Fediverser - project moving from social media to federated services

I am not catloaf but I have a problem with people literally combing vote logs to call users out in comments. That's toxic verging on obsessive.

Absolutely not the way to act as the face of a project. It accomplishes nothing besides making you look incredibly petty and dissuades people from supporting your work.

No need to comb anything. Instance admins get to see who voted on any item, right in the UI. And it's been going for months: if I have a comment or post with a single downvoter, 90% of the cases it's my friend here.
- It's so weird to keep track of that, and petty on both sides if it has been happening for months like you say.
  
  I also think you are placing way too high importance on vote counts, and specifically pinging people is not the way to handle your disapproval.
  
  They have publicy called out other downvoters before, not the first time. Pretty sure they were not "repeat offenders" (as apparently was also not really the case here).
  
  They don't seem emotionally stable enough for me to trust them to admin anything i'd use.
  
  No, I do not care about the counts, karma or anything like this. I just like to keep track of repeat, serial downvoters that do not participate in the discussion and resort to passive-aggressive behavior.
  
  Well, you are resorting to actively aggressive behavior in response to internet points.
  
  Yes, I don't mind dealing with conflict. People being assertive, and even aggressive when arguing their point? All fine by me. As long as you are willing to put yourself out there when criticizing/attacking someone, I can respect you. That does go out the window when people hide themselves behind a mob or "private" voting.
The feature is there, why not use it? It brings some accountability to downvotes

I have no idea who you are, so any slight against your person is purely your imagination.

I was curious, though, so I scrolled a bit on your profile. Out of over four hundred posts you've made, I saw I had downvoted three. The only comment of yours that I saw that I voted on, I upvoted.

I think the other comment about obsessiveness may be right.

Edit: and to be clear, I downvoted your comment here because it is off-topic in this post.

Thanks for bringing their instance to my attention. Their behavior is NOT ok, makes me want nothing to do with their project, and I have defederated their instance over it.
I downvoted your comment here because it is off-topic in this post

~~You are replying to the creator of the project this post is about. Can't get much more on-topic than that.~~

Edit: I didn't realize that they posted two top-level comments. Yeah, I definitely agree that the comment you replied to is off-topic.
Can you please then explain why you downvoted this post?
- Because OP titled it only "Fediverser" and gave essentially no further info. To borrow from reddit's FAQ: "Remember that adage about not judging a book by its cover? No one actually follows it. So choose your title carefully — make it useful, provide context, and be descriptive." I feel that high-quality posts should be elevated, and low-quality posts should be reduced.
  
  Modified it a bit. Never understood why reddit never allowed people to edit a title.
  
  It's so that someone can't get a post to the front page and change it to something offensive.
  
  I don't know if that's going to be a problem on Lemmy. Maybe in the future, if there are more users.
  
  Ok. Thank you for clearing that up. I still think that it would be better if you wrote a comment explaining your issue with the post to give people a chance to improve it.
- Can you please explain why it matters?
  
  Downvotes usually signify "you posted something rude, objectively incorrect, off-topic, or instance/community rule-breaking" and people who think they did not do anything wrong might understandably be frustrated when they are getting the signal they did something like that, but they can't figure out what bad behavior they're getting downvoted for at all. They might want to know what the downvoter thinks they are doing that is inappropriate so they can stop it, or if it is just a troll trying to make people unhappy and thus ignorable. And given the "lol why do you even care, are you that sensitive over internet points" kind of view, it makes it even more annoying because asking what they did wrong might just get them a response like that and no further clue to what offensive behavior they've committed. I know some people use downvote for a mere disagreement as well as for actual objectionable behavior, and trolls exist so downvotes are often safe to ignore, but I'd imagine a reasonable person who does not care about internet points might start getting a little "oh god what did I do wrong" if it's more half-up half-down or mostly downvoted, especially since I usually see rude/spammy/incorrect things downvoted more heavily than things politely pushing against the grain of popular opinion.
  
  Also somewhat relevant: I subscribe to some really small magazines/communities. Some of them are full of posts that might appear bad or controversial by vote count (think 3 upvotes vs 3 downvotes, 4 upvotes vs 3 downvotes), but the posts are entirely on topic and are not particularly biased or incorrect. I feel bad for them because it makes that post look low-quality or like they are about a controversial topic when it is really just a tiny community that probably attracted a couple trolls but not enough legit users to outvote them. I can see that getting the community creator a little upset, having their regular content look to onlookers as if it's trash when it's normal content, and lowering their hopes of attracting people to the community. Although hopefully people can recognize that at that small a number of people it might just be trolls and not low-quality content.
  
  Reddit promoted "downvote to disagree" and this is a consequence of the userbase having migrated from there.
  
  You can say whatever you want about how it should work, but the bottom line is that most people using vote-based systems are voting up and down based on if they agree with what's posted. It hasn't been "downvote for off-topic" for over a decade.
  
  This guy wants to bring more redditors to the site, the people actively perpetuating downvote to disagree.
  
  There are three people here who are telling you that they don't see "downvoters for disagreement" as normalized practice. I presume all three of us were also on Reddit, and we can all help shape a different culture to here. You talk of "bringing Redditors" like Reddit users are complete different species than you.
  
  I want to bring people. Lots of them. The majority of them will not be interesting to you or me. That's okay. What made Reddit so great was that it attracted so many people that it had a really long tail of niches.
  
  The Fediverse needs people. And I am not saying that because I am seeking "power" or "influence". I am saying it because if we keep this reactionary "it's fine like this, keep the barbarians away" mentality, the whole thing will stagnate and die. And I don't want to lose our best shot at bringing back an open web for everyone.
  
  Person here who was from Reddit, and see downvotes as disagreement as a common usage.
  
  Anecdotes amirite
  
  Yeah, anecdotes.
  
  And your point is... ?
  
  Saying something like "3 people here don't think downvotes do xyz" is not a good argument. 3 is not significant, and is even still anecdotal
  
  My friend, I don't know why you decided to necro this thread, but:
  
  I am not using this data point to make a case that I'm holding some majority opinion. I know it's not, but at the same time it's not just because it's the minority opinion that it is somehow invalid.
  
  The point is that "downvotes as disagreement" is not some type of "unwritten law" that is universally accepted.
  
  Three people out of the whole group that got involved in the discussion is relevant.
  
  Downvotes usually signify “you posted something rude, objectively incorrect, off-topic, or instance/community rule-breaking” and people who think they did not do anything wrong might understandably be frustrated when they are getting the signal they did something like that, but they can’t figure out what bad behavior they’re getting downvoted for at all. They might want to know what the downvoter thinks they are doing that is inappropriate so they can stop it, or if it is just a troll trying to make people unhappy and thus ignorable.
  
  Agreed
  
  In the general case, to get some feedback about the project. What is so bad about it that people feel like it a negative contribution to the community?
  
  In this specific case, because I don't want to get into a "he said/she said" argument about the serial downvoters. So by asking to explain it, the public can gauge by themselves who is being reasonable.
  
  I disagree with bringing in more redditors to this site. I think the community ambassador system is a quick way of creating a bunch of powermoderators on a system that's supposed to be designed to resist that kind of behavior and centralization.
  
  If you hate being downvoted because of disagreement, why would you want to bring more users who default to that behavior?
  
  I also do not believe you should have any more power or capacity in the fediverse. It's clear to me by your behavior in this thread that even basic things like being downvoted can set you off and make you decide to try to start a witch hunt.
  
  I think you are making some false assumptions here. Me calling out someone does not mean I "hate" anything. It just means that I am trying to understand why someone is so bothered by what I am doing to the point of chasing me around.
  
  The rest of the argument, I really don't know what to make of it. Seems like you already made up your mind about me and my intentions, so there is nothing that I can say or do that can change that. All I can say is that the project is open source and if someone else wants to work on it and make their own database, more power to them.
  
  You calling somebody out publicly is entirely to illicit a reaction from the crowd. Surely, a direct message would have been more appropriate for a disagreement over a series of downvotes?
  
  By doing this publicly you've definitely made the situation way, way worse than it had to be.
  
  I already sent a DM, 4 months ago. No answer.

At the moment of you writing this comment, the person in question had downvoted 3 of your comments and 4 of your posts over a span of months. Seems far from a pattern, but the following up and singling out of a particular user doesn't look good. I'd suggest not focusing on who likes or doesn't your content since the optics of an admin asking users the reasons for their votes is a very bad one.

That is far far from my "focus". I don't mind criticism. I don't even mind people who openly state reasons to not like me or what I am doing. My problem is what others described: downvoting without actionable feedback.

I am more used to the Hacker News style of moderation, where the mods are used to take a first course of action to (politely) point out what was "wrong" with someone's action and ask them to stop their behavior. Only unabashed repeat offenders get banned. My "calling out" was an attempt to do that, after a private message went unanswered.
- FYI you're not a mod here, thank god.
  
  I assume you'd also disagree with this? https://social.treehouse.systems/@ariadne/112895701054913465
  
  Oh you downvoted me because you think you'd be a great mod 😂
  
  But you are not a mod here, thank god.
  
  Making it seem like the person was following you around to harass downvote you, fucking dumbass.
  
  You might disagree with him, but no need for insults.
  
  I think an obvious insult is nicer than trying to smear the person downvoting as some notorious downvoter with pretend "admin knowledge".
  
  I guess you're a fan of this because they also called out your downvoters before. You are the good guys and the downvoters are the bad guys.
  
  I downvoted you then for the same reason that I am downvoting you now: because you are more interested in making personal attacks and calling names than in a productive conversation.
  
  Also, please re-read my comment. There is an experienced moderator from a reasonably large instance saying "sometimes all that is needed is to call out bad behavior and ask people to stop it". If you don't agree with it, fine, but don't go around saying that only someone "emotionally unstable" would act this way.
  
  In the spirit of "just ask people to stop", I'll say this: Can you please drop the needless aggression and name-calling? Let's try to assume good intentions first?
  
  I think what you do is bad behaviour, worse than just somebody downvoting something. I have told you when i first saw you do this, but you're still doing it.
  
  What i say about you is what i think about you.
  
  I have no recollection of interacting with you until yesterday, and a quick search is showing you only calling me creepy in a response to someone else because I called out two other commenters who, yes, were pretty much downvoting everything in a discussion about moving away from lemmy.ml.
  
  Then and now, you are responding to something you don't like and you are resorting to make it personal (calling names, making value judgments) instead of making it about the behavior ("hey, why are you doing X? Can you please stop it?"). Do you understand the difference?
  
  I adressed your behaviour, f.e. your attempt to create a false impression of their downvote behaviour to make yourself look more reasonable, before i called you a dumbass. But i get it, you'd rather let that one slide.
  
  I'll definitely keep chiming when you pull this in the future, as i don't think your self righteous ass will take the ratio hint.
  
  There is no attempt at anything. The serial downvotes without any further participation is there in all types of topics. Not just with me.
  
  I have sent a DM, four months ago, asking why. No response.
  
  He finally answered now with an explanation. It's not what I would call the best reason for downvoting someone, and it certainly falls in the case of "not helpful for people posting to find out what is wrong with the submission", but at least it was a response.
  
  Life goes on. You, apparently, did not. Now, instead of worrying about empty threats and your feeble attempt at intimidation, I will go enjoy my summer and continue working on my things.
  
  Have a good one.
- My problem is what others described: downvoting without actionable feedback.
  
  This is exactly why I prefer instances that have downvotes disabled.
  
  Yeah, I am still of the opinion that downvotes can be an important source of signal, but given the prevalence of "I don't like this, therefore I don't like you, here is my downvote", I'm starting to reconsider it.
  
  In my ideal world we would get rid of up/downvotes and just use emoji reactions as a multi-dimensional form of evaluating content quality.