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

©2025 Poal.co

911

Since the start of Poal there has been a stated policy that "The Down Vote button is not a disagree button" and I think that policy, along with making down votes public, have solved many problems that I seen on other sites.

I have also heard other Poal users say "Down voting is only for spam and doxxing only" but I have always felt that this was not the appropriate interpretation of the "The Down Vote button is not a disagree button" philosophy. I have always felt that "not a disagree button" is the important part and "for spam and doxxing only" was an overly restrictive guideline that ignores some very valid reasons why we should down vote. The down vote button should be used for "Bad Content" of which doxxing and spam are two types. I would also down vote illegal content as well as any content that sexualizes minors.

I am coming to the conclusion that I think that it would also be valid to down vote for content that is behind a paywall or a login. This hearkens back to the early days of the web when you would do a search and half of the links were AOL links that you could not view. If you post content here that I cannot actually view without doxxing myself to some third party, then I think that is bad content and should be down voted.

Since the start of Poal there has been a stated policy that "The Down Vote button is not a disagree button" and I think that policy, along with making down votes public, have solved many problems that I seen on other sites. I have also heard other Poal users say "Down voting is only for spam and doxxing only" but I have always felt that this was not the appropriate interpretation of the "The Down Vote button is not a disagree button" philosophy. I have always felt that "not a disagree button" is the important part and "for spam and doxxing only" was an overly restrictive guideline that ignores some very valid reasons why we should down vote. The down vote button should be used for "Bad Content" of which doxxing and spam are two types. I would also down vote illegal content as well as any content that sexualizes minors. I am coming to the conclusion that I think that it would also be valid to down vote for content that is behind a paywall or a login. This hearkens back to the early days of the web when you would do a search and half of the links were AOL links that you could not view. If you post content here that I cannot actually view without doxxing myself to some third party, then I think that is bad content and should be down voted.

(post is archived)

[–] • 4 pts

Paywalled content can be classified as spam.

Information should be free and if it contains ads, they shouldn't prevent you from accessing it.

[–] • 2 pts

What about dead links? If I click a link and get a 404 I think that should be down voted.

[–] • 2 pts

DV and/or report to mods or admins for default subs.

[–] • 2 pts

idk a tag/flair would work just as well

[–] • 3 pts

It would work yes. But philosophically why do we need two tools to do the same thing? Down votes reduce the post score and there by reduce the post's ranking making the post less attractive for user to click on it. A flair labels the post in a less attractive way so users do not click on it. The difference is that one requires active moderation and is at the whim of mods and the other is crowd sourced from the user base.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt (edited )

you actually can flair your own posts if enabled. i do it for my a couple of my subs i own But that is mostly for the type of content. Like my shortfilm verse i only have it that way so that you know the genre and time of it cause come can 2 minutes long or 30 minutes long.

but yeah paywalls are spam tho... oops aou already mentioned it

but yeah you could get an asshole that only posts paywall shit. But, if you do wanna post something behind one capture the screen and post the picture. IMO

[–] • 1 pt

Mods of subs would have to add that [paywalled content] flair and enable "Allow users to flair their own posts" in their subs' settings.

[–] • 2 pts

There's also a great sub for that kind of posts:

[–] • 2 pts

I suppose the post could go there but I did not view it as a technical feature so much as a cultural thing that needed discussion... Don't think anything here would ever result in a code change.

[–] • 0 pt

As I mentioned in a previous comment here, the feature is already in place, it's up to mods to add the flair, and enable it for users when they submit a post.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

What's y'all's thoughts on downvoating very toxic people who are taking away from the intent of a post for the purpose of wasting people's time and instilling resentment.

I wouldn't say do this to everyone of them because it's fun to give people a hard time and free speech and stuff, but for people who bring it to the point that borderlines harrasment