Just chilling and sharing a stream of thought…
So how would a credibility system work and be implemented. What I envision is something similar to the up votes…
You have a credibility score, it starts a 0 neutral. You post something People don’t vote on if they like, the votes are for “good faith”
Good faith is You posted according to rules and started a discussion You argued in good faith and can separate with opposing opinions You clarified a topic for someone If someone has a polar opinion to yours and is being down voted because people don’t understand the system Etc.
It is tied to the user not the post
Good, bad, indifferent…?
Perfect the system
I didn’t read your post, I just downvoted because I don’t like your username. Whatcha’ going to do about it?
(Jk, I picked the instance I joined based on the fact that it doesn’t do downvotes. I think downvotes drive perverse incentives)
( thanks! do you happen to know other instances that have downvotes disabled? up until know, i just knew of BeeHaw. Choosing between an upvote or engaging on conversation is more enticing when you can’t just give a thumbs down and leave the room )
I don’t. And because it’s an admin setting that can be toggled easily, any websearch you would do to find other people talking about instances that don’t downvote should probably be double-checked with the instance itself. Even mine had a brief discussion about changing course and enabling downvotes.
There’s a GitHub project to compare instances. I don’t think it includes downvote setting, but maybe the other factors will at least help you narrow down. https://github.com/maltfield/awesome-lemmy-instances?tab=readme-ov-file