This is one of those things that seems very nice in theory, but fails in practice. On the internet, especially in communities that favor anonymity, you can never know who is the overwhelming majority. So who can vote on this vote-of-no-confidence? How do you make sure it's not brigaded?
I'll give you one simple example:
AskVoat announcements are heavily downvoted, and @she has a negative CCP score. Is this brigading or is this the opinion of the community? Is it a combination of both? Psychological studies show people are more often than not, going to react like the majority if they don't have a strong opinion on a subject.
On the other side of the spectrum, people claim @she has a lot of alts that upvote her and the other mods. How do we know this is true? How do we know these aren't organic upvotes? Is it that far out there to assume people agree with her? Or is it really brigades? A combination of both?
Someone suggested a very cool idea - Seniority. The user suggested that old and active members of the community, should get more "rights". Such as vote weight, have more say in the matter etc etc. This in my opinion is the best solution, but it's not without criticism as well. This kind of experimental system could really hurt new members, as their voices won't be as equally heard.
I'm here because everyone on reddit fucking cries about everything. It's a hurt feelings brigade every time someone says fatty or faggot. Words don't hurt me and I have no desire to interact with people so weak.
view the rest of the comments →
Calorie-Kin ago
This is one of those things that seems very nice in theory, but fails in practice. On the internet, especially in communities that favor anonymity, you can never know who is the overwhelming majority. So who can vote on this vote-of-no-confidence? How do you make sure it's not brigaded?
I'll give you one simple example:
AskVoat announcements are heavily downvoted, and @she has a negative CCP score. Is this brigading or is this the opinion of the community? Is it a combination of both? Psychological studies show people are more often than not, going to react like the majority if they don't have a strong opinion on a subject.
On the other side of the spectrum, people claim @she has a lot of alts that upvote her and the other mods. How do we know this is true? How do we know these aren't organic upvotes? Is it that far out there to assume people agree with her? Or is it really brigades? A combination of both?
Someone suggested a very cool idea - Seniority. The user suggested that old and active members of the community, should get more "rights". Such as vote weight, have more say in the matter etc etc. This in my opinion is the best solution, but it's not without criticism as well. This kind of experimental system could really hurt new members, as their voices won't be as equally heard.
TheBoldakSaints ago
I'm here because everyone on reddit fucking cries about everything. It's a hurt feelings brigade every time someone says fatty or faggot. Words don't hurt me and I have no desire to interact with people so weak.