![]() I don't preach my way of doing things to be the right one. Nobody's been soft with me, I see no reason to be soft on them in return. I don't see why I should follow Reddiquette when no one does. ![]() It's my own petty way of doing things, of supporting people I like and punishing people I don't like. I don't know if that makes a difference or not. I notice someone's an exceptional douchebag? I think he's a karma whore? I RES-tag him accordingly and then downvote everything he says or does on sight. I don't care what they post, we're buddies, I want their stuff on top. It doesn't move the discussion in a direction I like? Downvote.Įverything my friends post, I upvote without question. I don't like the way you said that? Downvote. Your post stands against my beliefs? Downvote. I disagree with you? Screw you, downvote. If you somehow manage to be an incredible screw-up of an idiot or a hate magnet, the mass will doxx you without a second thought and proceed to ruin your life from the comfort of their home. Either the mass approves of what you do and you're granted visibility in reward, or it disapproves and it attempts to erase you off the face of the planet and make it seem as if you do not exist. For me, Reddiquette is nothing more than a newbie trap. ![]() It's pure and simple law of the jungle and mob mentality. They do not play fair and they do not upvote "controversial but thought-provoking comments". I've realized a long time ago that redditors do not throw bones. If we want to change how they vote, the user experience or the user base will need to be changed.Īny vote I give says either of those two things: either I want you to show up on top, or I want you to disappear. It's easy to look down our noses at these guys, but they are merely doing what comes naturally. Votes on posts become "I like that" and "I don't like that", and votes on comments become "I agree with that / That made me laugh" and "That's stupid / That's not funny". The average voting user will often disregard the ideals of "best for Reddit" or "best for this subreddit" in favor of "best for me". ![]() For example, r/ListenToThis instructs its users to upvote music that they have never heard before (contributes to the subreddit) and downvote-now discouraged in lieu of reporting-music that is popular (does not contribute). Subreddits have their own rules for voting that are often a subset of these. If you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it. If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. There's a Reddit-intended use, a subreddit-intended use, and then there's agree/disagree. I hope others are interested and that this might fuel an interesting discussion. I think a key question here is whether the upvote/downvote exists in relation to the actual reddit post itself or to the content of the post/that which is being publicized. Similarly, if I downvote the post, what does that mean? That I am upset about the fact that Austin is the 5th drunkest city? That I am upset with the poster for having publicized it? That I want few people to see it? What does my upvote actually mean? Does it mean that I like the fact that Austin is the 5th drunkest city in the U.S.? Does it mean that I appreciate the poster having publicized the article? Does it mean that I want the article to go as high as possible such that the maximum amount of people can be exposed to this information? I suppose I just want to have a conversation with fellow interested people about what it objectively means to upvote or downvote a link, especially insofar as ethics and/or epistemology are concerned.įor example, I see a post linking to a news article which reports that Austin, TX is the fifth "drunkest" city in the country.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |