I think its a core design issue; if votes are free and unlimited then they will be gamified, one method to provide a feedback mechanism here is to make votes accountable.
There are other moderation styles, like the slashdot random moderation points, which show some promise.
I’ve seen other gamified models where downvotes are scarce, or cost time, or cost money, so they are reserved for bad behavior.
The design of showing votes on posts makes it a signal, and that signal will be gamified. I think for smaller communities having outside third parties chill participation is bad for the overall growth of lemmy. In the long term I imagine a community level system selected by the moderators would fit best.
examples
Only people who have posted or commented can downvote / upvote
Only people who are subscribed can upvote/downvote
only people who have repetitional guarantees can upvote/downvote
posts only visible to subscribers
Just trying to get local representation into communities.
I think its a core design issue; if votes are free and unlimited then they will be gamified, one method to provide a feedback mechanism here is to make votes accountable.
There are other moderation styles, like the slashdot random moderation points, which show some promise.
I’ve seen other gamified models where downvotes are scarce, or cost time, or cost money, so they are reserved for bad behavior.
The design of showing votes on posts makes it a signal, and that signal will be gamified. I think for smaller communities having outside third parties chill participation is bad for the overall growth of lemmy. In the long term I imagine a community level system selected by the moderators would fit best.
examples
Just trying to get local representation into communities.
etc. etc