when I get down voted, there’s ambiguity I have to accept. maybe it’s because people don’t like what I said, maybe it’s because they don’t like the tone in which I said it. maybe they have good objections that I haven’t thought through. maybe they have bad ones. maybe they know I’m right and they don’t want to have to confront it! maybe I’m just hanging around a group of assholes. maybe I’m the asshole. maybe they read my username wrong and it sounds offensive to them. it doesn’t really matter.

I disagree that this is an ambiguity you have to accept. problems are easier to solve when they are known to everybody. And this is easier when they are explained properly.

I understand that it is sometimes hard to invest the time to explain these things, but i think it is worth it.

to be frank, I don’t see why it’s healthy for /u/testuser1 to expect to be able to express views without people criticizing them.

i have trouble to undetstand what you mean here.

that normalizes downvoting”… downvoting is normal

i completely aggree with that. And i like downvotes, i have no problems with them. But i want to know the reason for people to downvote.

also, imagine a big discussion. Where people write 50 words and one responds with "I disagree." and responds to explain why one detail is wrong.

This is easy to be missunderstood as "all/most of those 50words are wrong". So i like the force to explain downvotes as separation between criticism and aggreeing stuff.

When debates get heated, people will forget that. They will forget to cite at all. They will downvote like hell. And all that makes debating culture difficult.

And i can tell from personal experience, that people do not explain their downvotes. You have to ask and even then, only some answer.

With that, i can tell you: the current way won't lead to constructive learning, where people understand each other.

So if anything, I want that to have to be normalized: it’s regular, normal, expected, reasonable, appropriate, to ask from time to time why the downvotes are happening and expect an explanation, especially in unusual cases where the downvotes seem to have no reasoning behind them.

This is what i do, but i feel many people downvoting don't read that, so i never know the reason

But also, why does a downvote need an explanation, but an upvote doesn’t?

Because the downvote is for me like criticism. Something is obviously wrong with the thing and i want to know why. I want to learn from it and understand whether i should adapt my behavior or not. And this decision is only possible when i know the reason for every downvote.

Also, because upvotes are harder to explain. Usually there all something like "interesting, hand't thought about this before". When you have 20 upvotes, they are probably all very similar.

However, for downvotes it is different. You can downvote things because of:

• factual errors (for instance when some number is relevant but wrong. -> I want to know which number is wrong and the source.)
• missing contextual information (article is negative on topic X, but after knowing Y, it is not that negative anymore and understandable. --> I want to know that.)
• information is correct, but because of bias/stereotypes, the person downvotes. The information in the article explains these things, but the person is too lazy to read that and downvotes before reading. I want to know that so i can ignore the downvote.

etc. So many different reasons to downvote. All of them are important to me.

For me downvotes are a feedback system. So i can differentiate good articles from ones with errors.

If someone doesn’t want to tell you why they like / dislike your comment, they shouldn’t have to.

But what should i do with this feedback? What if its because of bias, stereotypes? and the person is not interested in participating in the debate?

So ideally, i would like to force users to explain their downvotes. And every explanation is fine, for me. Like also things like "troll" and just that.

I talk about many legitimate questions, not ones with the intention to troll. Like, where actual content is happening, debates and such.

I have to ALWAYS ask what the reasons are which is really annoying. Like, i don't know what to do when i read an article, agree with it but it has some downvotes.

Or when i see some minor issues, i wonder: was this the reason for people to downvote it? Or was it something else? like factual errors or missing out important things? Or did the person reading it just disagree with the opinion stated there or just dislike it?

Downvotes itself are fine. but the lack of reasons is annoying for me, not the downvotes itself. What i seek is intellectual debate, understanding concepts. And this is so much harder when negative feedback is not explained properly.

Hm, interesting. thanks

I hate it when people here are downvoting things without explaining the reasons for it!

Can someone explain the reason for downvoting this?

I don't understand why this was downvoted, since the author speaks about personal experiences being told.

I mean how can you disagree with that? with personal experiences?

i'm confused. This one shows v0.6.74 and yours shows v0.6.72

you're 2 versions behind. :D But great, thanks. will create an account.

(to be clear of the above: i dislike both the dominance of amazon web services (AWS) and terms such as serverless)

once is designed to run on AWS using only serverless components.

:(

german server: https://illuna-minetest.tk/ by https://tchncs.de/

i am content with your content

the context for why i post this is:

in germany, there are some click-bait news magazines/shows who covered this topic once. I was sceptical of it and now with this new community, i remembered the this topic and researched it. (if i hand't found this article, i'd have probably asked here)

ah, thanks. interesting.

was part of the reddit video