Logarithm
<Member>
<Member>
Yes, a vote that has "." COULD be an honest vote, but does that make it right?
With these rules, I could theoretically make an account, go and downvote every single guide, and make the reason "I am downvoting all guides."
Why? Because I should be given the benefit of the doubt, right? Maybe I honestly, truly think all guides on Mobafire are bad. I might have not one gram of malevolence in my brain while doing this, but again, does that still make me right?
There are times when right and wrong turns from an opinion vs an opinion into just plain right and wrong. Sure, giving users the benefit of the doubt on things will prevent false flags, but what are we sacrificing to do ensure this? If a real vote was to be removed, why not just allow the user who posted it to file a dispute?
Trust me when I say that the number of real votes accidentally removed will be almost the exact same if we took a policy of common sense.
Hell, I bet that even adding things like an option to the C2V system where you can give a minimum text threshold would drastically reduce the amount of fake votes from the real ones. That way, if someone thinks the guide is truly wrong, then they actually have to type something instead of "omg u suk".
With these rules, I could theoretically make an account, go and downvote every single guide, and make the reason "I am downvoting all guides."
Why? Because I should be given the benefit of the doubt, right? Maybe I honestly, truly think all guides on Mobafire are bad. I might have not one gram of malevolence in my brain while doing this, but again, does that still make me right?
There are times when right and wrong turns from an opinion vs an opinion into just plain right and wrong. Sure, giving users the benefit of the doubt on things will prevent false flags, but what are we sacrificing to do ensure this? If a real vote was to be removed, why not just allow the user who posted it to file a dispute?
Trust me when I say that the number of real votes accidentally removed will be almost the exact same if we took a policy of common sense.
Hell, I bet that even adding things like an option to the C2V system where you can give a minimum text threshold would drastically reduce the amount of fake votes from the real ones. That way, if someone thinks the guide is truly wrong, then they actually have to type something instead of "omg u suk".
Logarithm wrote:
Hell, I bet that even adding things like an option to the C2V system where you can give a minimum text threshold
This point has been brought up before. People who are intending to down vote with no "reason" will just fill it with garbage, and it can deter people who want to upvote but don't have much to say.
I've made several upvotes that say something like, "Good job. How do you feel about Armor Pen Quints?" If the threshold is higher than that, I have to come up with more to say. I don't have anything else, so should we be forcing people to type more? Is this going to deter people who are planning to downvote for "troll" reasons? Is "your guide sucks, your guide sucks, you're awful, your guide sucks..." any harder to paste than "."?
In my completely amateur opinion, putting a text length will make troll votes more troll-ish (longer in length, potentially more offensive), and you'll see less constructive criticism because they won't have enough to say.
"You sound just like Pythagoras."
You need to log in before commenting.
<Member>