tcely

CPG Grey has a lot of good videos, but ranked voting is not the way.

Arrow's Impossibility Theorem makes this very clear.

https://star.vote/ is a good site to keep handy if you're looking for a more expressive voting system.

By default, choosing approval voting is the simplest way with very good performance.

https://youtu.be/orybDrUj4vA

Why does "people are reporting my account in bad faith" mean there are trolls to be blocked to you?

You are really stuck on ignoring the scope of the reason that started this discussion.

You can't actually see the bad faith reports as a user, so there isn't going to be any reason to block a user or an instance from your perspective.

It is the job of the moderation team to protect you from this mess, not to leave you and every other local user to wonder why your communities are less active and replies seem to come out of nowhere.

Then saying that you can just create another account on a different instance to get back to a functional state is adding insult to injury.

There is no way that every user on the instance being asked to move instances is less work than just handling the bad faith reports against one user.

Any admin/moderation team that prioritized themselves over all of their users can't be trusted any longer.

Who decides that the majority are bad faith reports?

The moderation team dealing with reports seem to be the only people in a position to judge bad/good faith for reports.

You seem very interested in intentionally mixing bad-faith reports that only the moderation team sees with other types of misbehavior.

Increased levels of reporting about a local user account is not a good reason to break the user experience for every local account by de-federating.

In addition, these instances are growing fast and it will be difficult for mods to keep up with their duties even with a full suite of tools. Defederating is just a way to cool things off while assessing the damage vs potential and putting the most vulnerable first over users who don't personally care that they see said content.

It is not a temporary action, it's actually not reversible because it breaks links and misses content.

So, no, it's not "a way to cool things off" because it creates more work.

Instances are growing fast, and moderation tools need to get better. However, creating more work for every user on the instance is not an acceptable solution to; the moderation load is increasing but nothing else bad is going on.

You can try to game the vote with discussions or down votes, but I think moderation actions should be used to punish that kind of thing

It doesn't change anything if the options are reordered, as a voter you still need to read all of them to decide to support or not.

Why would my way of counting the approval ratio rather than approval-only be of any disadvantage?

That's just how voting systems work. Even seemingly insignificant changes to the algorithm can have outsized impacts on how well it performs.

Plurality versus Approval is a specific example of this. Just changing "choose one" to "choose as many as you approve of" significantly impacts the amount of data that's captured and often the outcome because of the effects on voters' behaviors.

I liked the suggestion of more information. When we have it all figured out those details should be included as you suggested.

The community is at a different level than instances or federation. For example, the rules a community agrees on aren't typically related to your instance or handled by the instance moderation team / admin.

Every instance will have some kind of terms of use that you must follow to keep an account on that instance.

A local community specifically for the bureaucracy of the local instance is also a special case.

In general, posting / replying in communities should be encouraged no matter which instance the community or your account was created on.

However, if you are breaking either your instance's rules or causing problems for users on another instance you can expect to be reported and likely have some moderation actions taken against your account. Basically, just having an external account isn't a license to behave badly.

I thought the captcha was supposed to make automatically created accounts much harder. Do you have a way past that?

From my experience with AI, so far, just checking that you understand the concept of now and how it relates to past and future dates would be a good test.

Yeah, the implementation won't be easy or perfect, but we should still aim to make it better.

Bad faith reports don't imply actual trolls for users to personally deal with.

Performing moderation actions on good faith reports from users is desirable.

Disconnecting your own users from content they find useful because of the volume of reports that they can't see or prevent, just because you can't be bothered to do the moderation work is undesirable.

I like some of those suggestions. However, I don't think down voting or abstaining should be supported. You either support an option by up voting or you take no action.

Approval voting systems have well studied behaviors and we should not deviate from that without a compelling reason.

Every approval / upvote is a distinct user endorsement for an option. The option with the most users endorsing it should be selected when that number exceeds 51% of the active users set we decide on.

The discussion should really happen in another post before the voting. Possibly even in another community.

The order you see the options that exist on the ballot should not matter.

This proposal doesn't involve down voting any options at all.

Excess should be used for bounties to get features we want implemented added to Lemmy.

A high enough bounty and they can hire a part-time developer to work on our selected improvement.

Nay