That real question is, what problem are we trying to solve? Then we can go from there.

What we have right now in Lemmy strikes the current balance IMO. Individual comments are upvoted/downvoted. But no cumulative score.

I'm against any kind of global user ranking.

It makes sense to rank content, but ranking users just begs abuse of the system. There's always those that will try to farm the system resulting in lower quality content. It's also an attack vector for bots.

I don't miss the "karma" aspect one bit here. Rate my post quality, not me. On the other hand, tools for ranking users privately could be helpful. In other words a personal ranking for your eyes only would be fine.

What about the same system, but it shows both upvotes and downvotes?

It’s a shame, but any sort of number-based system will most likely end up with the same problems as karma. Not having the numbers add up is a good start though, since upvotes and downvotes are only really useful as ‘in-the-moment’ indicators of good vs bad content.

Let’s keep it how it is, so that we don’t have another social credits system that doubles as a dopamine factory.

I much prefer how Lemmy approaches this; upvote and downvote count per comment, no tally of total points.

Way less people trying to Karma farm then and repost content for fake internet points that don’t mean anything.

I think we should stop seeing Lemmy as just a substitute for Reddit. Lemmy can be it's own thing, without having to do 'reddit-like' stuff.

Imo, I don't think the karma system is really necessary (it doesn't even make sense) and the upvote-downvote is good enough to filter quality posts.

Karma does well in my opinion, however it should display the number of upvotes and downvotes, not just one number. Also adnn an option to sort by the number of downvotes.

No system. The goal isn't Reddit 2, it's a federated link aggregator.

Absolutely nothing. Reducing people to a number and ranking their value based on that is inherently wrong.

Keep it simple, the current Lemmy system works fine. Spambots and particularly disruptive people should just be banned anyways, a gamification system would not solve any issue on that front.

I like the system as it is here at the moment. Up-/Downvotes per Post/Comment to show the popularity (and express (dis-)approval). But nothing to collect per account, so noone gets encouraged to post just for the karma.

I don't think you can have anything in the same spirit that isn't toxic and doesn't encourage brigading by minority groups who want to cancel opinions they don't like. The whole concept is simply glorified ad hominem.

Unfortunately, anything you replace karma with will have the same problems that karma has. Any indicator of comment or user quality will be readily gamed by anyone with any skills whatsoever in automation.

What about hidden karma?
Like there is still karma used internally to decide what posts to promote and how to weight votes, but the numbers are kept only internally so people don't get obsessed with that number next to their (and others') profile?

Embrace the Lemmy system. Resistance is futile. Fake internet points are futile.

(1) No Karma system at all

(2) Karma spread over several numbers rather that one; think of Github's user page for example, stats for everything in general on one's profile to reflect general activity

(3) Community award badges

We should keep it as is. Having an account score just amplifies a big issue with sm. The content should be in focus, not the people posting. A relevant comment should be hightened because it itself is good. In the same way we shouldn't judge something because the user has a low karma, but because the content is bad.

The idea behind something keeping a score on a profile is good, but it doesn't work as intended in practice. People will farm in whatever way they need to get a moral highground. Not having such a scoring system will be a good way to reduce the incentive to copy/paste content from others.

Web of trust. The biggest thing missing from most attempts to build social networks so far. A few sites did very weak versions, like Slashdot/s friend/foe/fan/freak rating system.

Let me subscribe, upvote, downvote, filter, etc specific content. Let me trust (or negative-trust) other users (think of it like "friend" or "block", in simple terms)

Then, and this is the key... let me apply filters based on the sub/up/down/filter/etc actions of the people I trust, and the people they trust, etc, with diminishing returns as it gets farther away and based on how much people trust each other.

Finally, when I see problematic content, let me see the chain of trust that exposed me to it. If I trust you and you trust a Nazi, I may or may not spend time trying to convince you to un-trust that person, but if you fail or refuse then I can un-trust you to get Nazi(s) out of my feed.

Subs should be able to force sort by controversial for comments and/or posts.

Any damn fool can come up with comments that are universally approved of, or universally hated. They aren't interesting.

The phrase 'trivially true' applies - "This crime was a bad thing, and the people responsible shouldn't have done it! I am very angry at them!" may be emotionally satisfying to say or to cheer on, but it doesn't add a damn thing to the conversation, any more than "hur hur suck it libruls" does.

There isn't a term for the inverse of ragebait, but there needs to be. All the le reddit moments - the tedious meme-chains, forced in-jokes, etc.

For subs where you want interesting discussion, you want to sort both to the bottom. It's the posts that divide opinions that are worth talking about, almost by definition. If a post has a thousand votes but the total is close to zero, well hey, that's probably worth seeing and engaging wth.

Let people vote with their heart, use upvotes/downvotes however the fuck they want to instead of constantly nagging and whining about it - and then use that to detect and de-prioritise mediocrity.

It wouldn't be appropriate for all subs, but for some places, I think it'd be a huge improvement.

Posts should just be upvoted and downvoted with no credit given to the person who posted. Same goes for comments. In my opinion, upvoting and downvoting should just help the user find the most relevant information. Content that people upvote is the most seen. Content that people downvote is the least seen. Posters and commenters stay on an equal footing with no points system.

Score the posts, not the individuals. Attaching imaginary points to any kind of activity instantly turns it into a competition.

Instead, any scoring should focus on actual content, which is basically what the up/down vote is.

I think it is fine now. I don't really want karma totals or a wave of different colored reactions. Upvotes or downvote. I can't even do downvote and haven't missed it.

I like it as it is to be honest.

I would have optional, per magazine karma. Mods can decide if they want to enable it and what rules it should follow. Personally, i would max it at some low number, like 100; above that you are an upstanding member of society and that's it.

Why not keep the scores hidden and just use them to order stuff?

How about expanding the votes into multiple kinds of karma. Make it possible to place several votes: "on topic/off topic", "funny/boring", "shit post", "solution to the question", "agree/disagree", "political", "Interesting", "Spam", "Original Content", etc.

Communities could create whatever rating is suitable for their forum.

Sort of like tags, but votable.

It would basically reward everyone for what they do (being a level 7 funny shitposter is something) but at the same time making it possible for others to filter out anything they don't care about. So instead of clicking downvote because of disagreement or upvote because it's funny, there would be an outlet for that in its own vote.

I feel that would make it easier to find quality content whether you're looking for serious debate or the hottest memes.

We'd need better comment filtering on individual communities, and it could/would be abused, but overall it would be facilitate the possibility of having different kinds of conversations on the same topic.

Sometimes I want to read funny stuff in serious topics and sometimes there is serious stuff in funny threads, and sometimes people write clever stuff that I disagree with and so on. One vote is just not enough.

In my opinion the best alternative is a -1 : +1 scale. Members who contribute little are near 0, members who contribute a lot in a positive way get towards +1, if users contribute a lot in a negative way, their score goes to -1.

There are lots of different particular ways to implement this that isn't up vs. downvote count. Communities created, moderation activity, post count, engagement per post, positive reporting rate, false reporting rate, number of reports against the user, number of communites banned from, etc.