Would there be anything preventing somebody from posting a link, and then repeatedly bumping it with alt accounts? It would be an invisible method of keeping a post visible without affecting its...
Would there be anything preventing somebody from posting a link, and then repeatedly bumping it with alt accounts? It would be an invisible method of keeping a post visible without affecting its comment or vote counts.
You could probably implement a decay curve bump mechanic where repeated bumps have less efficacy over some set of parameters (i.e. time since submission, number of bumps received, etc). Probably...
You could probably implement a decay curve bump mechanic where repeated bumps have less efficacy over some set of parameters (i.e. time since submission, number of bumps received, etc). Probably this coupled with trusted users only as per @cfabbro's comment should limit the ability to game the system too much.
Tildes Docs state to trust the user—until you don't—so I don't foresee too many issues.
Yeah, that is definitely the risk with this system. At least with comments there are comment labels to prevent the abuse (since noise now negates the bump, and you can malice label spammer...
Yeah, that is definitely the risk with this system. At least with comments there are comment labels to prevent the abuse (since noise now negates the bump, and you can malice label spammer comments trying to keep their topic at the top). But without reports for topics and a clear indication that the topic got bumped with this mechanism, this system would definitely make it much harder to detect and punish abusers.
Even still, I think it's an interesting idea worth potentially exploring. Although it might be best if it was just trusted users able to use this bump mechanic (once the trust system gets implemented).
Malice is already functionally identical to a report feature for comments, there just isn't one for topics yet... But speaking of which, since nobody bothered to add it to gitlab yet: Add a way...
I need this. Much to Deimos' annoyance most likely, I've used "malice" in the past to report what I consider to be long-term or long-standing issues I have with a user's commentary that are...
I need this. Much to Deimos' annoyance most likely, I've used "malice" in the past to report what I consider to be long-term or long-standing issues I have with a user's commentary that are greater than just a single comment alone (bad faith commentary, overly reactive responses, etc). I'd still like to think I'm using the tag in good faith with positive intentions, but it isn't the design goal of the tag for sure.
Eh... I have used Malice the exact same way, and I'm pretty sure it's intended for that, to a degree. However if it is a serious or more nuanced issue I usually PM Deimos directly instead, since...
Eh... I have used Malice the exact same way, and I'm pretty sure it's intended for that, to a degree. However if it is a serious or more nuanced issue I usually PM Deimos directly instead, since Malice is only one-way communication and the input box is a bit limiting.
If I see a user repeatedly utilising an excessive lack of charity, or providing a reply that almost certainly would've been tempered if that conversation had been had in real life, I've used the...
If I see a user repeatedly utilising an excessive lack of charity, or providing a reply that almost certainly would've been tempered if that conversation had been had in real life, I've used the "malice" label in the past to indicate this. A lot of what is covered in the Overall Goals section of the Tildes docs, actually.
Don't get me wrong—I do this extremely rarely—but I feel bizarre trying to shoehorn my complaint into a label that has the name "malice", as such comments are on their own not malicious per se, but are the result of what I see as a recurring issue with a user. It's also often not worth messaging Deimos directly for this, because he probably gets a lot of junk to filter through already, and adding an expectation of a reply, which is the social norm of a private messaging conversation, for something relatively small seems unproductive.
That being said, the word "report" seems far too catch-all to be of effective use. Maybe the "malice" tag needs a new name, I'm not sure.
I personally think what you're doing is fine. I've certainly used malice similarly before. I try to only point it out when it's extreme to avoid being pedantic.
I personally think what you're doing is fine. I've certainly used malice similarly before. I try to only point it out when it's extreme to avoid being pedantic.
Would there be anything preventing somebody from posting a link, and then repeatedly bumping it with alt accounts? It would be an invisible method of keeping a post visible without affecting its comment or vote counts.
You could probably implement a decay curve bump mechanic where repeated bumps have less efficacy over some set of parameters (i.e. time since submission, number of bumps received, etc). Probably this coupled with trusted users only as per @cfabbro's comment should limit the ability to game the system too much.
Tildes Docs state to trust the user—until you don't—so I don't foresee too many issues.
Yeah, that is definitely the risk with this system. At least with comments there are comment labels to prevent the abuse (since noise now negates the bump, and you can malice label spammer comments trying to keep their topic at the top). But without reports for topics and a clear indication that the topic got bumped with this mechanism, this system would definitely make it much harder to detect and punish abusers.
Even still, I think it's an interesting idea worth potentially exploring. Although it might be best if it was just trusted users able to use this bump mechanic (once the trust system gets implemented).
Malice is already functionally identical to a report feature for comments, there just isn't one for topics yet... But speaking of which, since nobody bothered to add it to gitlab yet: Add a way for users to "report" topics, similar to the Malice label for comments.
I need this. Much to Deimos' annoyance most likely, I've used "malice" in the past to report what I consider to be long-term or long-standing issues I have with a user's commentary that are greater than just a single comment alone (bad faith commentary, overly reactive responses, etc). I'd still like to think I'm using the tag in good faith with positive intentions, but it isn't the design goal of the tag for sure.
Eh... I have used Malice the exact same way, and I'm pretty sure it's intended for that, to a degree. However if it is a serious or more nuanced issue I usually PM Deimos directly instead, since Malice is only one-way communication and the input box is a bit limiting.
If I see a user repeatedly utilising an excessive lack of charity, or providing a reply that almost certainly would've been tempered if that conversation had been had in real life, I've used the "malice" label in the past to indicate this. A lot of what is covered in the Overall Goals section of the Tildes docs, actually.
Don't get me wrong—I do this extremely rarely—but I feel bizarre trying to shoehorn my complaint into a label that has the name "malice", as such comments are on their own not malicious per se, but are the result of what I see as a recurring issue with a user. It's also often not worth messaging Deimos directly for this, because he probably gets a lot of junk to filter through already, and adding an expectation of a reply, which is the social norm of a private messaging conversation, for something relatively small seems unproductive.
That being said, the word "report" seems far too catch-all to be of effective use. Maybe the "malice" tag needs a new name, I'm not sure.
I personally think what you're doing is fine. I've certainly used malice similarly before. I try to only point it out when it's extreme to avoid being pedantic.