You should be able to block that user from interacting with you by simply clicking on their name and pressing the block button.
That will prevent them from downvoting future posts and if you have a negative interaction with somebody you can do that as many times as is needed to create the environment that you will enjoy participating in here.
They appear to have stopped for now.
The only one I saw is u/locutor99 which was created 11 hours ago but I am not sure if it connected to the other ones since the posts are about dubbing and not watching movies.
Slightly off-topic, but I don’t think downvotes should be a thing at all. Silences minority opinions by lessening their visibility and discouraging further discussion even when they’re correct. People also tend to not respond to those comments/posts in good faith, as if the downvotes prove them wrong. Turns the place into an echo chamber.
Taking out downvotes would allow for less popular opinions to have higher visibility and discussion since the majority can’t just downvote it, just because they slightly disagree with it or are biased against it, and silence discussion.
People who do agree would also be able to show it through upvotes, and it wouldn’t be eaten up by the downvotes.
Spam, hateful and rule-breaking comments/posts would just be reported instead. As is the case for some Lemmy instances already.
I don't think that it's off topic at all, in the contrary. If you analyse the situation described by the OP, the issue is not the fact that our actions are transparents, the issue is due to the consequence of downvoting a post and how this action made another person feel and how they acted on this feeling.
Downvoting is not a constructive tool and should be abolished. It's not a matter of the users not using it the right way, it's a matter of psychological behaviour.
We should design tools that help us to bring the best in us, not the worst. We are not here on a commercial platform who need to hook us with dopamine shot, and trigger us on engaging by frustrating us. We need to build things differently. Federating servers is great but not enough.
I think that an option to be able to remove the display of the downvote tool and downvote count should be available in the settings. I would like to abolish it all together but I'm not interested to impose this on other users, so bring me an opt out please.
what do you think @ernest? let's change this paradigm and build another better tool?
if you take out the downvotes, the upvotes must go with it. but also, kbins algorithm isnt over-programmed and calculating, i see varying levels of upvoted and downvoted comments mixed together and i like it that way so everyone is included. on kbin, if youre downvoted, its usually been for good reason as far as ive seen, and ive also never had to go LOOKING for downvoted comments that are buried like on reddit. they are right there on kbin. the 'algorithm' is no algorithm. its honest
On reddit about 8 years ago there was a bunch of discussion of how people were running automated scripts to downvote everything by people they didn't like or whatever.
And reddit had to build in a safeguard so those automated script downvotes no longer counted. Those kinds of shenannigans would be much easier to spot in kbin's current system.
I have the downvote button hidden completely using the KES script because of that issue.
Reddit allowing you to hide your own up/downvotes to others is a really nice privacy feature that I wish the Fediverse in general had, but unfortunately the nature of federation doesn't make that possible unless you prevent them federating to other servers.
Happens on reddit anyway. Even though people can’t see who downvoted them, they guess. Or someone (or a brigade) mass downvotes not because you downvoted their comment but just because they disagree with or resent your comments. Reddit avoided this by ignoring repeated downvotes from one person and on profile pages.
Personally, if there’s someone who is really abrasive or I just really disagree with and find their posts agitating or distracting, I just block them and that avoids the problem for both of us.
If you're a bad actor, you could block anyone who downvotes your bad takes or whatever garbage you're posting, and over time, you could block most active users (or at least the ones who disagree with you) until your posts aren't downvoted into oblivion. I suppose by then, your total rep would be pretty pretty low and it would probably be easier to just make a new account.
I'm not sure how viable this would be, just a thought.
This was a concern raised when Reddit updated the way blocking worked to make posts mutually invisible, between the blocked and the blocker. Some sort of scam had a cadre of dedicated users calling them out everywhere they went on Reddit. When blocking became mutual, i.e. the anti-scammers could no longer see the scammers' posts, it was believed the scammers would have a way easier time finding Marks.
Perhaps, or they'll at least remain visible to the casual users and lurkers. They would have the most influence over people who wouldn't actively downvote them, anyways. FWIW, I think there should be some measure taken to mitigate downvote stalking, but there's always one shithead who takes things too seriously and has to ruin things for everyone else.
You block someone when you don't want to see their stuff anymore. It shouldn't have any effect on whether they can see or interact with your comments and the rest of the community. If they are block-worthy, other users can block them too.
You shouldn't really care about what they have to say after you've blocked them. If others see you never engaging with them, they should get a clear picture that you don't deem a reply necessary. If you're really concerned with rebutting everything they have to write about you or your ideas, then the correct course of behavior is not to block them.
Could it be made that a blocked person's votes simply have no effect on the posts of people that blocked them? (ie from the blocked persons end it looks like they downvoted the person but the actually didn't.)
Also, by hiding everything from the blocked person you also run the risk of the blocked person finding out they were blocked, which is not exactly a good thing either; they could have an alt and easily see the person's content and harass them that way.
Blocking someone means that you don't want to interact with them anymore and making all of your content invisible to them is a pretty surefire way of doing that.
Yes, but making them invisible to you accomplishes the same thing and is preferable, IMO. It doesn't change what they can do. Keep in mind blocking, which can be done by any user for any reason at all, is not the same as banning, which is restricted to a smaller set of people with more power.
I can only think of two, and they would be exploiting this system for their own end. (Also, please keep in mind that at the time of writing I am not 100% sure how kbin & the wider fediverse's blocking system works. If I have some incorrect assumptions please correct me.)
They block the person to get the last word in, thereby "winning" the argument. Silly, yes, but people do this.
They create a post/thread and block anyone who comments/disagrees with them. Those people can no longer interact with the post/thread. The only reason this is a problem is because it is a form of self-moderation. (Though, as @wagesj45 pointed out this could be a self-solving problem if they continue to block everyone they disagree with.)
I consider both of these to be pretty rare exploitations of the blocking system, but they happen. I guess it is a question of is this system worth it with these downsides? Some people will go to extreme lengths to harass people, so I don't feel qualified to say either way.
A 'hide downvotes from blocked users' might be a good function. Won't solve the problem of reducing visibility of posts, but if you're bugged by it, it would be a help.
Blocking someone means, "I want nothing to do with this person," so it makes sense that you'll be unable to see what they do. This should include direct messages, threads, comments, etc. @PugJesus's idea of a setting to hide votes from blocked users is a great idea, as you should be able to fully ignore someone you've blocked.
It also makes sense that someone you've blocked wouldn't be able to do any 1-on-1 interaction with you. If you've blocked somebody because they're spamming or harassing you, it wouldn't be great for them to be able to DM you.
However, preventing them from voting on your posts is something different entirely, as votes don't just concern the creator of the post and the person doing the voting; they also concern everyone who sees the post. Upvoting a comment is a message not just to the creator but also to everyone else that you like that comment, and the same goes for downvoting. Blocking voting is much more farther reaching than blocking DMs, and with votes being visible on the fediverse, it's a great way for trolls to hide people's views on their posts.
But if a troll blocks everyone that down votes them, eventually no one will be left to see their stuff. It is a self solving problem. On the other hand, a troll that you block can interfere with your stuff being shown to others depending on the sorting algorithm.
But if a troll blocks everyone that down votes them, eventually no one will be left to see their stuff.
By letting people prevent others from downvoting bad content, you make more people see it. This problem is only "self-solving" ifː
everyone who sees heavily downvoted posts blocks the user. This probably isn't ideal behavior given how many people treat downvotes as an "I disagree" button.
if the person's posts aren't being exposed to new people. It doesn't matter if everyone who's already seen the user has blocked them if more people are getting exposed to them. And by preventing downvotes, you're making it more likely that people will see these posts.
On the other hand, a troll that you block can interfere with your stuff being shown to others depending on the sorting algorithm.
The number of trolls going around downvoting everything you do is minimal, and you can often deal with them by calling them out as was discussed in a previous thread about downvotes. Additionally, you have to consider the other side of the coin, which is content that should be getting downvoted getting more attention than they should.
I would prefer if blocking hides or removes any kind of interaction between us. One issue I have noticed is that when you block someone you can’t see any replies which unfortunately hides comments from others
This is a feature, not a bug. I'm not sure how you know they are the same user, but if they do the same thing that got them blocked before, you can block them again.
Their old account has a blurb providing the new account name. In my case I'm not dealing with a malicious user, just one whose content I don't want to see.
You know they are the same user because mastodon has a protocol for Migration. Basically, you announce on the old instance what your new handle is and confirm from the new instance that this is where you came from. Mastodon then migrates your followers (and blockers). So you can change instances transparent to others.
Of course, this migration is more work than simply creating a fresh account, so i doubt this helps against spammers, but it may help against annoying people.
kbinMeta
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.