[–] JohnnyPemberton 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
yeah, I also was thinking about having tiers or something. the "need votes" thing is kind of fun
Interesting idea... But I think that would open a can of vote economics.
There would need to be a way to generate and distribute new votes, otherwise the supply would just be limited and one person with a front-page contribution would just amass all of them. We'd need some kind of equivalent of a vote bank that can accrue interest and increase the total vote wealth of the otherwise closed system.
Side note, I think we just gave some poor economics undergrad their thesis.
[–] Andrew_L 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
We already have a daily income of 10 upvotes to spend. We can get more by contributing to the discussion. The current system lets you have infinite votes once you achieve 20 comment contribution points. This will limit that and increase the quality of the discussions.
Unless I misunderstood and you meant what /u/crimsonsun99 said. That ought to do it...
It's very similar but his system will allow for a lot more upvoting. I'm not sure which system will inflate faster though. My system, each user gets 10 votes per day; /u/crimsonsun99's system, each user gets 10 upvotes or 1 downvote per upvote. I'm guessing the inflation will depend on how often people vote.
[–] [deleted] 1 point 3 points 4 points (+4|-1) ago (edited ago)
[–] roeawaie [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I like it! Kind of along the lines of what /u/Andrew_L and I just started talking about
I've been on forums that used a system like this. What happened was that power users just dominated everyone because they could "afford" to "neg" people that they didn't like while new users or fringe users had no voting power (and never gained it because they got negged by more popular users). Essentially I think this is a recipe for a "voat hivemind."
[–] armday2day ago
What if the same number of points provide less votes as they accumulate? For example, your first 10 points allow you x number of votes. The next 10 points allow you x-n votes, where n>0.
[–] roeawaie [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Just to be clear, you mean with some non-zero upper limit? So it would never get to where you'd need like 1000 upvotes to get 1 more vote to use?
I could see this working. I think the ability to create multiple accounts might reduce the effectiveness of its intent, but I doubt too many people would make a bunch of different ones just to upvote more... Hm...
[–] Servohahn 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
My worry is that power users will control the content and comments. Power users tend to fuck up the content on reddit, which is something I don't like about reddit. Seeing a bunch of shitty posts by Gallowboob or the way that Unidan just dominated every conversation he was in regardless of how correct he was screwed things up. I think maybe it might be in order to increase the threshold as voat grows, but as it is, there are so few users that the threshold essentially forces one to be relatively active in order to have voting privileges.
I've never heard of an online community where lurkers desperately participate only to be able to become lurkers again. Lurkers would probably either not care enough to participate to the point that they can lurk again (but with voting privileges), or become used to participating and then continue to participate.
Even if you are right, I can't imagine that those participate-in-order-to-lurk users would make up a large portion of the userbase. And in the mean time, submissions will get stuck with low vote counts which, like it or not, tend to indicate insignificance.
I don't like the idea of making it easier for power users to dominate the content. The way it works right now is that it encourages people to participate in some fashion but doesn't give special abilities to people who might just spam content all day until they can "afford" to down vote anyone who disagrees with them while that downvoted user might only be participating in scant spare time and can't make up the vote difference.
Another idea to hold someone accountable for their voting is to make user votes public, but that comes with its own problems.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. People are pausing before interacting because voats are a resource. Pausing enables people to be real.
No, screw that. For some people, upvoted comments are not as easy. Some people have to write one comment and already have 200 points, others write 200 comments and (since voat defaults to 0) have maybe 100 points without a single downvoat.
Such a system would not prevent people from lurking, it would give the people that already know how to play the masses even more power.
[–] Arotaes_Forgehammer 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
I'm fine with the periodic thing. Not a problem for me.
[–] martymcdohl 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
If you have any upvotes left, you should upvote the submission for visibility
[–] Arotaes_Forgehammer 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I've got 1.7k CCP. I don't have upvote limits.