3 ms·

I also feel that moot a.k.a. Christopher Poole made a point for anonymity online. [0] In his talk he states that by eliminating voting mechanisms he ensures tha

I also feel that moot a.k.a. Christopher Poole made a point for anonymity online. [0] In his talk he states that by eliminating voting mechanisms he ensures that every opinion has the same weight in a discussion, as simply chronology matters. The problem here is that power is shifted from the community to the moderators. But advantages are a)unpopular opinions aren't voted down into "inexistence" and b)the discussion starts out more unbiased as every opinion appears chronologically. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_1UEAGCo30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_1UEAGCo30

ekianjo 10y ago
How is that a valid approach? Without voting you end up with low quality commenters gaming the system for visibility.
- krapp 10y ago
  with voting you also end up with low quality commenters gaming the system, because voting itself is an attempt to gamify culture. One only has to look at Reddit to see how "high visibility" and "high quality" don't often correlate. Sometimes they do, but not always. Also, with voting, you have meta-debates about voting, people complaining about voting, voting rings and brigading, etc. Voting also presents the problem of earlier posts persisting at the top regardless of their quality. Of course it's possible to gamify imageboard threads as well since they sort by the last comment, but a purely chronologically sorted thread wouldn't have any such issues.