Simple idea, a reader must wait at least 5 seconds before a vote can be made on a post. It wouldn't interfere much with people voting legitimately because it implies they are reading the post but it would at least inconvenience downvote sprees and fairies.
This may be very difficult to actually implement in the platform for all I know, but just an idea to throw out.
Thoughts?
Bob LLama5 votesSo this is an interesting idea, and a good solution to a potential problem. I think we'll wait and see if this actually does become an issue before we implement something. I'll keep this as reference should it be an issue!
Sir ArmaMalum1 votesThank you for the reply! Had some great discussion in this post as well from multiple people, gotta love that teamwork. =)
ratcharmer1 votesI am quite certain I have seen at least some evidence of downvote sprees/multivoting so far.
Really even if it isn't a major problem yet I'd prefer not to wait until it becomes one before we do anything about it.
UnSyn Tailight2 votesThe cooldown on tribunal actually can prevent those who just click their votes without read through the case tho...
MackleDoge1 votes....This thread has nothing to do with Tribunal...
Sir ArmaMalum2 votesWell the system the tribunal uses is similar to the one I'm proposing in OP, so there's that.
MackleDoge1 votesShould I really have to wait 5 seconds to downvote "OMFG RITO SUCKS DICK FIX YOUR SHIT FUCK YOU"? Because I'm pretty sure it doesn't take much reading to know that thread deserves a downvote to get it off of the Hot sorting.
Sir ArmaMalum1 votesBut you're a competent patient person who is there to specifically downvote the post because of its content not someone running down the list clicking the down arrow and moving on. Is 5 seconds honestly that much?
How about 3? My intent is for the delay to be long enough to mildly inconvenience downvote sprees but not too long to interfere with situations like that. Personally I think 5 seconds is plenty short for posts like that because I'll usually be writing a comment telling them to calm the hell down.
Edit: Not to mention the 2 or so seconds for the report button
MackleDoge1 votesI think if someone is vindictive and petty enough to go through the board with the sole intention of downvoting things, having to wait X seconds isn't going to deter them. They've already demonstrated that they have nothing superior to be doing with their time and that they have some sad little obsession with deceiving themselves with the illusion of power of efficacy.
Sir ArmaMalum1 votesTrue, in the end it would be an experimental step because the reasoning behind the decision to downvote spree is lacking, and it's really not a huge deal currently, but I'm curious to see whether or not it would actually affect the stats.
MackleDoge1 votesNot sure myself. The problem is that as more and more people start to use CB, statistically speaking, more and more trolls, toxicity, and negativity are going to be showing up. How that is going to effect and influence the CB with it's upvote/downvote system remains to be seen. Personally, I don't see it going very well, since there's substantial amount of evidence for circle-jerk and clique behavior on forums in general and this sort of format makes it even easier.
Sir ArmaMalum1 votesThat reminds me about my old Catagory Tag System post....I should get around to rewriting and reposting that, I re-read it the other day and realize I was so bad at explaining it. lol
In general, I agree, higher traffic may turn out to be a bad thing for the current iteration of the CB but I'm pleasantly surprised at how it's turning out so far. Compared to the start there's a good number of people coming through now and aside from H&S the negative posts have been....manageable I think is a good word for it?
Kira Onime1 votesBut you already have to go in the thread to downvote.
By the time I click the link to get in and have everything load, it's already been at least 2 seconds thus, making this idea somewhat redundant and pointless.
Sir ArmaMalum1 votesIndividually it shouldn't even be noticeable for that reason and others, but that extra second or two to wait for downvote hit+runs makes the 'activity' of downvote sprees a little less engaging.
Of course, this assumes I understand downvote fairies, which I will safely say I don't.
Gãý1 votesThis really isn't needed in my opinion. If I open a post i personally wanted to read it. Im going to finish reading it and then upvote or downvote whether i think its good or not.For example, I got onto this post so I could read your idea, comment my opinion on whether it was good or bad, and then upvote/downvote accordingly. This feature would just be a waste of time for the Riot staff to create, test, and then implement, not to mention how useless it would seem to others. Good idea in general, but I don't think anyone needs it. Maybe instead there should be a limit to downvoting posts so people don't go on downvote rampages (not that it matters why anyone would do something like that). For example, you can only downvote 5 posts in a 20minute time period. That could be something worthwhile if downvote rampages became a problem.
MackleDoge1 votesThat numerical balance might make sense for CB as it is now, but it would have to be repeatedly scaled to match the size of CB and the amount of posts being created in a certain time frame. That creates a large maintenance burden on Riot for the forums which I believe would be unnecessary and would always be a contested issue by people who are very active on the forums and thus upvote/downvote more frequently and/or a larger number of posts than the average.
Gãý1 votesStill, at the small community this forum seems to have (only been on here for like a day) I doubt it's needed right now.
Sir ArmaMalum1 votesI agree it isn't needed currently, but it's food for thought for a potential problem. I'm glad to see there's a lot of feedback for it though! =)
Gãý1 votesI just like putting my voice out there :D
Angry Monster1 votesI think that this wont stop click and mark issues(if they exist?). whats 5 sec after all
Sir ArmaMalum2 votesThe idea is limited by the constraint of not inconveniencing legitimate voters, people who read a post and vote based on their actual opinion. Increasing the iteration time of the action of downvoting discourages the quick repeated behavior of downvote sprees. Granted not by much, but multiplied over 20 or so posts that some troll has gone around down voting it can start becoming a noticeable negative feedback loop.
Other variations of this idea may be better, like a anti-spam measure similar to major chats like Twitch, where exceeding a certain 'rate of downvoting' can diasble your downvote privileges for a temporary amount of time, but that's a whole lot more complicated and I wanted to start basic. Also, it's not a huge deal now I'll admit, but with the vote reliance of post visibility I can see this being an eventual problem for promising and awesome posts getting killed in the crossfire by getting downvoted at the very beginning.