No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
I mean both in reddit and lemmy the concept of downvotes was never meant to be a "agree" or "disagree", even "like or dislike". It's meant to be a "good for discussion" vs "hinderance of discussion". AKA lets say we're discussing linux distributions, I come across this.
Person A: I like linux mint, it's much easier to install, I like the defaults and my printer just works with no setup.
Person B: "Linux mint is for noobs, arch ftw"
Within that, as I am personally a die hard fan of archlinux, so in the agree vs disagree system, I should downvote A and upvote B.
But in a discussion based voting, I'd perhaps respond to A with my pro's or cons of arch (though in this situation probably agree if the user in question sounds to be a newer user, though I may still make a case for possibly the pro's of using arch even as a starting distro.
Meanwhile person B, is hostile, gives zero details for WHY anyone should use arch, does absolutely nothing to open discussion or actually help anyone make an informed decision.
“The purpose of a system is what it does” (POSIWID).
Voting increases or decreases visibility; thus, I vote to increase or decrease visibility.
that's a great quote, thanks for sharing
I want good posts to be more visible.
Lots of people conflate good with what they like.
True and that's why Reddit/Lemmy have flawed voting systems. Their intended and actual uses are quite different.
remember when every tech person though they could code away human psychology problems and we'd all just be harmonious global society thanks to the internet?
I still think SlashDot's voting system was the best I've ever seen, where you could attach a reason to your upvote/down vote, and then sort by e.g. most funny, or most insightful..
I'd combine Slashdot's voting system with the original iteration of the long defunct Facepunch Forums Smartness system. It was rather mean but I loved how it boosted overall communication quality because it forced users to spellcheck and avoid using slurs.
Facepunch also had emoticon reactions like Pylova/Piefed although our system is pretty shit with WAY too many emoticons, so much so that they'll fail to all fully load in.
Basically a new account started with 5000 points. Different spelling or grammar mistakes along with slurs lost you differing amounts of points. You gained points with error free posts/replies, but it was balanced in such a way that you'd lose points and get auto banned when you hit 0 pretty quickly if you didn't try to improve. Uncorrected errors would be underlined, colored red, and visible to everyone else. IIRC you could edit posts and correct them but you didn't regain lost points by doing so, just avoided having shameful red errors.
Sounds interesting, I wonder how they deal with false positives? My autocorrect detects way too many words that it thinks doesn't exist.
Maybe this is "overengineering", but perhaps the community could collectively override automated decisions?
Interesting!
I think slashdots also most useful for if I recall, basically no ability to vote.
IE If I remember right, as a lurker you get no votes. You basically have to participate, and if you get votes on a post, you then get a handful of votes you can use on others. I do wonder how a system like that would work on other sites. If a modernized form of it could work on a reddit like site etc... Would on the surface appear to be a way to counteract bots, but also run the risk of say one bot getting votes and automating a circle jerk with it's clones.
Or simply having bots copy top posts from a year earlier to get upvotes, like they did on Reddit.
Yep, when I was on there, I'd give +1 to funny and +2 to trolls. If someone showed up due to their high trolling votes, it was either the wildest or most hateful shit, but it was a hell of a read. Some of it was damned funny.