I didn't say anything about moderators I was talking about moderation. Not who does what or how it's done. See that's your job. Intelligent conversation, maybe you've seen it modeled somewhere before. I'll explain it regardless because I don't think you understood it. Intelligent conversation is when people share ideas, or concepts. Someone says something and then the other person, either supports or refutes it with logic.

Back to moderation vs upvotes. Try to think of what a good solution would be, and then describe it. With details and logic. That's how the adults in the room like to talk.

You're just shitposting. Maybe looking for someone, anyone to talk to. You have a weird fixation on cleaning products. Maybe try to talk about other more relatable things. Or you know the topic at hand, that could help.

[–] redisdead@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

A good solution would be to allow a community to decide what they want to see by allowing individuals to promote or demote the content they consider worth it or not, and then only involve moderation in cases things are actually harmful and/or illegal.

We could call them upchoices or downchoices idk there must be a better name for it.

I am surprised you don't like the cleaning products stuff, you clearly seem to want more of it.

And again, for someone who thinks downvotes are bad, you sure is quick to dish them out :3

[–] aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well the first part is a cogent argument good job! I'll ignore the ramblings below it.

What you're describing isn't working, that's the argument for the public vs private. To dissuade the gaming of totals that I refernced 6 comments ago now, you'll have to scroll past your shitposting to get there. I'll wait.

If you're fighting what are essentially automated bots that upvote or downvote as much as they like, and then having to verify accounts to ptevent the bots, then distribute tools to auto mods, then restructure again, it's all a game of cat and mouse. You need community engagement not content moderation. Community tools and culture are how you fight disinformation. Let people communicate their points. Give better sorting in the comments and use many different algos to sort responses. Not just upvote downvote. Arithmetic is very easily gamed for the motivated and loud minority voice. It's literally the reason many people left Tumblr, Dig, Reddit and will leave Lemmy. A binary choice doesn't promote discussion it drives "engagement".

You haven't even touched on my argument of dopamine buttons. I think it might be your fixation on cleaning products and projection. If you're going to use the labor of your end users to self moderate then you should hide all upvote/downvote tallies. Also fully anonymise counts. Voting systems are anonymous for many different reasons one is to prevent what has commonly been referred to as influencer clout. Another is to prevent direct targeting of users.

[–] redisdead@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I ain't reading all that.

Congratulations for your loss.

[–] aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

It was reading comprehension that's the issue I knew it!

Using terminology like win or lose proves my point to hide and anonymize vote totals.

Also that you've finished your argument and it didn't matter what vote total any of your comments has proves it further.

Communities are self regulating with or without upvotes and downvotes. It's a false economy.

[–] redisdead@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Based