If that’s a community’s prerogative, then yes. I think they’d either build an echo chamber, or sink their own ship if they were so shrewd, but that’s also motivation to form healthier competing communities.
Myself, as a mod of a few, just want tools to remove users that aren’t contributing and truly just dishing out mass downvotes to those that are.
You know what’s funny is that none of that downvote spamming I mentioned seems to be coming from kbin users. Which further supports my opinion that transparency breeds accountability.
I more so envision it as a per-community and/or per-post flag. “Enable vote transparency” type toggle, that way there’s some ability to cater to the community. Because I expect there may be fringe cases where the subject matter is sensitive enough, to where voter anonymity should be available.
Eh, meh, like I’d have to see it. The way you’re explaining it, I probably wouldn’t block. Again, because it seems like you’re trying to enrich communities that mean a damn to you. If you were just flinging shit to be the king of shit, who broke the news of the shit first… yeah, I’d block.
Nah. I think my post comes across a little more rigid in theory, than in my practice. I’m blocking people that are really just spamming shit, with little interaction with the communities they’re targetting. If it seems like someone is legitimately trying to engage, I won’t.
I actually don’t typically block people who are clearly looking for help or input on their work. That’s just something that is gonna happen, and I’d prefer people find the assistance they need.
I do think part of the problem is that people are treating this like Reddit. A quantity versus quality, shotgun approach to populating communities. It’s just uncurated noise.
Yeah, I do also feel like there’s a fine line. I personally reserve it for communities I’m active in, and trying to nurture naturally. And again, only one crosspost at a time.