lvxferre

I’m not a big fan of fishing mechanics, they’re usually shallow “press button at random signal, get a random prize” mechanics.

Also escort missions where the NPC being escorted does not understand that it should protect its own life. I don’t mind repeating a mission due to my own mistakes, but I don’t want to do it because some AI went potato.

@Knusper And, more than that: it shows the typical modus operandi of the Shitty and Pissy Evil Zombie. When people don’t fall for his bullshit, he tries to divert attention into something else, an intrinsically disingenuous tactic. All of that with the implicit consent of the company as a whole.

And as a self-fulfilling prophecy this justifies the recording. If you’re going to deal with a company that should not be trusted, you need to protect yourself, and that is what Selig did.

My idea is partially inspired on the Slashdot system, but I suggest doing it for downvotes instead of upvotes for two reasons:

1. Bad content usually has a single blatant flaw, but good content often has multiple qualities.
2. People take negative feedback more seriously than positive feedback.

As consequences for both things:

• It’s easier for the user to choose the type of downvote than the type of upvote.
• If you’re including multiple categories of an action, you’ll likely do it through multiple clicks. If downvotes require two clicks while upvotes require only one, you’re mildly encouraging upvote often, and downvote less often (as it takes more effort).
• Negative feedback needs to be a bit more informative.

I feel like the downvote button in special should / could be multidimensional. People downvote content out of multiple reasons: “this is incorrect”, “this is really dumb”, “this is off-topic”, “the poster is a jerk”, so goes on.

IMO this would combo really well with the experimental study in the OP.

They saw Lemmy becoming successful, corporate mistook Lemmy with Lemmings, and decided to go out Lemmings style.

…jokes aside, Cory Doctorow has a great text about that, called “Tiktok’s enshittification”. It’s a four-steps process:

1. The platform is good for its users.
2. The platform abuses the users, to be good for its business customers.
3. The platform abuses the business customers, to claw back all value for itself.
4. The platform dies.

In my opinion it’s also the result of management being disconnected from the platform that it manages, and not knowing fully the implications of their own decisions.

I want a good community. And by “good” I mean smart, insightful; full of people who make me stop and say “holy fuck, this is brilliant”. I don’t mind if it’s slightly rough or slightly unwelcoming, as long as users are rational enough.

I also want a diversified amount of topics to talk about. Cooking, gardening, games, anime/manga, so goes on. Once in a blue moon I do talk about politics and society, but I’d rather talk about something else, you know?