fallowseed

its just a casual suggestion, i am more curious about what it would look like- what it would do to promote a different behavior.. while the stuff about being singled out and targeted is something i've experienced- if i were truly thrown off by that tactic, i'd leave, but i don't see why this conversation must be about that and not the suggestion itself- do you think a system like that would work in the way i picture it? can you see any reason it would not work in a small testable environment? not looking for counseling, not trying to change the world to my preference, not on a crusade to punish people-- but it seems i'm easily caricatured as 'caring too much' or being 'weak/soft' in so many words.

we all want to eat and have our pies, it makes perfect sense. every summer i pine for autumn, every winter, i am dying for spring

maybe we can go after liquor and beer and put a 3.2 cap on all alcoholic products.. you know- alcohol? how much does that cost our infrastructure and health care system? nevermind the loss of lives-- but sure-- go after 'strong weed' (me still sour about the guy who called it 'dangerous' and 'genetically engineered hard drug')

humans themselves come to mind :P speaking of dangerous, wooboy

yeah, there's all sorts of interesting ways to take it- i'm sure they each have their own merits and pitfalls... i once dreamed of a social media site where you could only POST one thing per day :P what that would do to the quality and length and decisions related to topic... but that would promote more botting

that is sort of what my notion amounts to- it creates weighting-- doesn't prevent people from upvoting, but prevents them from obviously malicious downvote sprees. when you see someone with a lot of downvotes, it would mean something more.

twitter has something like this that hides you away until you're 'established' by reposting and following x users.. ostensibly to curb botting-- it feels shitty though and could drive a lot of users away.

well there's the implementation angle-- i would think one is a lot more complicated to put together than another- naturally i prefer my idea and you prefer yours, but there is elegance in simplicity and it could be a place to start- no reason both ideas can't be explored.

so if i were to post something in 'world news' but there is a very clear and decisive groupthink that doesn't allow different positions air to breathe, what then? again, that's 'WORLD' news

its not a huge issue, but its not a non-issue.. you don't have to be so black and white with your dismissives.

oh i do... when anyone is allowed to target someone with a hundred downvotes, literally clicking through their post history to do so, just dilutes and damages the data / meaningfulness of those actions. believe that each instance has an interest in that data, whether you do or don't.

it would be an interesting environment to experience.. i'd be curious to see where people put their rarefied downvotes-- how they adjust their button pressing economy :P