You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
8

[–] chags 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Look at my commentary, look at the sudden surge of downvotes and upvotes on people we know are trolling (and admit to it in quotated text). We not only need a discussion about this, we need some functional way to fight against it, to actively ban people doing this.

If you accept some constructive criticism, it looks to me that you're too much banhammer happy. People will downvote in disagreement. It sucks, but they will. Also, you're not even considering that people downvoting could be regular Joe users like myself, that are not concerned about all this drama and just want it to stop. I didn't downvote any comment or post in this sub, but some people are not so careful with downvotes.

Edit: markdown

Edit again. Changed are to could be, when I put the possibility of spontaneous downvotes by common users.

5
-3

[–] Fact_Checking_Alien 5 points -3 points (+2|-5) ago  (edited ago)

I haven't actually banned anyone. These are actions that would require administration level tools and investigation. In my history moderating here, and brief stints elsewhere on the internet, know how many posts I've removed? One. In many, many years, and that one was here on Voat in the span of a month.

The "banhammer happy" thing is that admins should have the tools to do this, and leave nothing to doubt. Obviously, moderators don't have the ability to easily do this, and so for me moderating is very much a hands off thing. Just because I advocate for strong regulations doesn't mean I'm a Nazi.

0
0

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

Sorry then, I understood that banning was something you were willing to do, if you had the chance to identify who upvoted/downvoted the one identified by you as a troll. I kinda got your point, but then there's the possibility of banning by misjudgment. Sorry for the "banhammer happy", offense was not intend.