on Narrative topics, but not the common quality content that is being created daily. 

We also have the upvote, comment and follow tools to use for building community and propping up quality content. 

We, WE... Need to be active on all the content, good and bad. Pushing the crap down, punishing the behavior we are griping about and building up the real, personal and original content. WE DON'T NEED STAFF FOR THAT.

I recently had a couple user's with reservations about my tactics, saying it was divisive and strong handed. What I'm seeing here is no different.

Passive aggressive threats being tos'd around are no different. Threatening to leave or not post is not helpful, is a threat and I don't believe those threats contain any meat on the bone anyway.

Diplomacy hasn't worked yet, but we are in EARLY beta, so is too be expected. Staff has been dismissive and a bit belittling, but we can change that too by building the quality culture, creating bonds between those with the necessary virtues to become united and be aggressive when appropriate.

Let's get together boost each other up and get involved in a much a wider capacity than we have and everything can fall into place.

Right now the only thing I want to hear from Staff is that;

" we hear you, nested comments aren't as important as Moderation and we're going to flip the Roadmap and work on this instead. Hopefully development will move along giving us time to add a few minor improvements in that time period as well."

Screw changing the downvote. Give us Moderator's.

The thieves, greedy, fakes, cheaters, etc...want us to quit and the downvoting is working against you. Make it work for YOU instead. 

So,  I'd like to hear 'We' user's say that building bonds, friendships, having conversations on post threads, upvoting and following needs to increase for the greater good of the platform.

Anyone?

@Former Member you are WAY off target with your assessment.  Everyone who has participated in this thread with the exception of @hgn66 because he/she is brand new on the platform, is actively engaging all sorts of content, and building community.  Even @hgn66 has joined the Discord and connected in the general chat with people there.

It is pretty insulting to suggest your peers are not contributing to the healthy growth of the site, and bizarre to see you think you actually would know whether this is happening or not - unless you're reading every post that hits the site.  

I can't speak for others, but my statement of posting a tutorial and then taking a break from the platform until I see an evolution, is neither a threat, nor passive aggressive.  It is a statement of fact, and I find it fascinating you choose to not believe it.  Perhaps you also don't believe that I withdrew my application to be a Tribunal volunteer, something I really would have liked to do, had the situation been different?  Anyway, it is immaterial what you choose to believe: maybe just try not insulting people in the process.

 

As for your assertion that we need to be solving the problems, and that we don't need the staff for that - I don't think you've been following very closely.  Several participants in this thread have been at the forefront of appealing bad niches, detecting plagiarism, and generally engaging in such network positive actions.  In my estimation, possibly more than you have.  This activity has unleashed the abusive downvoting problems we're talking about here, so it is part and parcel of the problem under discussion.  I agree the quality assurance activity needs to continue for those who still have it in them (people are allowed to burn out you know, it is a thankless task, ESPECIALLY when people like you saunter along and tell people they aren't even doing it).  But why you think it is going to solve the problem, when it clearly has not so far, and the backlash from it is only worsening - I truly don't know.

Dear @Former Member

On your last replay I should admit I'm on the same side with @Malkazoid and @Christina Gleason.

My journey on Narrative is really short, but if you take a look at my posts, it started with a simple single photo post, then I decided to write some articles. Among those articles I posted from my other hobby, photography and Photoshop posts. And at this point I myself want to step back, instead of putting my time on writing articles and trying to be more creative, while for now Narrative team concern is way far from content quality! It was a mistake for me thinking like that!Actually I'm not even sure what matters for them anymore!

About being that WE, I'm sorry to say this issue can't be solved by this WE! I have found some good contributors to platform who already gave up on posting good articles, some of them became inactive and some of them just turned to post simpler material. It's like you are asking to use jet fuel on a car without wheels, hoping that it moves or go faster!

It's too bad to hear you are also stepping back from tribunal dear @Malkazoid. But I kinda respect it, some other good friends I became to know here are also stepping back. So I'm also deciding to write one last article, and it's exactly about why I'm stepping back on long articles, and after that maybe just post some other simple stuffs or maybe just leave Narrative for now.

@Former Member - I hear you loud and clear.

I think the issue is, this thread is about the Downvote abuse.  Everything you have said in the previous post can make sense in one way or another, but it doesn't address the issue of abusing the downvote.  

The part I salute is your optimism.  I can only share it if I see the Team improving the way it responds to Community feedback.  We've all had gripes about their communications along the way, but it is in a time of conflict where they really have to step up and provide a more balanced and honest response.

 

You and I both want Narrative to succeed.  I'm sure the Team does too.  After 4 months of Beta, we can see distinct patterns of behaviour and they are not surprising if you are a student of human nature.  Only some Narrators will give their time to help the place run smoothly, and a larger number will try to cut corners and break rules if they feel they can get away with it.  The large group of corner cutters will combat efforts to have them respect the rules, and they have an anonymous tool to do so - a perfect weapon of retaliation.  Those large numbers of problematic users will grow fastest both because of the profitability of corruption and because they can see the site has VERY weak defences and the Team isn't even broadcasting a firm resolve about strengthening them.  Instead they prefer to say abuses are not happening. 

Result, the message I'd be taking home if I were a bad actor is that it is F-ing open season on Narrative.  Come in hot and take us much territory as you can!  Hit the suckers whenever they even mention the rules! 

Narrators cannot stop revenge downvoting.  Our only two options are:

1) Possee up and escalate the war, downvoting the people we suspect, hurting innocents in the process, envenomating the site's atmosphere, and probably still failing because the demographics and incentives for victory are all in favor of the bad actors. 

2) Make the Team understand we can't fix this without their help - and help starts with listening, respect, balance and telling the truth.

Option 2 is our only real option.  Option 1 would not only destroy Narrative by making it everything it claims to not want to be - it is also something I'm just not interested in doing.  It isn't me.  Anyone who thinks I should be that way can shove off: it is not going to happen.  I'll leave the site before I become that person.

You ask where people will go, because nowhere else is offering what Narrative offers.  I don't need a content platform.  I had a life before Narrative, and was not particularly active on any platforms before this one.  As soon as this place shows too many signs of the Team thinking bad actors are more precious than people like the Narrators active on this CS site, and ignoring the abuses and seriously problematic trends for Narrative's future - I'll remind myself that life is too short, and there is a real world out there that this place has been taking too much time away from already.  The money I've invested in niches here?  I'd cut my losses in a heart beat.  No point in throwing good energy and money after bad.

So be aware of what you are glossing over when you come here talking about the Community needing to shape up and do more.  Be aware that Narrators who merely wanted to remind folks to downvote honestly saw their comments downvoted until buried recently.  Be aware the Narrators who don't even curate, and could not possibly have angered the Narrative mafias, saw their comments downvoted heavily also merely for expressing agreement with some of the problems being underlined.  Be aware that one high rep Narrator downvoted another maliciously 3 times, announced proudly on the platform that he had done so, and the Team is saying and doing NOTHING about his behaviour, taking the excuse that they consider @Christina Gleason provoked this with her meltdown post about the issues.

There is no justification for ignoring a malicious attack by one person, just because another person behaved with good intent, but inappropriately.  None.  It is contrary to the very notion of Justice.

I'm willing to bet @Christina Gleason would be willing to accept some kind of appropriate punishment if the Team also punished the multitude of abusers appropriately: she has integrity and she just wants this place not to become a lawless cesspool.  And if she wouldn't take a punishment to receive Justice - I'd take her punishment for her, even though I've done nothing but try to resolve the problems.  If it meant the Team started taking the problem seriously, I'd accept that in a heartbeat.

You mention you won't only blame staff, but the Community has been doing its part for 4 months, and is now begging the Team for help.  If you don't want to blame, and you don't want to beg - maybe find whatever mode of solicitation works for you.  One thing is clear - the Team needs to give us tools to deal with this.  That's what Beta is about.  Find out what your users are clamouring for and try to build it.  The Narrative Team and the Narrative Community are supposed to be a partnership that works hand in hand for the good of the network.  Well, they are actively dismissing what we're experiencing, and a multitude of the Community's most valuable members don't feel like they have a partner in the Narrative Company right now.

Please join us @Former Member - so we can be united in a clear message to the Team: the culture of Narrative is featuring increasingly bold abusers of its rules, tools, and opportunities.  Every time the Team responds by bashing the curators while saying NOTHING about the abuse - even denying it is happening - they are giving the thumbs up for the mafias to feel more at home, and alienating those who are growing weary of labouring in this environment.

 

@Former Member - I have to run, but thanks for the additional thoughts.

I'm a bit more optimistic for the experience of newbies if Narrative makes it to a much larger user base size.  I do think there is a possibility for advertising, publications, and token appreciation to amount to a rewarding experience for newcomers in the future.  Especially if the Team is mindful of giving us the tools and incentives to surface talent from new users.

I don't think we can fight our way to a good future for Narrative.  I just don't.  Good content creators hate this sort of drama.  They have other choices, if they are talented, and they'll just place their content elsewhere.  So if Narrative is a battlefield, we'll only every appeal to people who have no other choices - and that's not a good horizon.

 

I am completely sympathetic with the Team's workload, but can find no excuses for the imbalance and denial in their response to the abusive downvotes - and that's an on-going pattern we'll have to get to the bottom of at some point.  I'm not sure why they could not say: "we see the problems, we see the systemic issues that cause community governance to trigger retaliation, we appreciate your patience while you deal with this, and we are actively scheduling tools to help improve the situation".  It is also extremely easy to make the clearly abusive downvoters conduct negative for a month or two.  As lame as the 10 rep point, all-or-nothing, conduct negative tool is: it is a tool they have at their disposal!  NowNothing to develop.  Instead the only action is they berate @Christina Gleason.

It is so easy to do something, and yet apparently so hard for them.  They opt instead for denial, and imbalanced response. That's what worries me: their instincts on how to deal with this sort of situation.

@Malkazoid's speech kinda of reminds me of a Braveheart scene. Lots of wisdom, lots of heart.

He is right, I have seen it in a dozen crypto-social-media platforms before - if there are no measures against the abusers this platform WILL go down given enought time. Which would be a shame, because like I said before, I see endless potential here.

(P.S.: Like I mentioned before in one of our heated argument of the past, @Malkazoid, although I sometimes pointed my finger before, what we were discussing is not even the top of the iceberg)

I'd vote on @Malkazoid for tribunal, but apparently that is no longer an option

Malkazoid posted:

 Be aware that one high rep Narrator downvoted another maliciously 3 times, announced proudly on the platform that he had done so, and the Team is saying and doing NOTHING about his behaviour, taking the excuse that they consider @Christina Gleason provoked this with her meltdown post about the issues.

There is no justification for ignoring a malicious attack by one person, just because another person behaved with good intent, but inappropriately.  None.  It is contrary to the very notion of Justice.

I'm willing to bet @Christina Gleason would be willing to accept some kind of appropriate punishment if the Team also punished the multitude of abusers appropriately: she has integrity and she just wants this place not to become a lawless cesspool.   

I would, indeed, accept an appropriate punishment because I did fly off the handle, as explained in my apology thread. (Although with the rudeness some of the Team members have showed by dropping sarcastic memes and otherwise snapping at members on the Support Community, I should think my punishment might already be considered taken care of by the sheer number of downvotes I got that dropped my reputation a whole point to 92, after I've been spending a whole month trying to increase it to 94. Do as I say, not as a I is not a good look either.) But some other nominal punishment is something I would grumble about but accept, so long as it was not worse than what the actual bad actors received. That would be an injustice.

I'd also like to point out that I have apologized, explained my concerns in a clear-headed manner, the way the initial post should have been. The "other side" has not taken responsibility for any wrongdoing at all, and has simply asked for a "let's all be friends" approach without offering to correct their rule breaking behavior even half-heartedly. What's worse, Ted took time to comment on THAT post in agreement, but there's crickets from staff members on mine. (Which, for the record, has been at 100% for over 24 hours, and has all positive, supportive, constructive comments on it from people who care about how this community grows.) It seems when people realize they can't justify downvoting me because of my tone, they don't want to address the uncomfortable truth about the real problems we're facing in the community. But that also means that people who were afraid to comment on my emotional post because of the rampant downvotes felt welcome to say, "You know what? This has been bothering me, too. And something needs to be done about it." High rep narrators and otherwise.

@Former Member

Forming a circle of good heart upvoters?!

That's the next level of abuse... I'm not going to make this long, because the message is clear here. Until there's denial, there's ignorance, no valued content creator will think of stepping in!

Why a professional blogger should step to this mess while they can promote their content on a well moderated site? I think you have read Narrative HQ road map which they openly confessed about inviting some big whales from Steemit. So where are they?! Where is their content?! Can't you see the loud and clear message?

I think @Malkazoid has really true vision on this problem. For me today I just found out I'm become what I was afraid of! Posting similar content with different packaging... This is how Narrative will guide you in the way... I really wanted to keep writing what I think worth it. But for what? I rather to live my real world and life instead of wasting my energy for this deserted land...

Sol Cycler posted:

I would like to point out that this Issue has 12 votes out of 8500 users.

Yes - that's above average, and without any posts on the platform referring to it (AFAIK).  It was also started by a new member who almost certainly didn't have any followers when he posted it, giving it another visibility handicap.  So not sure what you're saying.

Malkazoid posted:
Sol Cycler posted:

I would like to point out that this Issue has 12 votes out of 8500 users.

Yes - that's above average, and without any posts on the platform referring to it (AFAIK).  

It's almost as if... the 12 people who bothered to vote might care a bit more about how such abusive behavior might harm the platform because - just a thought - they care more about its future (and can/choose to invest their energy in trying to better it) than the other 8,400+ users.

Something to keep in mind when voting for the 15 spots on the elected Tribunal members next year.

Sol Cycler posted:

Lol, even if were 100 it shouldn't be enough to represent the platform. I can't win for losing. I guess I'll just be disagreed with by the same ppl, no matter my stance. Sorry for trying to be rational, rather than emotional.

@Former Member - in my estimation, the vast majority of expressions and ideas in the thread have been rational, so I don't know that you'll be able to skew things as you having a monopoly on reason.

I'm glad you've proposed something that could address the downvoting abuse problem.  I prefer the text field solution, and keeping the low quality downvote option, so the design of content surfacing algorithms doesn't have to be completely  rethought. 

Now, as has always been the case, we have to wait for the Team to do something with the many recommendations we've offered.  

Dear @Former Member

I'm afraid you are taking the same approach as Narrative team is on. Sacrificing quality in favor of quantity.

I would like to point out that this Issue has 12 votes out of 8500 users.

I don't know if you want to point that this is not an important issue, while recent Narrative HQ updates on platform itself receives votes less than 100!

So, even if this was a personal issue with less than 1 vote, I was not expecting an immediate response, but at least a proper response in proper time. @Malkazoid just emphasized on this aspect again and again... So I think this is just some kind of distraction that this post is just going from one simple issue, to be like this. This is not how things work.

We just asked one thing about Downvote Abuse, I myself just got out of the road on this topic too. So just lets stay on topic itself. Still waiting for a more than just copy pasted answer from @Narrative Community @Narrative Network Team

And 12 out of 8500 isn't a proper metric. There are actually only somewhat more than 1700 on the community support site. If you consider that not all of them are currently active on the platform itself, the percentage of people who have upvoted this post is way higher than 12/8500 would imply. 

And I see people who I normally don't see, so that's encouraging. I also don't see a few that I would normally see, which might mean that they either haven't made it here to vote on the post or just haven't seen it yet. 

Like @Malkazoid said. New user, no promotion. Still got 12 votes. 

Sol Cycler posted:

Why isn't it promoted? Because it'll probably start another ****-storm. 

I actually think the platform would unite to a surprising degree around the proposal to add a reason field to the downvote.  What's not to like?

To come out against it openly, is to support the ability to maliciously downvote.  I don't think many people would express that point of view.

Any way, not one suggestion in this forum since I've signed up months ago has garnered enough support to rationalize Staff to act on them.

I've seen quite a few Community ideas initially discussed on this site, then make it into the mind map and the Narrative spec.

We've only had 4 months of Beta, and the only things the Team has had time to develop are:

- rewards allocation

- rewards withdrawals

- 2fa

- reputation tweaks and assorted anti-troll measures

There may be some other minor things I'm not remembering but the point is here, they haven't had time to implement anything else.  And anti-troll measures were requested - so that is something from your time here.

Only now is it becoming time for us to really consider they should be implementing some of the other things we have been asking for.  I don't think anyone would argue that rewards allocation, and rewards payouts were bad things to prioritise.  Now that they are here, the Community is rightfully more vocal in feeling we're not being listened to.  That is not the same as claiming we've never been listened to.  We have been.

Our feelings are our responsibility, not Staff's. So, let's just get over the butthurt, because it's just in our heads. 

As for saying this is just a matter of getting over the 'butthurt', I again have to say you haven't been paying attention.  The trend of increased malicious downvoting, both in the number of accounts doing it, and the weight of those accounts, has implications for the platform.  They've been discussed intelligently, and thoroughly enough for you to be able deduce this isn't about 'butthurt'.  If you can't respect people's opinions, and feel the need to reduce them to puerile motives, you won't gain any respect in return.  And I want to respect you.  I like your content, and the way you seem to be living your life.

@Former Member - try not using insulting and inflammatory comments if you don't want rebuttals.  The power is in your hands.

You started out here minimising the efforts of the most active curators and community builders of the site, and ended saying those who are concerned with the downvote problem are 'butthurt'.  Is it remotely possible you are partly responsible for the way you are being responded to?

Food for thought.

Slaz posted:

This is currently a huge problem indeed.

One of my comments recently got downvoted and buried as "Low Quality" by 6 different accounts just hours after posting it. And while the comment didn't add anything to the fierce discussion at hand, it was merely meant to bring some harmless friendliness into the comments section of @Christina Gleason's post while remaining on-topic. If the owners of those abusing accounts wanted to discourage engagement on the platform, then well, they are starting to get successful at testing my patience.

My take on this? Just remove the downvote entirely and keep the upvote (and the AUP Violation report). Because guess what? There already is a third option and that is to not vote. It's simple. Vote if you like, agree, and/or approve of content and don't vote if you don't. Burying/deleting or otherwise pruning inappropriate content should be the task of actual human moderators elected by the community, and not by niche owners or algorithms. If the community disagrees with a moderator, then they should just appeal against that moderator.

 

@Slaz 100% Nice and simple.

Changed To Conversation

This action was taken by David Dreezer.

The best thing to do was to change classification of the issue.

David Dreezer posted:

We consider Issues to be along the lines of "this isn't working as intended, there is a bug here."  I'm going to reclassify this to Conversation.

So I think we can all get our answers.

This discussion is over.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×