Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.4K

Because Admin Gaylord wants to hide the conversation. No, you damn well haven't properly explained it.

I, for one, fully stand behind "it's not the disagree button". On Voat I constantly ranted about abuse of downvotes. Furthermore on Voat I never downvoted anything. But downvoting for other reasons is perfectly legitimate. A shitpost should be downvoted. A super weak argument can be downvote-worthy. A meanspirited insult isn't worth most users time to read. And extremely repetitive posts can also be downvote-worthy.*

Now we have a downvote button that is in actual use a "flag post" button. At BEST that's a poor interface choice. If each post can be flagged, that's fine. Put a "flag post" button for abusive or illegal content. As for the rest of the legitimate reasons (and yes there are legitimate reasons) people downvote, remove the button entirely if you're deadset on not having it used at all.

If you insist on this poor user interface at least put in the FAQ not that it's "not a disagree button" but that it is, in fact a "flag post" button and should ONLY be used for abusive content. You can't have it both ways.

*yeah yeah, you're so clever to think to point out this is also a redundant post

Because Admin Gaylord wants to hide the conversation. No, you damn well haven't properly explained it. I, for one, fully stand behind "it's not the disagree button". On Voat I constantly ranted about abuse of downvotes. Furthermore on Voat I never downvoted anything. But downvoting for other reasons is perfectly legitimate. A shitpost should be downvoted. A super weak argument can be downvote-worthy. A meanspirited insult isn't worth most users time to read. And extremely repetitive posts can also be downvote-worthy.* Now we have a downvote button that is in actual use a "flag post" button. At BEST that's a poor interface choice. If each post can be flagged, that's fine. Put a "flag post" button for abusive or illegal content. As for the rest of the legitimate reasons (and yes there are legitimate reasons) people downvote, remove the button entirely if you're deadset on not having it used at all. If you insist on this poor user interface at least put in the FAQ not that it's "not a disagree button" but that it is, in fact a "flag post" button and should ONLY be used for abusive content. You can't have it both ways. *yeah yeah, you're so clever to think to point out this is also a redundant post

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (36).
[–] • 0 pt (edited )

That's right, I'm part of a conspiracy. You paranoid faggot.

In general if downvoting were permitted AND the user base didn't use it as a disagree button the further definition of Bad Content would emerge naturally and properly from organic voting patterns. And of course voting cabals and sockpuppets would have to be removed.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

By that logic whoever has the most alts makes public opinion.

That’s not happening here no matter how much whining you do.

[ELI5]

Bad Content would emerge naturally and properly from organic voting patterns.

If people have alts the downvote button will not conjure popular opinion, it will be the word of whomever has the most alt accounts.

[–] • 0 pt

Did you even read my post?

[–] • 0 pt

No, I can’t read.

You haven’t disputed any of my points.

Then attempted to attack my character by stating I didn’t read.

Use your words big boy.

[–] • 0 pt

Thing is I addressed that in my post. I said that vote brigades would have to be removed. Maybe you can read, but you're not demonstrating it.

[–] • 0 pt

Blurring the line further.

Hard to be sure what’s brigading. Would not be clear cut.