!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
depends on what the motivation/conclusion is, if someone suspects an account of being a bot or such and calls out "hey this account is mass-downvoting anything to do with botswana" then it's perfectly reasonable.
But if they try to make some personal judgement over it then it feels a bit: 
Creepy? Probably. Pathetic? Absolutely.
I think if you obsess over ‘figuring out’ the person, it can be weird.
I have definitely checked post history and upvotes on some users just to get context for their comments. It has saved me wasting time trying to have a discussion with someone who only seems to ever look for fights.
For some people, that's all they have. Vote like everyone can see and give no shits about lurkers being vexed.
Same goes for commenting. Sometimes it can be funny when someone goes through your post history just to quote a comment you make 2+ years ago and still be wrong.
I'll look at some users who post a ridiculous take on something. I mostly look to see if they are just a shitty troll or if it was a one off and decide if I want to block them. I don't look through there posts for context, just the raw vote numbers. If someone is majority negative on their posts, then they don't need to show up in my feed.
There are a handful of other users on here who I see frequently that I don't agree with on a lot of things, and the community agrees with me based on votes, but those users also make good comments that are beneficial to some conversations and sometimes I learn something new. I'll put up with the bad for the good.
I'm with you there. I don't block for disagreement, I block for assholery
It really comes down to whether or not I think someone is arguing in bad faith, but there's a fine line between bad faith and complete idiocy. Like, if someone is a hardcore trump supporter, they could argue in good faith, but we are so far apart that there really is no discussion to be had. I can't fathom any situation where anyone could support him without being a pedophile and/or a billionaire business owner. Then there are trolls that will just use strawman arguments to move the goalposts on any topic just to not be wrong, and that shit just isn't worth ingesting, ever.
It's creepy when they questionably ascribe motivations to how someone has voted and make accusations and threats based on it, act like a downvote is a personal attack, demand people vote a certain way to demonstrate ideological loyalty, or otherwise be really weird about it. If they're not doing that, it is probably fine imo.
It's public to stop vote manipulation and brigading. When you can see that a ton of up/downvotes on a post all come from 37 alts of the same user, it makes it easier to ban those people.
How can people find out who's using alts? I've got this quarkboard with red string I'm trying to connect people on based on their tone and their personal bugbears.
It's easy when they're stupid enough to name them all the same thing.
*glancing nervously at the other sad_detective accounts I use on other instances*
hahaaa yeah. So dumb...
I’ve got this quarkboard with red string
Relaaaaax, guy. It's way more rad than I made it sound:
Personally not how I’d spend my energy. If someone’s bothering me I block.
Usually, yes, it's weird. One day a while back, a lot of my recent comments were all getting one downvote, and I was curious. Apparently one person was mad at something I said and went through my comment history to downvote things. There are times where it's somewhat useful to view, but obsessing over it is strange.
Where can I even see post votes?
I blame Reddit
I blame Obama.
When will they stop that motherfucker?
No, it's fucking weird for folks to do that. You're not sensitive, they are just insane and no well-adjusted person does that.
Have you seen the guy who calls everyone stalker sockpuppets, tags all the admins and starts harassing you with his own sockpuppets whenever he gets a downvote?
Yes, it's pretty pathetic actually.
I only do that with accounts that are sus, like posting propaganda, ads, etc. To check if it is a bot and to report it.
Sometimes I'll check post and comment history if something seems a little off. For example, does this account show patterns you might see in a troll or bot?
Looking at votes though? That never even occurred to me, and even know I don't see what the point would be.
The only "creepy" thing about it is that viewing who upvoted/downvoted what isn't a feature that's just built into Lemmy (and Lemmy-UI). I can't imagine why the authors of Lemmy would want to have a class system with some (instance admins) being able to see vote information and others (everyone else) being unable.
You say "we all know our votes here are public record", but that's not really true. Even Lemvotes doesn't work for at least half of the posts I've tried it on. It'd be more accurate to say "we all know our votes here aren't secret".
Who really cares? Everyone isn't going to have your option, if you really like it up vote it, if it pisses you off or something down vote it. Hell down vote the hell out of this post, it's fake internet points for fucks sake.
But yeah, it's weird as shit to have nothing else to do in your day/life and get so pissed at an opposing opinion that you scour through someone's history. Get a hobby or something.
It depends. If someone is being very vague about describing a gripe, going back through their history helps get context into what they're complaining about.