Deebster

I would like to see more finely-grained feedback than just “no”. Particularly as it forces the voter to justify why they’re downvoting.

Some posts/contents are bad because they’re spam, abusive, or against the rules, or in the wrong place - downvoting these is useful crowd-sourced moderation, particularly for things that don’t warrant a mod report.

Some are just indisputably wrong and it’s a useful signal that the poster is talking rubbish. Then there’s the grey area.

Sometimes it’s just that the poster’s opinion is unpopular, and people are downvoting to suppress views they disagree with - I think that’s not a good thing for a discussion and encourages echo chambers. I like the idea of one of the downvote options being “I disagree” and that basically not doing anything.

I believe Piefed let’s you restrict downvotes to people that are subscribers. I think that’s a good solution to idiots downvoting from all just because they’re not interested in or understanding the post and/or the community it’s in. I also wonder if people even understand that they’re not training an algorithm, just dragging people’s posts down.

No, they used female as an adjective when describing their friend. I agree it’s unpleasant when people talk about “females” but that’s not what happened here.

You mean because businesses don’t pay VAT? In that case it makes sense to not include it.

Just in case everyone doesn’t already know, urine can provoke jellyfish stingers to release even more venom. Use vinegar or rubbing alcohol instead, or, falling that, seawater.