[–] [deleted] 4 points 9 points (+13|-4) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
4

[–] ThisWeirdIndividual 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Ok. That's an unexpected counter argument.

One major flaw tho :

SJWs are organized. As activists, that's what they do.

Normal people don't do that.

So if brigading is allowed it will only benefit those leaning on such organized activities at the expense of everybody else.

That's why it should be strictly forbiden to everybody and ideally, enforced through the usage of "smart" screening tools or something.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
3

[–] CptCmdrAwesome [S] 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Yaaaay he's back! :)

Its a way to shame normal people into not doing what they routinely do.

I agree with the point you make on that front, but let me clarify what I'm trying to say. I've downvoated a fair few she posts, but only because I personally consider her to be an unredeemable gobshite, and I've found the vast majority of the comments I've seen from her to be worthy of a downvoat. That to me is perfectly legitimate. Not because anybody else influenced me to, and not because I've been through her history blindly downvoating.

What's not legitimate is going through someone's entire history and blindly downvoating everything, particularly when this kind of action is organised.

This is clearly happening on both sides of the she situation, but the point I'm making is - I don't want it happening here, nor do I want to be associated with the organisation of such actions. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that.

Let people do as they please.

This is exactly what I'm in favour of, with the exception of turning this sub into a downvoat brigade. So far, as far as I know, we are clean. We shouldn't be open to accusations of any dirty tricks. I just want to keep it clean, civil and honest - and let the facts speak for themselves. We have more than enough of those to not have to resort to anything else.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] heili 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The way they apply it, it's only wrong when it's used against someone they like.

0
0

[–] EIMR 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I think that censoring someone is bad, no matter the reason. If we want to express our disagreement, we should instead post and try to debate.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] Dashippy 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I think Boat brigading is bad practice no matter which way the voat goes. So I'm in favour of a rule against it. The difficulty comes in proving someone is doing it really.

0
3

[–] kevdude 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I won't ban anyone. What is happening to u/she right now is her community fighting back with the only means at its disposal. We will not stoop to coordinating or calling for brigades. What users choose to do is their own business. If voat wants to implement countermeasures that is one thing. If you want to call people out feel free. But, while we have a charter, our only "rules" are don't do anything that would be illegal in Switzerland.

0
1

[–] CptCmdrAwesome [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

What is happening to u/she right now is her community fighting back with the only means at its disposal.

Totally. The fact they are blaming this on brigading represents such a massive wilful ignorance.

So, hypothetical situation. I submit a post here, right now that says "WOOP LETS ALL DOWNVOAT SHE THAT FUCKING CUNT" what happens next?

0
2

[–] kevdude 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

We talk about it. A number of folks, yourself included, would hop on here to say that's not how we do things. I imagine we will all upvote/downvote the submission as we see fit. At the end of the day the users are going to do what they are going to do. Censoring the post won't fix that. Maybe reasoned discussion will.

0
1

[–] Moosh_Banger 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Totally. The fact they are blaming this on brigading represents such a massive wilful ignorance.

It is not ignorance but a tactic, and it works: create a victim narrative, exploit said narrative to get third parties on side and derail the original conversation in a sea of pseudo outrage and internet white knighting. SJW rules of engagement 101 folks.

0
0

[–] Moosh_Banger 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The other side are doing their best to re frame the issue and it is worlking it seems. Suddenly we are all discussing tangential issues like vote brigading.

0
3

[–] CptCmdrAwesome [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Just to add, the reason I say "beyond reasonable doubt", I take my own account as an example.

While my downvoat count is still less than half of my upvoat count, I have spent time a limited amount of time "brigading" obvious MH101 spammers ("LOL U MAD FAGGOT?") in the interests of the community until the admins can show /v/reportspammers some love, and get that kind of thing under control. Obviously this will skew the figures, due to what I consider legitimate actions.

0
2

[–] NormDeplume 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Not having been banned on voat, does that mean you can't see the sub, or does that mean that you simply can't post?

If it makes it so you can't see, then that might do something (remove the persons ability to find places to brigade without switching to an alt).

If you just can't post, then I worry that we'd be encouraging the idea of "banning just to ban." I agree that something needs to be done about the brigading (both ways, up and down). However, if we just go the "BAN ALL THE THINGS!" route, then it just starts becoming more and more of an echo chamber/different groups of cliques.

That being said, I do think that the aggressive moderation of that kind of thing is what is needed. I'd argue thus:

Posts deemed to be encouraging brigading are removed. X removals and you get banned. Mod logs will ensure that only inappropriate posts get banned, and X is an objective number. So it's not about a witch hunt (trying to "prove" something, setting and evidenciary standard, etc). It's about objective criteria that can be applied fairly.

As far as the people actually doing the brigading, I worry that there's not a good way to limit that. Even if Voat institutes some flag for "you looked up their profile and up/downvoated everything, you've been flagged", then you run the risk of catching legitimate users.

I know I for one when I run into someone I agree with/disagree with strongly will go to their profile. I'll then see comments that I think should be up or downvoated appropriately, and do so. I'll only do it in the context of the conversation (not just mass up/downvoats), but still, I'm doing it in the spirit of the system.

I do think that some of the verses are moving into the "clearly breaking site rules" category, and hope the admins take action. And I can think of a few implementations that would help curb abuses from other sites:check referral tags, if users are coming to a specific thread from another site, and up/downvoting en masse, that should be fairly easy to detect and take action on.

Sorry, this got long.

Tl;dr: Situation is bad, yes. But sometimes bad action is worse than no action, not sure if banning would actually accomplish what is needed in stated form.

0
1

[–] CptCmdrAwesome [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Great comment, I'm not sure about the effect of banning but hopefully someone does.

Thanks for fleshing out some of the potential terminology and actual rules, this is exactly what I was looking for.

1
1

[–] Scandinavian [M] 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

We refer to the Charter:

3.1 We believe open or tacit coordination to censor opponents through brigading defeats our purpose.

We also note that admins cited yesterday that they were just going by policy. Likewise, there's no policy against downvoating and thus, users downvoating aren't breaking Voat TOS.

That being said, this sub strongly discourages brigading and we strongly discourage people from becoming what they are fighting. It should also be said that we have crafted 3.3 in the Charter with contingencies in mind:

We stand against drama for drama's sake; instead we seek reconciliation and restoration of Voat's free exchange of ideas whenever possible and we act with hostility only as a response, not as an initiation.

1
0

[–] CptCmdrAwesome [S] 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

ALL HAIL GLORIOUS CHARTER!

(in all seriousness, it is fine work)

What do you think about having this as a hard rule which is enforced?

0
2

[–] Scandinavian 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Edit: We did ban a direct call for brigading. The decision is open to debate here in the sub, feel free to join.

About SJWs: They will accuse you of wrongdoing from now until you submit entirely to their ideology, believe me. Appeasement isn't a viable way forward.

However: this community belongs to the users. We're only janitors.