They are? Where? I mod a Community and I've never seen anything that isn't explicitly for Admins that can see them.
For my community ( [email protected] ) I would adore this as long as it's available to Mods of the community the downvotes are in and Admins of that instance only. It should absolutely not be visible for normal users.
We are hit with downvotes nearly every time we post a new thread on anything even remotely controversial so it would really help us filter out people who simply downvote to bury the thread and contribute nothing whatsoever to the discussion.
Heck, we made it a rule to not downvote unless the user is not adding to the discussion, and that it should not be used as a disagree button. People generally ignore this, however.
That or just add the moderator option to disable downvotes for Communities. It would be an incredibly handy toggle.
EDIT: For an example as to why it should be implemented, see this post you're currently viewing where I give reasons, how it's been impacting us, some alternatives, and people hit the "fuck you" button with zero discussion and that's all. This is the problem.
Figured I'd make a new reply in hopes the system notifies of a response.
-
It'd be cool to do an instance, but I don't have the time (or maybe resources) to manage such a thing. Even getting help to manage one Community is hard. We have had two mods vanish, and I can only imagine running an instance being much harder. Our largest issue is actually getting replies instead of drive-by-downvotes. New threads that aren't pretty obviously tuned to the attitudes of Lemmy at large get buried quickly in no-discussion downvotes. For example, the thread about overpopulation was insanely downvoted, with very little actual discussion occurring. It was reported to admins, and I was told multiple times that it was a fascist dogwhistle. I have no idea how or why this is, because nobody explained it or responded to questions. I replied with data, and was told in no uncertain terms to fuck off in PMs. People don't respond because they don't see the thread due to downvoting, won't reply if they do see it due to dogpiling, or can't back up their opinions and stop responding after making insults. This has been my experience of trying to discuss anything of substance on Lemmy. It's a huge problem. I would absolutely help run a new instance, but I couldn't spearhead the effort.
-
I like the multiple vote system, but my preference would be to simply disable downvotes altogether and leave it at "upvote only." I don't think we'll ever get through to users that a downvote isn't a "disagree button" to many people. Disabling downvotes would have to be done instance-side, or so I've been told. I don't think the entire instance wishes to do that however. I've requested more Community controls, but there's been a distinct lack of them at present.
I'm totally open to any ideas to help though!
A trash heap where it fucking belongs.
There isn't a thing that you can put ketchup on that a good BBQ sauce or hot sauce isn't better on. I will die on this hill.
Hey! I wish the damn system would notify me when a post is made in the community, so we can start that as a wishlist feature right now. It makes it hard to engage and grow a Community when you don't even know someone has posted there. When I browse Lemmy, I tend to use All and simply filter out subs I have no interest in. I don't think many people exclusively visit specific subs.
First off, I appreciate the positivity! You have no idea how many aggro messages I get because I had the gall to even broach subjects that some people don't like. I've had PMs from people telling me they're going to kill themselves because of threads I've responded to where I pointed out logic failures, been called every name under the sun, had the sub reported multiple time because of threads questioning a personal moral narrative the user had, and much more. It gets to be a real drag when you see a reply notification and get a twinge of apprehension because you're not sure what you'll get.
I have to head out now (work stuff), unfortunately, but I'll edit this reply in a few hours with thoughts on your proposals above, I just wanted to make sure I replied ASAP so you can see that there's some movement.
Yes but one example does not (or should not) a rule make. There's good statistical analysis and plenty of reason to back up that particular ruling so it's not simply a belief, but good science on outcomes. So once again using your example, we have science and logic versus belief that the science is immoral.
In other cases like the facetious example I gave in my previous post, if it is valid to make a rule from nothing but belief, then it is just as valid to repeal that rule because of nothing but belief.
I am absolutely pro-choice by the way, but simply pointing out the flaw in the logic of the other poster.
I've reported hundreds of these stupid things because I use guides somewhat regularly. I think they've deleted like four? They do notify you when they take action, but it's incredibly uncommon.
So... it isn't ALWAYS a fallacy. In its purest, a slippery-slope argument is of the following form:
“If A, which some people want, is done or allowed, then B, which most people don’t want, will inevitably follow. Therefore, let’s not do or allow A.”
The fallacy occurs when that form is not fleshed out by sufficient reasons to believe that B will inevitably follow from A, such as in the following examples:
- “The US should put the Ten Commandments into schools. If they don't, then everyone will be worshipping Satan within a few generations."
- “We’ve got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they ban one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be banning all books!”
In these examples, the conclusion does not follow deductively from the premise. Nor is any reason given to believe that a chain of events set in motion by the act described in the premise will inevitably lead to what’s described in the conclusion. Heck, the above examples are not even good inductive logic.
So you're absolutely correct in saying that not all slippery-slope arguments are fallacies, it just takes logic in between, and that's something a lot of people struggle with.
I don't have much to add that I didn't write elsewhere, but thank you in particular for your response. Thoughtful and thorough is always awesome to see! I hadn't considered the shift away from life skills to money-making skills, but you're quite correct.
Yep, it is a leading question. I added an apology to the initial topic because our threads are not normally leading in any way as I save my opinion for response posts below generally.
It was done because of the way that I'm currently feeling with a lot of experience on my side. If you don't think discussion has gotten worse, you're more than welcome to post why you feel that way. I'd be interested to see what you have to say.
Maybe. It's pretty rare, and on Reddit or Lemmy, it's been very much in the minority. Maybe 1 out of every 100 lead to something worthwhile. It actually makes me really miss a good forum.
It looks like I will be nearly the only dissenter here. I didn't care for the game.
PROS:
NEUTRALS:
CONS:
CONCLUSION: Meh? I really don't understand the adoration people have for this game. It's a mediocre non-combat roguelike with about 3 hour of content they've spread over 20 hours. It feels very much like a case of style over substance. This game genuinely makes me sad. I really wanted to like it, but... ugh. It feels like work.