A compromise solution for opinion downvoting vs quality downvoting

mi ramfan·Aug 7, 2014·9 votes·1,096 views

Make downvotes not affect the visibility of the post, and only change its visible vote count. Upvotes and post count are already plenty of information to use to sort threads and posts. Also, unlike with the downvote button, everyone agrees on what the upvote button means.

For pornographic posts/advertisements/trolls, there's a Report Post button. For low quality posts, just don't upvote. Downvotes only serve their function if everybody is using them properly, and that has never happened.

Having posts that you disagree with on the front page is the price you pay for free speech.

28 Comments

Serpents EmbraceAug 7, 20142 votes

So what's your definition of the purpose of down voting?

Taric Rework Suggestions

Hyrum GraffAug 7, 20142 votes

To express your opinion on the thread: that you think it's wrong.

MajorPain9Aug 7, 20142 votes

And how exactly does that help the discussion? For the most part there are more downvotes than actual posts about a disagreeable topic.

mi ramfanAug 7, 20142 votes

It's a statement of the quality of the post, not whether you agree or not.

If you think the post is high quality and/or well reasoned, upvote it. If you think it's not, downvote it. However , quality has nothing to do with the opinions expressed by the post. For example, I would upvote a well written post that argues that Lee Sin is not overpowered, even though I disagree. I would downvote a post that called him overpowered with no reasoning or tons of ad hominem attacks, even though I think they were right.

DaenAug 7, 20141 votes

I think you'll find that the majority of people follow similar logic.

Hyrum GraffAug 7, 20142 votes

I think there's a big enough minority who don't, to cause problems.

Not right now, but when GD decides to migrate over...

I think it's important to have the system be safe from abuse before that happens, because I don't want GD coming over before it is. I enjoy this platform's atmosphere, and I want it to be clear that abuse. doesn't. work. here.

DaenAug 7, 20141 votes

I think there's a big enough minority who don't, to cause problems. Not right now, but when GD decides to migrate over...

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I'm willing to bet that one of two things will happen:

Hardcore GDers never migrate over
Hardcore GDers quickly get banned on this platform

There are a lot of posters in General Discussion that I as a moderator would probably permaban from the forums if given the option. Just to be clear, this is not an impulse on my part. It's a conclusion drawn from the last month of watching who sticks out as consistently posting inflammatory/hateful/outright spammy things.

Hyrum GraffAug 7, 20141 votes

We're starting to get a little off the topic of the OP here, but I'll continue.

I remember seeing a red post (wookie?) a few weeks ago to the effect of,

If we ban those players, they just make a new account and spam "Got banned for no reason, mods r murder" threads, which some of the community then believes, then go back to their same behavior, but with the new name that people don't know about yet. As long as we don't ban them, at least the community comes to know that they shouldn't be taken seriously.

Ooh, back on topic! I think because of this, the best solution is the community solution, where those players just get downvoted/flagged to hell and nobody sees anything they write. Which is why you can't just remove our ability to regulate posts with a downvote, without giving back something in return (flags).

DaenAug 7, 20143 votes

I heavily disagree with that approach from WookieCookie. Deciding not to ban players just because they'll come back is a total cop out. If players are able to recreate an account and return to being toxic, there is a fundamental problem in either the way accounts are created or the way the platform is moderated. It is totally unacceptable to just give in to the problem and let them run wild.

That being said, I presume that's specifically a GD limitation. This should not happen in the Boards, if things are handled properly.

the best solution is the community solution, where those players just get downvoted/flagged to hell and nobody sees anything they write.

The community solution is definitely good, however it doesn't mean we should just let people troll and be toxic without consequences. This sort of comes around to the "mute vs chat restrict" problem in-game. Muting someone solves their verbal toxicity for that game, but muting is in and of itself a negative reaction to a problem. The same applies to reporting/downvoting on the forums; it gets rid of a given post but doesn't get at the root of the problem.

Angry MonsterAug 8, 20142 votes

From my experience playing devils advocate or having a belief that is counter of the thread tends to get down voted.

People mostly down vote cause they do not like something.

Hyrum GraffAug 7, 20141 votes

I think the majority of people agree with you about upvotes. About downvotes, there's a much wider variety of opinion. My opinion stems from, "We need to think about the worst-case scenario, and design the system to be able to handle that, then go from there.

DaenAug 7, 20141 votes

Agreed, though at the same time there needs to be some measure of trust. Making mechanics that can't be easily abused is really important, but we need to be careful not to fall into the trap of designing abuse prevention, if that makes sense.

Hyrum GraffAug 7, 20142 votes

It makes sense and I agree, but I don't think my solution crosses that line. It has all the same functionality of the current system, in a slightly more controllable environment.

MajorPain9Aug 7, 20141 votes

That's a nice sentiment you have for voting, but I still think the majority of the population will vote out of passion rather than quality.

Serpents EmbraceAug 7, 20141 votes

That just send like a terrible system for it to me. D why should I be up voting something well written when I don't believe it deserves public attention? Especially if it's because I think there are more important things to bring to light. :\

Sir ArmaMalumAug 7, 20141 votes

Hmm, there is the issue of low-effort, low-quality posts that aren't worth reading but not exactly reportable either. Vent threads, QQ-threads and whine threads for example. Yes, upvotes will let better posts rise above, but that still means that new incoming threads will be put at a relatively even ground with the 'trash' posts without the ability to knock them down a peg or two.

Just playing devil's advocate here, do you think that's an acceptable con?

mi ramfanAug 7, 20141 votes

It's an acceptable tradeoff to protect minority opinions. In some cases, it even protects majority opinions.

Imagine a Poster who decides that, having played Lee Sin in several games and performed badly, that Lee Sin is underpowered and needs buffs. Suppose also that this Poster decides that he will downvote any thread that requests Lee Sin nerfs.

Under the current voting system, this player would be able to systematically bury every thread that didn't align with his personal opinion on Lee Sin's balance, because his downvote would instantly bury the thread 3 or 4 pages deep. Under my system, the thread would remain on the front page with +0 as the shown vote total. Granted, threads with anything less then 1 showing are less likely to be clicked on, but at least they would not be buried under pages of posts.

Low quality posts remaining on page 1 longer is the price we pay for protecting controversial but well reasoned content.

Hyrum GraffAug 7, 20141 votes

My new opinion.

It's essentially this post, plus a dedicated "flag as low-effort, low-quality" button.

DaenAug 7, 20141 votes

Generally speaking, I'm trying to understand the perspective of the community needing to learn how to use downvotes "properly". There will always be variance in how people use the system, which to me is an OK thing. Personally, I use my downvotes both for posts I feel aren't relevant and for posts I feel are the wrong direction. I don't necessarily downvote if I disagree, but if someone's comment is just outright factually incorrect I may downvote it.

Make downvotes not affect the visibility of the post, and only change its visible vote count. Upvotes and post count are already plenty of information to use to sort threads and posts.

This would create a lot of inaccuracy. If a thread received 5 upvotes and 200 downvotes, it would just be calculated as having 5 upvotes despite having a visible vote count of -195.

Hyrum GraffAug 7, 20141 votes

This would create a lot of inaccuracy. If a thread received 5 upvotes and 200 downvotes, it would just be calculated as having 5 upvotes despite having a visible vote count of -195.

...which is why we need a flag feature, too ;)

DaenAug 7, 20141 votes

...or downvotes. :P

A thread should be closed out long before it gets to the point of 5 up/200 down regardless, since that would mean 97.5% of the community is downvoting it.

Hyrum GraffAug 7, 20141 votes

...or downvotes. :P

Alright, I'm going to drop it, because this is a topic for the other thread. Pick it up here.

A thread should be closed out long before it gets to the point of 5 up/200 down regardless, since that would mean 97.5% of the community is downvoting it.

I'm going to disagree with you here. Buried? Yes. Closed? No.

If a thread is irrelevant to 97.5% of the community, nobody should see it unless they go looking. But for the 2.5% to whom it is relevant, what's the harm in allowing the thread to remain open, if it's not clogging up anybody's "Hot" sorting?

DaenAug 7, 20141 votes

Generally speaking, if 97.5% of the community considers something irrelevant, it's probably completely irrelevant. 2.5% is well within the margin of error for trolls and people screwing around with the system.

That being said I misspoke, thanks for catching that!. By closed out I mean removed from visibility, not necessarily the thread being actually closed.

Hyrum GraffAug 7, 20141 votes

Bwahaha, I want to drop it, but I also want the last word. So I'm not actually going to respond to your point, that way you won't have anything to respond to here.

I'll just link again (for other people's benefit) to the place where I think I respond to this.

DaenAug 7, 20141 votes

Fair enough, I'll take a look at the link.

mi ramfanAug 7, 20141 votes

We don't need a flag function. Just post in the thread and tell them why you think they're wrong.

CupcakeTrapAug 7, 20141 votes

I see no reason why upvotes and downvotes need to have equal weight.

I also think that Riot could make it work differently when a post is just getting started. To address the "good posts insta-killed by a single jerk stalking the New section" problem, Riot could set it up so that (e.g.) downvotes are not counted during the first hour of a post's life, or for the first 10 votes.