We do have a voting system? Sort of... I guess...

By replying to content you like you are bumping the thread and if everyone replies to content they like the top threads on all boards will be representative of what the users like and want to see more of.

By adding a voting system that doesn't require replies you give the lurkers a voice too. If they don't want to participate by replying they are just audience and shouldn't have a say in what ends up at the top of the boards.

Too openb to abuse from trolls

Thats a nice ideal you got there, would be a shame if somebody added reality to it.

>It would help bring together opinions from everyone and include everyone in discussions.
Except thats not how it works in practice.

This system, seen most obviously in the more populated subreddits, promotes spectacles and self affirmation over relevant information and arguments.

The upvote / downvote system should be
"This is relevant. Upvote."
"This is not relevant. Downvote."

But instead it's more like:

"Lol, i found that funny. Upvote."
"I agree with this guy. Upvote."
"I think this guy is wrong. Downvote."

No matter how many times you try to tell people the correct way to use the system, they will still use it incorrectly because a downvote helps gets rid of something a person doesnt like while an upvote supports something they do like.

The community becomes dominated by the will of the majority, which is always as thick as pigshit once it gets large enough no matter which group you look at.

You shouldnt need physical assistance to gauge how a contributive a person is, it should be something you just do on your own without anyone or anything telling you who is more important.

Then, once you've determined the worth of a persons post, you either respond to it, ignore it or hide it without any need of involving any other party beyond the viewer and the poster.

>>165567
You could have qualified voting where a poster would have to meet certain requirements before being allowed to vote or put issues forward.

long ago i used a chan that had upvotes and the funny people got upvoted and the annoying people got downvoted

>>165567
Upvote

Though I have seen some sites with only upvotes, which changes the dynamic a lot, possibly for the better. If you can't attack something down, then it becomes less important to support just what you agree with on the chance it gets voted down. I wouldn't ask for that though.

Last edited at Fri, Mar 13th, 2015 08:38

>>165581
Something like post counts or receiving a number of upvotes yourself?
That sort of thing only promotes an inclusive community, where you are more likely to be disregarded due to your lack of posts.
And if the post count / vote counts are exceedingly high like say, 500 to a thousand or something, then it only promotes virtual dick sucking of those people that have special privileges over everyone else.

It happens everywhere that includes people of a higher position mixing with those of a lower.

Just to be clear, i'm only talking in terms of the site here.

User > Mod > Admin

There's a thread on /oat/ right now about the clarkson kurfuffle with the BBC.
If i posted in the thread using my admin tag, people would be naturally disposed towards my viewpoint simply because i have an elevated status within the workings of the site.
Psychology is weird like that, and you see it all the time with people blindly trusting persons in authority.
Check out the milgram experiment, its the one about administering electric shocks on the orders of someone else.

>>165583
That's better, but again, it encourages making entertainment over anything informative, since your number of votes (And sense of worth on the website) is tied to how much people like you rather than what you actually bring to the site.