Is the “globally tracks your score” part true? That would be a huge negative for me. I found myself self-censoring on Reddit, and I hated it when people deleted or edit their comments to preserve their karma.
The whole comment section is pretty interesting, they go into the code, I debated piefed features, as stated by Rimu, with… I think an admin? Not sure. There’s another link to a comment string about piefed updates here: https://lemmy.world/comment/21179968
Interesting, I’m not sure how I feel about it. On Reddit it encouraged people to post groupthink fluff so they could be allowed onto their desired subreddit. The bots were great at that, and we got a “dead internet” website.
I suppose we’ve got other stuff going for us like bans being local and bots being scorned. And I have to admit that mod/admin effort isn’t free. Do you think the low karma warnings could potentially be a slippery slope to something worse?
It’s understandable to feel that way, but imo this is about basic internet etiquette rather than censorship. If I went to .ml and wrote a few sensible comments there I would quickly get a bad rep. It’s not perfect but it’s a far cry from censorship as well.
I mean if we had piefed without a karma/reputation system we would get a true level playing field, reduced performative posting, more raw feedback and less censoring.
but on the other hand there would be too much noise, spam and bot flooding (since no reputation/karma), lack of trust and accountability.
Xitter for example has no rep system yet people still find a way to judge the quality of a post using the Ratio method (likes vs comments)
I like the principle of reddit and piefed expands on that and tries to come in with “common sense tools”
I think it’s really up to you to decide what is important.
Do you want a place for raw, unfiltered, diverse and equal expression? (à la Twitter) which comes with its set of negatives. Or a place that is organized, high-quality and “trustworthy” and its own set of negatives
I personnaly prefer an organized place but that’s just my opinion.
Edit: should have used Mastodon as an example instead of Twitter
Reddit records positive karma though, which is different.
Also Reddit or Reddit communities (not sure) can literally throttle the activity of users who are heavily downvoted within a specific subreddit. Some subs also instant block anyone with -100 Karma. Unfortunately though, when you do encounter an account like that… it’s very obviously why they are like that. People can get unfairly hit by arguing in the wrong communities but 9 times out of 10, a -100 karma account (it caps at that on Reddit) has been trolling, looking for fights, spamming etc.
I suppose it would depend on where the score limit is. Any admin tool can be abused by a sufficiently determined admin, of course, but I think as long as the low-reputation limit is something along the lines of “This person is consistently averaging a distinctly negative score”, it’s probably fine. You’d really have to be overwhelmingly commenting on controversial issues with nothing but controversial takes in order to average that with good faith posting.
Mostly it’s the “MY BIG NUMBER” attitude that I think should be avoided, and since users can’t see their reputation, that’s probably not going to be a problem.
Using Ukraine to overexploit their resources and as a battleground to weaken Russia. Using Venezuela to overexploit their resources and to weaken resource-access for China. Using Israel as an unsinkable aircraft carrier in West Asia towards China. Using Taiwan as an unsinkable aircraft carrier in South-East Asia directly off the coast of China.
Or do you mean critically engage against people’s opinion even when yours seems to be the same line of thinking the tankie employ? Because you give the vibe that the only country you adore and care about is Russia and China, to which the system used by piefed is really useful for people to not engage any of your comment.
I’m critically engaging and pugjesus downvoted both of my comments without responding. But they usually do, and I genuinely like to hear other people’s opinions — especially when they’re far different from mine.
Weird when a community that criticizes instances for authoritarianism and groupthink is… well…
Downvote and move on, that’s a pretty basic reaction to something you don’t agree on the internet. Not all interaction on the internet need to be an essay and shit flinging, not everyone have the time to engage every comment they don’t like. I don’t really like it as well, but i do use it from time to time and i understand why people do it, they just don’t care about having argument every moment of their online life.
And i’m not sure what you mean by “critically engaging”, you simply posted a link and say it’s interesting. There’s nothing deep about it for people to engage other than a simple “ok”, which tend to replaced by the vote button.
A single user is hardly representative of an entire community, and also, downvotes don’t mean groupthink. Anyone can upvote or downvote for a variety of reasons. Personally, I very rarely vote, and I think downvotes should be removed entirely.
You know what? That’s my mistake. For whatever reason, I thought they were a mod here.
Regardless, posting the craziest parts of comment sections are no more representative of an instance than a single user represents a community. Basically any comment section over 30 comments is going to have some out-there ideas.
Having a community where people can openly call them “fascist bootlickers” for theories somewhat based on the context of the rest of the comments, that have nothing to do with fascism, is kinda nuts.
![Fascist bootlickers call Piefed a CIA op and thought policing because [checks notes] it has admin tools for checking upvote/downvote reputation](https://media.piefed.social/posts/y9/uO/y9uOwnSI62W4hjZ.jpg){kind=link}
Is the “globally tracks your score” part true? That would be a huge negative for me. I found myself self-censoring on Reddit, and I hated it when people deleted or edit their comments to preserve their karma.
The whole comment section is pretty interesting, they go into the code, I debated piefed features, as stated by Rimu, with… I think an admin? Not sure. There’s another link to a comment string about piefed updates here: https://lemmy.world/comment/21179968
It was generally informative.
As I understand it, it lets the instance admin display if it drops below a certain level, as a suggestion a user needs a deeper look.
I don’t think users can see the actual number/karma equivalent by any means.
Interesting, I’m not sure how I feel about it. On Reddit it encouraged people to post groupthink fluff so they could be allowed onto their desired subreddit. The bots were great at that, and we got a “dead internet” website.
I suppose we’ve got other stuff going for us like bans being local and bots being scorned. And I have to admit that mod/admin effort isn’t free. Do you think the low karma warnings could potentially be a slippery slope to something worse?
It’s understandable to feel that way, but imo this is about basic internet etiquette rather than censorship. If I went to .ml and wrote a few sensible comments there I would quickly get a bad rep. It’s not perfect but it’s a far cry from censorship as well.
Doesn‘t matter what it‘s supposed to be, the relevant factor is what it does in reality.
i agree, there shouldn’t be any upvotes, downvotes or reputation system at all.
I mean if we had piefed without a karma/reputation system we would get a true level playing field, reduced performative posting, more raw feedback and less censoring.
but on the other hand there would be too much noise, spam and bot flooding (since no reputation/karma), lack of trust and accountability.
Xitter for example has no rep system yet people still find a way to judge the quality of a post using the Ratio method (likes vs comments)
I like the principle of reddit and piefed expands on that and tries to come in with “common sense tools”
I think it’s really up to you to decide what is important.
Do you want a place for raw, unfiltered, diverse and equal expression? (à la Twitter) which comes with its set of negatives. Or a place that is organized, high-quality and “trustworthy” and its own set of negatives
I personnaly prefer an organized place but that’s just my opinion.
Edit: should have used Mastodon as an example instead of Twitter
Reddit records positive karma though, which is different.
Also Reddit or Reddit communities (not sure) can literally throttle the activity of users who are heavily downvoted within a specific subreddit. Some subs also instant block anyone with -100 Karma. Unfortunately though, when you do encounter an account like that… it’s very obviously why they are like that. People can get unfairly hit by arguing in the wrong communities but 9 times out of 10, a -100 karma account (it caps at that on Reddit) has been trolling, looking for fights, spamming etc.
I suppose it would depend on where the score limit is. Any admin tool can be abused by a sufficiently determined admin, of course, but I think as long as the low-reputation limit is something along the lines of “This person is consistently averaging a distinctly negative score”, it’s probably fine. You’d really have to be overwhelmingly commenting on controversial issues with nothing but controversial takes in order to average that with good faith posting.
Mostly it’s the “MY BIG NUMBER” attitude that I think should be avoided, and since users can’t see their reputation, that’s probably not going to be a problem.
My reputation is so low, because I critically engage in this community from time to time and people don‘t like it.
calling random people nazis and fascists for not liking tankies isn’t critical engagement
this the critical thinking you talk about?
Or do you mean critically engage against people’s opinion even when yours seems to be the same line of thinking the tankie employ? Because you give the vibe that the only country you adore and care about is Russia and China, to which the system used by piefed is really useful for people to not engage any of your comment.
I’m critically engaging and pugjesus downvoted both of my comments without responding. But they usually do, and I genuinely like to hear other people’s opinions — especially when they’re far different from mine.
Weird when a community that criticizes instances for authoritarianism and groupthink is… well…
Downvote and move on, that’s a pretty basic reaction to something you don’t agree on the internet. Not all interaction on the internet need to be an essay and shit flinging, not everyone have the time to engage every comment they don’t like. I don’t really like it as well, but i do use it from time to time and i understand why people do it, they just don’t care about having argument every moment of their online life.
And i’m not sure what you mean by “critically engaging”, you simply posted a link and say it’s interesting. There’s nothing deep about it for people to engage other than a simple “ok”, which tend to replaced by the vote button.
A single user is hardly representative of an entire community, and also, downvotes don’t mean groupthink. Anyone can upvote or downvote for a variety of reasons. Personally, I very rarely vote, and I think downvotes should be removed entirely.
You know what? That’s my mistake. For whatever reason, I thought they were a mod here.
Regardless, posting the craziest parts of comment sections are no more representative of an instance than a single user represents a community. Basically any comment section over 30 comments is going to have some out-there ideas.
Having a community where people can openly call them “fascist bootlickers” for theories somewhat based on the context of the rest of the comments, that have nothing to do with fascism, is kinda nuts.