[–] heygeorge 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

At some point the adaptation should no longer be considered a violation, and that is where the boundaries should be set and publicly stated.

This goal may be unattainable. It merits thought (obviously the point of your post), but I don’t immediately see how publicly the line in the sand can be drawn without providing an immediate roadmap to abuse.

let users know they can vote on what they find in the wild, but not what they find via histories.

When Voat is slow (and sometimes when it is not), browsing through a user’s history is a worthy endeavor. I am a bit of a serial upvoter. Would I then be flagged and banned for this? Sometimes I will go through a farming commercial spammer’s history and downvote them as well. Should this behavior be bannable?

[–] PeaceSeeker [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

This goal may be unattainable. It merits thought (obviously the point of your post), but I don’t immediately see how publicly the line in the sand can be drawn without providing an immediate roadmap to abuse.

I mentioned how in many cases it may be impossible to properly distinguish between organic and inorganic voting (thus the recent controversy). It may therefore be necessary to rely on information about how users came to that thread, which may or may not involve items such as pinging and the viewing of comment histories immediately prior to voting.

I am a bit of a serial upvoter. Would I then be flagged and banned for this? Sometimes I will go through a farming commercial spammer’s history and downvote them as well. Should this behavior be bannable?

I've asked these same questions with respect to /u/Mumbleberry, who also serially downvotes the histories of spammers. Putt acknowledged that this behaviour could before the ban reversals be picked up by the metrics -- /u/Mumbeberry received a vote manipulation warning for this reason.

It seems it will be a matter of either forbidding all history-voting or permitting all history voting. I don't see how an in between can be accomplished without issues like last time arising.

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

It seems it will be a matter of either forbidding all history-voting or permitting all history voting.

Voat is and should be more complex than that. Arbitrary rules for the sake of... what sake? Avoiding subjectivity in van scripts? Maybe the answer to bans (and especially at Voat’s current scale) is better served by human review.

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

How about this idea: a limitation where user A can't downvoat user B more than X times. After X times, for each downvoat given from A to B, A must also upvoat another post by B. This is just a working idea: I encourage you to build on it.

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

viewing of comment histories immediately prior to voting

I'm quite confident that this metric is already in place. It wouldn't be very difficult though, if it isn't.

I may or may not write up a more detailed response regarding spam/pings/manipulation -- not firing on all cylinders at the moment.

@Crensch

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

Sometimes I will go through a farming commercial spammer’s history and downvote them as well.

People used to make a big deal of my downvoat count here on @Disappointed but this is exactly what I used to do. When Amalek was spamming death threats against the admins, I did the same thing. Then you would have retards from SDBH post (and ironically upvote brigade) threads to PV pointing out the mods upvote/downvote ratio and proudly pointing to their own where it was obvious they weren't doing their part in downvoting spammers and corporate shills. I used to read v/reportspammers and go to town on the shills there for hours at a time. Thats not really necessary now but at one point it was. I admit I also threw a lot of votes on @she at the time when there were no voting restrictions, but I don't think I'm alone there.

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

This submission was linked from this v/ProtectVoat comment by @Dismember.

Posted automatically (#47008) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here. (@PeaceSeeker: Click here to suppress your crosslink notifications from @Dismember)

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

Are votes that follow user pings to be considered manipulation? This is something that should be discussed, and stated if so.

I don't think that should be considered manipulation. I often ping other users into research submissions on v/pizzagate , or Pizzagate related content on v/news they might be interested in, and it would be terrible if their upvoats or downvoats wouldn't count, only because I pinged them.

A feature like this could also be exploited. Let's say a shill makes a controversial post, and then pings all people who they think might downvoat the post. This way, they wouldn't be able to downvoat the post anymore.

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

A feature like this could also be exploited. Let's say a shill makes a controversial post, and then pings all people who they think might downvoat the post. This way, they wouldn't be able to downvoat the post anymore.

That's another good point. It's probably best to just not take pings into account, especially since users can organize off-site anyway.

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

It's probably best to just not take pings into account, especially since users can organize off-site anyway.

Agree.

[–] MrPim 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

The only suggestion I can give is to have as a requirement the visiting of a comment history before considering apparent "brigading" as manipulation. That way users know to not user comment histories as ways of deciding what to vote on; let users know they can vote on what they find in the wild, but not what they find via histories.

Users comment histories can be made private. There is really no need for anyones comment history to be publicly accessible and getting rid of it would eliminate the issue entirely.

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

Users comment histories can be made private.

No they can't, unless you delete all your comments. Or are you suggesting this as a workaround? An interesting idea, but there is also value to being able to see histories, and taking that away would almost be a reddit-like action in the opposite direction of transparency.

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

The comment history tab in my profile? It doesnt need to be there. And I can see no value in my being able to go through yours.

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

If rules are not clearly stated in the User Agreement, then it is not right or fair to ban users/accounts for violating them. Users/accounts that have been banned for violating these rules, prior to the inclusion of these rules in the User Agreement, should be unbanned, immediately.

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

They are in the User Agreement, except for Vote Manipulation, but Putt made a formal announcement two years ago declaring that vote manipulation was bannable. It's not that the rules aren't rules, it's that the rules aren't clear in all cases, when when grey areas emerge people complain.

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

The most obvious cases of vote manipulation around are all the loli subverses. They're constantly swamped with DV no matter what's posted and by who. Clearly the people involved are entirely uninterested in the topic, yet they keep coming back to vote it all down. You know what I did when Q kept shitting up my front page? I blocked them. I didn't keep the sub up so I can browse v/New and vote everything they post down.

A reasonable first line is that you should vote up something in the sub you're in. Ideally vote up as much as you do down. If you hate most or all of the content a sub puts out, shouldn't you just block it? You're clearly not the demographic.

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

[–] Maggotbait88 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

I agree. If you consistently downvote 90% or more of a subs posts that should be considered vote manipulation.

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

Of course you agree with yourself, pedo

[–] jkshdfka78938 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

sigh.... I really need copy this down

My milestone idea, a user hits 10 cannot be downvoated further (if spam nip them, but usually they get called out so fucking fast) then next would 100 cant get downvoated below that then 1000, etc you get my point.

Make user comment history an option to show just like subbed verses. I know they can still use searchvoat I know but it would be a pain in the ass to do. or having a "friend" featuer so people you befriend can view it.

And option (to which is possible) is as much a I like @searchvoatbot give a user an option to exclude him from crawling you

the 7 day rule is fine.

I was also thinking on a cooldown period one user couldnt down anther after a certain amount. again dont know if that possible either. I know it doesnt stop alt armies etc but it would help

Or just add transparency to downvoats, so voat in a whole an see who is doing it

I really dont care about upvote, but i suppose the same applies

IDK, this isnt layed out the best.... But it nothing I havent said before

I have more shit, but im getting of typing.

-dial_indicator

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

Thanks for participating in the discussion and not sperging out.

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

</mobilize>

load more comments ▼ (1 remaining)