dmmeyournudes

you can only lose 15 points for a comment and 0 for a post. the only thing they do is they jitter the total points to fight botting. its designed to make karma a representation of content given, not necessarily that you have a high hit rate.

because being negative isn't allowed there.

I wouldn't expect it to make sense when you don't understand how the system works in the first place.

I'm not going to argue with someone about the story they tell me and how it made them feel because an individual's biased perspective is not an objective observation of how the vote system works. This isn't about you.

this isn't about what you agree with, your only counter to a situation where bad content can reach more people because no one can push it down is that it would never get upvoted in the first place, witch isn't the issue with not having downvotes.

It's crazy the stories people string together to confirm their biases.

You're a moderator, not a publisher. You don't decide what is or is not good content, you decide what is or is not against the rules. If "bad content is not allowed" is a rule, witch it virtually is if you remove posts because no one upvotes them, then why would anyone post to a community that forces you to appease the mods before anyone else has seen your post. The downvotes mean the mods need to do less work and the community can self moderate good posts and good content with the push of a button. How you do not understand that pushing down bad content is fundamental to link aggregation and combating community vote manipulation after all the shit that happened in Reddit, even through the downvotes, is beyond me.

These examples you show are small and not proven to be viable. Beehaw for one had several problems outside of not having downvotes that make it as an example problematic, and Lemmy as a whole is such a broken experience right now that you can't use anything here to prove that having no downvotes is viable either.

So how do you know it's bad content if no one downvoted it? A lack of upvotes does not mean it's bad, it could easily mean no one saw it and they simply fall of their first page too quickly to ever see it, a common issue on Lemmy. You're just making a judgement on what is or isn't good content, meaning the quality is no measured by the mods, not the users.

Let's go look at beehaw after they defederate from everyone lol.

I'm not saying people don't pick sides in an argument, but the point is to convince someone you're right, so if you're not doing that, you're getting downvotes meaning you're either wasting your time or making bad arguments.

It's not spam, it's content within the rules, it just bad. That's the situation we're trying to avoid so that bad content is seen by the least amount. Of users. When you can't downvote bad content, the moderators have to remove the content so we have just pushed more work onto moderators. Congratulations.