0
1

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

The success of real world communities derives ultimately from reputation, and reputation-enhanced speech. The advice given by the wise is awarded greater reverence and prominence, than that of an angsty troublemaker. The converse of this, in the reputation-free internet, is vitriol and lowest-common-denominator mob rule. We believe that in order to effectively build online communities, and foster constructive discussion, we need digital reputations as well, and reputation-enhanced online speech.

Sounds like a power users wet dream.

Constructive discussion keeps the world spinning. Both the spreading of verified knowledge, as well as the discussion and synthesis of new ideas. Announcing to the world that you love Vanilla, is a very safe and popular thing to say. But there has to be more to life than simply discussing how awesome Vanilla is.

I'm all for calling out information that is provably wrong but this seems like it will be used to cut out ideas that they don't agree with because they can't/haven't been proven yet. I understand that allows a lot of ridiculous ideas but that would be what voting is for. Also, them framing this against inane drivel like "vanilla is great" just reeks of superiority and sets of my tinfoil hat.

In our increasingly anonymous online world, communities still matter as much as ever.

Is this a joke? Our world has been de-anonymized to an alarming rate.

Systems work best when people are allowed to self-organize into communities. Communities that have their own distinct principles, personalities, values and reputations. Communities composed of regulars, who embody the character of the community itself. Communities that are free to welcome outsiders who are a good cultural fit, and safeguard themselves against outsiders who are not. Communities that socially compete with one another, in order to provide its members with the best experience. And out of this competition, the greatest benefit for individuals: The freedom to pick and choose a community that best reflects her values and needs.

This sounds like the echo chambers they said they didn't like in the first "Why Caucus" portion. I mean, spam and brigading are shit but "Communities that are free to welcome outsiders who are a good cultural fit, and safeguard themselves against outsiders who are not." sounds like people will be banned because they aren't a good "cultural fit", whatever that means.

I feel like I could be a tad over critical but this just sounds like Reddit 2.0. All the things the mods wanted back in the black out and reddit didn't deliver way back.

Fair Airtime

Some people post every thought that comes into their head, and others are more deliberate about posting things that are well thought out. Some people have an opinion on everything, and others only vote on things that they feel strongly about. We account for such posting/voting patterns to ensure that every person gets a fair voice in the community.

AKA vote manipulation

Merit Based Scoring

Some content may have accumulated more votes simply because it was posted at a better time, and thus, seen by more people. We normalize for such biases and ensure that every content is judged fairly on its own merit.

More vote manipulation

Community Specific Reputation

A person's reputation is specific to each community. Together with reputation-enhanced-speech, this ensures that communities can retain their own unique culture, and not be deluged by outsiders.

Power users getting contained to individual communities is an interesting approach.

I don't know, this sets of a lot of alarms. At this point I want Voat with enforced anonymity across all users. You should have no reputation. The only thing that should matter is the value of the post. In my mind that's the only way to get frank and honest discussion.

0
0

[–] fieryaries44 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I dunno I'd be willing to give it a shot, see what it's all about. I mean if it turns out to be unsavory you can always just stop going to the site