• @ClinicallydepressedpoochieOP
      link
      2
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Ok but the idea is based on countering bots and bot nets. The only thing it really changes is the threshold becomes more difficult but the difference between maybe a 601 and a 602 is astronomical.

      • @CetaceanNeeded
        link
        139 hours ago

        I feel like it punishes real people more than bots. An exponential amount of clicks is easy for a bot to achieve.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Handle this server-side by scaling the upvote/downvote weight for every subsequent vote.

    It still won’t affect bots.

    As other commenters have said, disincentivizing downvotes would have a more profound effect.

  • @JubilantJaguar
    link
    1010 hours ago

    A bit confusing. Presumably you mean “after giving an upvote”. In other words, to disincentivize upvotes.

    Sounds like exactly the opposite of what would encourage friendly civil discourse: disincentivizing downvotes.

    Slashdot got this right decades ago. No upvotes, no downvotes, just tags. Such as “informative”, “insightful”, “funny”, and a couple of more negative ones like (IIRC) “provocative” or “controversial”, which at least force you to say why you’re promoting or hating on someone’s good-faith contribution. But apparently that was all just too complex for the simpletons we really are.

    • Rhynoplaz
      link
      2
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      If you want my approval, you need to make it as easy as possible.