You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
3

[–] 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.

0
1

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

Maybe the answer to bans (and especially at Voat’s current scale) is better served by human review.

Even the metrics that caused all those vote manipulation bans had the ones banned individually reviewed before they were banned. If the person doing the voting doesn't know what behaviour is acceptable, how will the one doing the review?

The limits should at least be more clearly defined than they are. I don't think addressing the area from which people downvote is unreasonable, given that "inorganic voting" by individuals is as much a concern as voting with alts.

1
0

[–] 19101313? 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Maybe the answer to bans (and especially at Voat’s current scale) is better served by human review.

Human review requires human resources. Human resources require growth. Growth requires users do not intentionally silence other users to run them off the platform, as we have witnessed for years.

I feel like I'm living in clown world when everyone else seems to think it's a great idea to run people away from the community while at the same time demanding features which require those very same users stop running people off the community.