Topic: Reporting Vote Abuse? (does this count?)

pool:50152 censored

e621:rules: "Do not indiscriminately downvote posts based on their content. Blacklist the offending subject matter instead."

I'd bet the majority of the downvotes are out of spite that the pages contain censors (and are probably also the people commenting about it), there's also more downvotes on the non-censored posts immediately following the censored posts.

Not sure if there's some other way to report stuff like this, but anyways, if anyone feels like this is something to look into...

folfen232 said:
pool:50152 censored

e621:rules: "Do not indiscriminately downvote posts based on their content. Blacklist the offending subject matter instead."

I'd bet the majority of the downvotes are out of spite that the pages contain censors (and are probably also the people commenting about it), there's also more downvotes on the non-censored posts immediately following the censored posts.

Not sure if there's some other way to report stuff like this, but anyways, if anyone feels like this is something to look into...

keyword is "indiscriminately"

There are literally millions, almost certainly tens of millions of downvotes
That is a set so large that you could not hope to wade through it in several years time, at which point you'd be buried under the incoming wave of downvotes

Downvoting a post or two because you don't like the content while not really fair to the post is not going to get you in trouble, there's so many factors at play that those downvotes cannot be solely linked to the content
The only time downvoting gets punished is when a pattern can be determined, and nobody goes out of their way to look through votes to find patterns unless bad votes are already expected (trans/lgbt content, niche fetishes, etc)

jhudson said:
keyword is "indiscriminately"

Yep, that word definitely has an effect on the meaning of the rule, it almost seams like it should have stated "discriminately" instead (since the spirit of the rule is to not downvote based on content); I'd probably consider both to be abuse of that system, since just randomly downvoting things for no reason isn't right, as well as downvoting something that a blacklist would have handled (and also downvoting out of spite)

donovan_dmc said:
There are literally millions, almost certainly tens of millions of downvotes
That is a set so large that you could not hope to wade through it in several years time, at which point you'd be buried under the incoming wave of downvotes

Downvoting a post or two because you don't like the content while not really fair to the post is not going to get you in trouble, there's so many factors at play that those downvotes cannot be solely linked to the content
The only time downvoting gets punished is when a pattern can be determined, and nobody goes out of their way to look through votes to find patterns unless bad votes are already expected (trans/lgbt content, niche fetishes, etc)

Yep, not something easily moderated ( at least until AI mods years from now :P ), especially since regular members can't see who voted what so most reports would just be guesses, so the only people that can investigate are privileged accounts (who I'm sure are quite busy handling other more pressing issues on the site, which is quite appreciated)

What was going along as a nice little comic just took such a dive, and with all the negativity in the comments, it kinda just felt like a bunch of people with a hate on for it and the artist at that point, all went after it rather than just blacklisting "censored", "patreon censored" or even just the pool or artist and moving on.

I just figured I'd mention, plus I was curious to see if there was some way I didn't know of via the site, that things other than comments and posts were reported.

Thanks
(btw, love your current avatar)

folfen232 said:
as well as downvoting something that a blacklist would have handled

This reasoning doesn't make sense to me. A blacklist can basically handle pretty much everything... What it is saying is you shouldn't up/downvote in a way that does not show care or judgement.

For example, downvoting everything you see with gore regardless of context would violate the rule. So would actively seeking out any and all male/male content just to downvote it. Additionally, downvoting every post you see regardless of content would also violate the rule.

If you happen to come across an image that has content you like, you can still upvote it. If it has content you dislike, you can still downvote it.

Art is an expression creative skill and imagination. The content depicted in the art is part of the art. The artist made a creative decision to censor the art. People generally seem to have a negative opinion of that, and most would agree it lessens the quality of the image. Therefore the downvotes seem reasonable to me.

What would be unreasonable is if someone saw one image in the pool was censored, and decided to downvote the entire pool (or everything by the artist/uploader).

kyiiel said:

folfen232 said:
as well as downvoting something that a blacklist would have handled

This reasoning doesn't make sense to me. A blacklist can basically handle pretty much everything...

Taking this as "don't downvote anything because it could possibly be blacklisted" doesn't really feel like a reasonable interpretation of that
That feels like the same interpretation the dozens of topics we have calling for downvotes to be removed have taken

does the site actually state anywhere that you're not supposed to downvote based on content?

also, it seems kinda hyperbolic to assume that people who don't like one specific usage of censorship should just blacklist blacklist the censored tag entirely.

and in any case I think that it's completely fair to argue that big black blobs all over an image with distracting text saying to go to Patreon absolutely has an effect on the perceived quality of an image.

dba_afish said:
does the site actually state anywhere that you're not supposed to downvote based on content?

It's a rule and was quoted in the OP

Abuse of Site Tools

• Do not indiscriminately downvote posts based on their content. Blacklist the offending subject matter instead.

imo that reads like it was typed a long ass time ago when the site was young enough to not have fully developed the nuance of rule application

at the end of the day, people are allowed to downvote stuff they dont like, thats just an inherent nature on user interaction

jhudson said:
imo that reads like it was typed a long ass time ago when the site was young enough to not have fully developed the nuance of rule application

at the end of the day, people are allowed to downvote stuff they dont like, thats just an inherent nature on user interaction

Didn't you point out indiscriminately yourself just a few posts ago

Also that wording is just over 2 years old, it was added in a CoC update when the entire page was overhauled

2023-02-12 vs 2023-03-17

If you are following the artist, it's certainly alright to downvote on posts that you don't agree with once in a while, such as how the comic's story took a turn for the worse or how the artist essentially paywalled certain content with censorship like that.
Downvotes like this gives a chance to tell the artist that their audience do not like whatever change they did.

On the other hand, it would not be alright to downvote without rhyme or reason, such as downvoting all of the artist's posts or downvoting an entire type of kink/content which could have been easily blacklisted (see Abuse of Site Tools).
If an artist is known to implement such kind of content that you constantly find to be distasteful, then you should add them to the blacklist instead of continuing to downvote their stuff (see Refusal to Use Blacklist).

donovan_dmc said:
Didn't you point out indiscriminately yourself just a few posts ago

Also that wording is just over 2 years old, it was added in a CoC update when the entire page was overhauled

2023-02-12 vs 2023-03-17

look up the definition of indiscriminately

thegreatwolfgang said:
If you are following the artist, it's certainly alright to downvote on posts that you don't agree with once in a while, such as how the comic's story took a turn for the worse or how the artist essentially paywalled certain content with censorship like that.
Downvotes like this gives a chance to tell the artist that their audience do not like whatever change they did.

On the other hand, it would not be alright to downvote without rhyme or reason, such as downvoting all of the artist's posts or downvoting an entire type of kink/content which could have been easily blacklisted (see Abuse of Site Tools).
If an artist is known to implement such kind of content that you constantly find to be distasteful, then you should add them to the blacklist instead of continuing to downvote their stuff (see Refusal to Use Blacklist).

yes, this is a very clear explanation for the case at hand the op wanted to get looked at

donovan_dmc said:
It's a rule and was quoted in the OP

I mean, I feel like "indiscriminately" is the important word here. there's a diffrence between, say, a user downvoting a handful of gore posts that they dislike on an individual level and downvoting every post that crosses their screen tagged with gore because they just dislike gore as a subject matter in general.

dba_afish said:
I mean, I feel like "indiscriminately" is the important word here. there's a diffrence between, say, a user downvoting a handful of gore posts that they dislike on an individual level and downvoting every post that crosses their screen tagged with gore because they just dislike gore as a subject matter in general.

especially if it wasnt tagged beforehand so your blacklist couldnt work

jhudson said:
especially if it wasnt tagged beforehand so your blacklist couldnt work

Something not being tagged isn't an excuse to downvote it, add the tag and/or report the uploader

agree to disagree
its not indiscriminate at the very least, which was the entire point of this thread

jhudson said:
agree to disagree
its not indiscriminate at the very least, which was the entire point of this thread

You would be indiscriminately downvoting an image because the uploader didn't tag it correctly, irrespective of the post itself. The vote would have nothing to do with the image, it wouldn't "tell the artist" anything about their work you otherwise like, but rather the uploader's tagging.

watsit said:
You would be indiscriminately downvoting an image because the uploader didn't tag it correctly, irrespective of the post itself. The vote would have nothing to do with the image, it wouldn't "tell the artist" anything about their work you otherwise like, but rather the uploader's tagging.

thats simply untrue, i didnt say the downvote was because "a tag was missing"
the tag being missing is only what caused the user to see the post
i invite you too to also look up the definition of indiscriminate

jhudson said:
thats simply untrue, i didnt say the downvote was because "a tag was missing"
the tag being missing is only what caused the user to see the post
i invite you too to also look up the definition of indiscriminate

Okay:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indiscriminate
1a: not marked by careful distinction : deficient in discrimination and discernment

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/indiscriminate
not showing careful choice or planning, especially so that harm results

not showing careful thought or planning

https://www.wordnik.com/words/indiscriminate
Not making or based on careful distinctions; unselective.

Unrestrained or wanton; profligate.

Blindly downvoting a post because it got through your blacklist, due to the uploader missing a tag and not because you just don't like how a particular image/video/page turned out, sounds like it'd fit the definition fine. Votes aren't for the uploader's tagging quality, but the post itself, and you shouldn't indiscriminately downvote because it contains something you can blacklist.

People are told not to complain about stuff they can blacklist, even when a post gets through their blacklist from a missing tag (they're told to add the tag and move on). People are also told not to blindly downvote stuff they can blacklist, I see no reason that shouldn't equally apply also when a post gets through their blacklist from a missing tag (they should just add the tag and move on).

watsit said:
Okay:
Blindly downvoting a post because it got through your blacklist

your first statement for your argument is a contradiction

'blindly' then immediately states 'this is the reason why'

jhudson said:
your first statement for your argument is a contradiction

'blindly' then immediately states 'this is the reason why'

"Blindly" as in not using any relevant reason. Blindly/indiscriminately doing something doesn't mean it's done devoid of any and all coherence, just not one that's a basis for acting. If I blindly punch people because they get close to me, that's not a contradiction by having a reason (them getting close to me), it means I'm not using a relevant reason to punch people (them being close isn't itself a reason to punch them, as it doesn't account for why they're close to me or if they need to be punched, especially when the only way I can punch someone is if they're close to me; I can't exactly punch someone if they're far away, just as someone can't downvote something if it's been blacklisted/hidden, without going out of the way to do it).

watsit said:
-someone can't downvote something if it's been blacklisted/hidden, without going out of the way to do it-

thats a big supposition though, we cant know if any of the downvotes were by people who went out of their way to do it, which is what this thread was made about

also the rule clearly specifies to not do it 'based on content'
so downvoting because it wasnt tagged properly isnt about the content but instead the uploader and/or most recent editor

jhudson said:
thats a big supposition though, we cant know if any of the downvotes were by people who went out of their way to do it

True, we can't know if any particular downvote was something they went out of their way to do. I'm not saying it's always possible to know why someone downvoted something, which is why it can really only be dealt with when it becomes a recurring pattern of behavior. But just because you can sometimes get away with it doesn't mean it's allowed by the rules and shouldn't be discouraged.

jhudson said:
also the rule clearly specifies to not do it 'based on content'
so downvoting because it wasnt tagged properly isnt about the content but instead the uploader and/or most recent editor

I would be surprised if posts are regularly downvoted specifically for missing tags irrespective of content, and not because of the content they don't like that the missing tag(s) allowed them to see. "I downvoted because it was missing a tag" comes across as downvoting based on content and using the missing tag as an excuse. In most cases like this, it's not downvoted for missing a tag, else they would be downvoting many posts as many posts are often missing tags, the missing tag was just what allowed them to see and subsequently act based on content. If it was something they liked or didn't care about, it wouldn't be downvoted despite still missing a tag. If someone regularly neglects adding important tags, the proper thing to do is to politely message them and ask that they remember it in the future, or report them to the moderators. Downvoting, like complaining, doesn't fix the problem of missing tags and is just disruptive to people trying to enjoy the content.

watsit said:
True, we can't know if any particular downvote was something they went out of their way to do. I'm not saying it's always possible to know why someone downvoted something, which is why it can really only be dealt with when it becomes a recurring pattern of behavior. But just because you can sometimes get away with it doesn't mean it's allowed by the rules and shouldn't be discouraged.

I would be surprised if posts are regularly downvoted specifically for missing tags irrespective of content, and not because of the content they don't like that the missing tag(s) allowed them to see. "I downvoted because it was missing a tag" comes across as downvoting based on content and using the missing tag as an excuse. In most cases like this, it's not downvoted for missing a tag, else they would be downvoting many posts as many posts are often missing tags, the missing tag was just what allowed them to see and subsequently act based on content. If it was something they liked or didn't care about, it wouldn't be downvoted despite still missing a tag. If someone regularly neglects adding important tags, the proper thing to do is to politely message them and ask that they remember it in the future, or report them to the moderators. Downvoting, like complaining, doesn't fix the problem of missing tags and is just disruptive to people trying to enjoy the content.

yeah, lots of good points
i dont want to come off as encouraging it, just playing devils advocate for the sake of doing it
i cant actually know whats going through the average downvoting user, so im just throwing stuff out there that i could imagine someone would think

thegreatwolfgang said:
If you are following the artist, it's certainly alright to downvote on posts that you don't agree with once in a while, such as how the comic's story took a turn for the worse or how the artist essentially paywalled certain content with censorship like that.
Downvotes like this gives a chance to tell the artist that their audience do not like whatever change they did.

Okay but thats downvoting based on the content of the image, when are supossed to downvote when its against the rules to downvote the post because we don't like the art it has

funkwolfie said:
Okay but thats downvoting based on the content of the image, when are supossed to downvote when its against the rules to downvote the post because we don't like the art it has

What are you talking about? Which part of the rules do you not understand?

funkwolfie said:
Okay but thats downvoting based on the content of the image, when are supossed to downvote when its against the rules to downvote the post because we don't like the art it has

donovan_dmc said:
That feels like the same interpretation the dozens of topics we have calling for downvotes to be removed have taken

Here we are

thegreatwolfgang said:
What are you talking about? Which part of the rules do you not understand?

i think its obvious, what does it mean by content, if we arn't allowed to downvote based on the image then what we are allowed to downvote

funkwolfie said:
i think its obvious, what does it mean by content, if we arn't allowed to downvote based on the image then what we are allowed to downvote

The word "indiscriminately" has been pointed out by multiple people several times

funkwolfie said:
i think its obvious, what does it mean by content, if we arn't allowed to downvote based on the image then what we are allowed to downvote

You seem to have missed the word 'indiscriminately' as many people here have already pointed out above.

The example I gave should have been pretty obvious at what point your downvotes are considered to be abusive.

donovan_dmc said:
The word "indiscriminately" has been pointed out by multiple people several times

i mean with how loosely the mod team here uses that term. "oh you have a valid reason but I just don't like it?" indiscriminately but I digress

funkwolfie said:
i mean with how loosely the mod team here uses that term. "oh you have a valid reason but I just don't like it?" indiscriminately but I digress

Not liking a fetish or artist is not a valid reason

donovan_dmc said:
Not liking a fetish or artist is not a valid reason

ngl feel that that only enforced on only some fetishes while other fetished are free to be mass downvoted and the mods dont care

funkwolfie said:
ngl feel that that only enforced on only some fetishes while other fetished are free to be mass downvoted and the mods dont care

You're literally saying this to one of the said mods that used to handle a lot of the vote abuse tickets, passes aren't given to any fetish or interest
Vote abuse is not actively seeked out, as I said many posts ago, there are far too many votes happening for that
It only gets noticed on posts containing topics which are often the target of downvoting, or when suspicions are reported

donovan_dmc said:
You're literally saying this to one of the said mods that used to handle a lot of the vote abuse tickets, passes aren't given to any fetish or interest
Vote abuse is not actively seeked out, as I said many posts ago, there are far too many votes happening for that
It only gets noticed on posts containing topics which are often the target of downvoting, or when suspicions are reported

oh Im well aware of you, but ok ill report the posts that have vote abuse 99% chancee they get ignored

edit: ha not even an option to report vote abuse

funkwolfie said:
oh Im well aware of you, but ok ill report the posts that have vote abuse 99% chancee they get ignored

edit: ha not even an option to report vote abuse

Is.. there not being an option specifically for that supposed to prove something? The post report options exist purely to ward off bad reports, they weren't even visible in the ticket for several years after they were added
And there's a 100% chance your tickets aren't being "ignored", nothing can be done if there isn't a pattern
A post getting downvoted into oblivion is not a pattern, there needs to be patterns of votes within individual users, that takes a significant amount of time to investigate and it is not worth checking every vote

donovan_dmc said:
Is.. there not being an option specifically for that supposed to prove something? The post report options exist purely to ward off bad reports, they weren't even visible in the ticket for several years after they were added
And there's a 100% chance your tickets aren't being "ignored", nothing can be done if there isn't a pattern
A post getting downvoted into oblivion is not a pattern, there needs to be patterns of votes within individual users, that takes a significant amount of time to investigate and it is not worth checking every vote

so they expect users without access to people's downvote to find patterns of someone downvoting using data they do not have access to

funkwolfie said:
so they expect users without access to people's downvote to find patterns of someone downvoting using data they do not have access to

A common scenario that this would be visible to normal users is when all of the latest posts on the front page inexplicably have a negative score within seconds of being posted.
This is indicative of a troll spamming downvotes on every post they see on the front page.

Another scenario that this can apply to on an artist's or a specific user's own uploads, where they suddenly realise that there is a noticeable uptick in downvotes on all of their recent posts for no logical reason at all.
This could be indicative of a harassment campaign by a particular user who dislike the other user/artist.

thegreatwolfgang said:
A common scenario that this would be visible to normal users is when all of the latest posts on the front page inexplicably have a negative score within seconds of being posted.
This is indicative of a troll spamming downvotes on every post they see on the front page.

Another scenario that this can apply to on an artist's or a specific user's own uploads, where they suddenly realise that there is a noticeable uptick in downvotes on all of their recent posts for no logical reason at all.
This could be indicative of a harassment campaign by a particular user who dislike the other user/artist.

got it so the harassment only counts when its a group and not a single person

funkwolfie said:
got it so the harassment only counts when its a group and not a single person

I would suggest that you take a long read of the entire Code of Conducts so that you can better understand the rules, instead of deliberately misquoting people here when they try to explain the rules to you.

folfen232 said:
pool:50152 censored

e621:rules: "Do not indiscriminately downvote posts based on their content. Blacklist the offending subject matter instead."

I'd bet the majority of the downvotes are out of spite that the pages contain censors (and are probably also the people commenting about it), there's also more downvotes on the non-censored posts immediately following the censored posts.

Not sure if there's some other way to report stuff like this, but anyways, if anyone feels like this is something to look into...

For the OP's original question, the answer should be pretty straightforward like I have already explained.
The Abuse of Site Tools rule would really only apply if a lot of posts were getting indiscriminately downvoted, regardless of their content.

It's fine if a few of their posts got downvoted due to their censored content, since people aren't entirely expecting or feel welcomed by such a paywall tactic coming from the artist.
However, if the pages continue to be mass-downvoted even after the censored parts are over or other unrelated posts by the artist are also getting rating-bombed, then it would be grounds for alarm and you should inform staff about potential abuse.

As for the fate of the censored posts on pool #50152, they seem to have been deleted for violating our Advertising rules.
A user's bad attempt at redeeming the artist's reputation ended with them getting slapped for posting commercial content.

Quick question, are you allowed to upvote based on content?

Using the same example I provided earlier, can someone essentially seek out and upvote all gore or male/male regardless of what's in the image? What about upvoting everything from a particular artist? Everything that is on the front page? Are any of these also vote abuse? I thought a few of those were against the rules at one point but I might just be misremembering.

I'm not trying to further a debate, I just would like it clarified. A yes/no is satisfactory for me. The only upvotes I'm 100% sure are against the rules are upvotes from alt accounts (seen them on the ban list as 'vote cheating alt').

kyiiel said:
Quick question, are you allowed to upvote based on content?

Using the same example I provided earlier, can someone essentially seek out and upvote all gore or male/male regardless of what's in the image? What about upvoting everything from a particular artist? Everything that is on the front page? Are any of these also vote abuse? I thought a few of those were against the rules at one point but I might just be misremembering.

I'm not trying to further a debate, I just would like it clarified. A yes/no is satisfactory for me. The only upvotes I'm 100% sure are against the rules are upvotes from alt accounts (seen them on the ban list as 'vote cheating alt').

Yes, you can. There are no restrictions to upvoting posts on a single account I believe and I don't think I have seen someone get punished for that.
Though I wouldn't try pushing the limits, such as spamming upvotes on everything you see now, including comments or AIBUR votes. Anything considered "abusive" will get you slapped.

The vote cheating rule only applies to you bypassing current restrictions (i.e., 1 vote for 1 account) by using one or more alt accounts.
That includes any kind of vote manipulation, such as doubling-up on your upvotes or downvotes.

kyiiel said:
Quick question, are you allowed to upvote based on content?

Using the same example I provided earlier, can someone essentially seek out and upvote all gore or male/male regardless of what's in the image? What about upvoting everything from a particular artist? Everything that is on the front page? Are any of these also vote abuse? I thought a few of those were against the rules at one point but I might just be misremembering.

I'm not trying to further a debate, I just would like it clarified. A yes/no is satisfactory for me. The only upvotes I'm 100% sure are against the rules are upvotes from alt accounts (seen them on the ban list as 'vote cheating alt').

You could upvote the entire site and the only person that might yell at you would be thr sysadmin
The staff only care when things like that are done with downvotes