Easy, you're forcing people to post in a bid to do certain transactions with their account which means they will probably chose the easiest option and spam, which I don't see as meaningful in preventing anything or incurring ANY risk, and we are basically making everyone do this in an effort to affect only a very minute few but all it'll do is inconvenience everyone at absolutely no perceivable benefit.
Because it doesn't fix anything as I've explained. You're suggesting that people who have conclusively demonstrated not to care about incentives or punishments alike will all of a sudden stop being jerks because they have to make a post or comment. They won't, they will more than likely demonstrate yet once more that the punishment of making a post doesn't mean anything. You do run the risk of peaking their Joy by inviting others to downvote their posts/comments and in turn satisfying the jerks with the thought that others wasted their voting power on them. The best way to deal with jerks is to ignore them because without reaction to their nonsense they will move on as their satisfaction is hinged entirely on others reactionary responses.
These people crave negative attention like many crave rewards. Giving them more negative consequences on top of the waste of voting power won't make them reconsider their habitual need for negative attention but it ought to create quite the "engagement" seeing that now they are forced to spam in order to get their fix of disapproval, and each spam post and comment will be paid for by everyone else's attention, and each of those instances are but another chance for the jerks to revel at what a jerk they are. But maybe I'm completely wrong and it'll be a huge success.
You have a unique perspective on things.
While reading your replies, a video i saw in my feed came to mind. I did not watch it but as it came to mind I hunted for, found and watched it.
I would be most interested to learn what your thoughts are on the subject.
Nils Melzer UN Special Rapporteur on Torture: Assange "has been tortured & continues to be tortured"
If someone posts spam on their own blog, just unfollow them. How is this going to "inconvenience" anyone? If anything, it'll probably encourage more engagement.
They can chose to spam any tag or comment spam any place they want. You think that forcing people to post so that they can downvote will encourage their engagement?
And that won't change anything. Do some god damn basic math and use your noggin:
User A used their stake for no benefit other than to be a jerk.
Why would A give a fuck at all if anyone downvoted the spam he made ONLY to jump through a hoop so that they can freely be a jerk?
You're literally saying that making serial downvoters spam will make them reconsider being a serial downvoter, but you avoid the glaringly obvious, or that they don't give a fuck about someone downvoting them. Heck I can see them even embracing being downvoted simply because it might tickle them to see people"retaliate", aka Waste Their Fucking Voting Power.
It's like I'm the only one who can see this glaringly obvious conclusion and no matter how I explain it all you're fixated on is the idiotic thought that you can stop Downvoting by making them post so they MIGHT be downvoted, and o yeah, because downvoting will surely stop Downvoting.
So what would that do?
Well its a social media platform, so maybe it would provide proof of engagement?
Why would it be a negative in your eyes ?
Easy, you're forcing people to post in a bid to do certain transactions with their account which means they will probably chose the easiest option and spam, which I don't see as meaningful in preventing anything or incurring ANY risk, and we are basically making everyone do this in an effort to affect only a very minute few but all it'll do is inconvenience everyone at absolutely no perceivable benefit.
Do you think It may be an easy fix for dealing with these kind of accounts which as far as i have been able to tell have only be used for abusing others so far?
@mandraki
@grenilcu
@brassir
@artrilstev
@rezdam
@clirkliev
@warzi
@blickhil
@dentbos
@septima
@moille
@pfisbrem
@inbort
Nice list.
Not at all.
Why?
Because it doesn't fix anything as I've explained. You're suggesting that people who have conclusively demonstrated not to care about incentives or punishments alike will all of a sudden stop being jerks because they have to make a post or comment. They won't, they will more than likely demonstrate yet once more that the punishment of making a post doesn't mean anything. You do run the risk of peaking their Joy by inviting others to downvote their posts/comments and in turn satisfying the jerks with the thought that others wasted their voting power on them. The best way to deal with jerks is to ignore them because without reaction to their nonsense they will move on as their satisfaction is hinged entirely on others reactionary responses.
These people crave negative attention like many crave rewards. Giving them more negative consequences on top of the waste of voting power won't make them reconsider their habitual need for negative attention but it ought to create quite the "engagement" seeing that now they are forced to spam in order to get their fix of disapproval, and each spam post and comment will be paid for by everyone else's attention, and each of those instances are but another chance for the jerks to revel at what a jerk they are. But maybe I'm completely wrong and it'll be a huge success.
You have a unique perspective on things.
While reading your replies, a video i saw in my feed came to mind. I did not watch it but as it came to mind I hunted for, found and watched it.
I would be most interested to learn what your thoughts are on the subject.
Nils Melzer UN Special Rapporteur on Torture: Assange "has been tortured & continues to be tortured"
If someone posts spam on their own blog, just unfollow them. How is this going to "inconvenience" anyone? If anything, it'll probably encourage more engagement.
They can chose to spam any tag or comment spam any place they want. You think that forcing people to post so that they can downvote will encourage their engagement?
It would expose them to retaliation.
If I'm bullet-proof, I can shoot down anyone I wish with impunity.
If I'm bullet-vulnerable, I'll probably be slightly more careful who I shoot down, in order to mitigate potential retribution.
And that won't change anything. Do some god damn basic math and use your noggin:
User A used their stake for no benefit other than to be a jerk.
Why would A give a fuck at all if anyone downvoted the spam he made ONLY to jump through a hoop so that they can freely be a jerk?
You're literally saying that making serial downvoters spam will make them reconsider being a serial downvoter, but you avoid the glaringly obvious, or that they don't give a fuck about someone downvoting them. Heck I can see them even embracing being downvoted simply because it might tickle them to see people"retaliate", aka Waste Their Fucking Voting Power.
It's like I'm the only one who can see this glaringly obvious conclusion and no matter how I explain it all you're fixated on is the idiotic thought that you can stop Downvoting by making them post so they MIGHT be downvoted, and o yeah, because downvoting will surely stop Downvoting.