1
107

[–] unfair 1 point 107 points (+108|-1) ago 

Yupp this is a great change - the only future flaw I see is that there needs to be a limit on how much negative CCP you can get from a specific post. Right now it isn't an issue because of the 100 CCP required to downvote, but once a broad group of people is over 100 then it becomes possible to brigade people into the negatives and they'll have a real hard time coming back from that.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 47 points (+47|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
56

[–] Atko [S] 0 points 56 points (+56|-0) ago 

The expiration limit sounds like a good idea. 1 week? If a thing is older than 1 week, we could lock voting on it. I'll add it to TODO list.

0
11

[–] Vvswiftvv17 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

This! I got so annoyed when reddit users would go through my history and down vote all my comments because I disagreed with them in a thread. That's abusing the system.

0
1

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

I sometimes wonder about the time threshold for voting on submissions. I personally like to go through old stuff and I see a lot of submissions and comments that I would like to upvote but can't due to being archived.

1
9

[–] Atko [S] 1 point 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

This is why we're still allowing people to post even if they have a lot of negative CCP. In this test version, "shunned" people can still submit 5 comments per day and 1 link or discussion per day. Nobody can take that away from you, regardless of how controversial or provoking things you submit are.

0
2

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

Which is akin to the "Slashdot" Karma approach.

1
0

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

Nobody can take it from you? What a crock of shit! I've been bombarded with accusations and attacks simply for being new the last 48 hours. I mean utterly INUNDATED with "schill" comments and demands that I prove my statements. I cannot because you've got me forcibly cucked in a system that doesn't permit me to address comments I receive AND empowers brigading assholes to ensure I never get my ccp high enough to have unrestricted voting and commenting. You've made an easy target of me and to rub salt in the wound have ensured I'm hobbled to the point I cannot defend myself.

If your job was to make sure new view points were silenced if they don't agree with the hive mind, congratulations man. You fucking succeeded. Now get off your ass and look into my account. Either finish the job you started and ban me outright or give me some protection from these assholes who keep me from having an intelligent conversation. "Protecting" your site from spam by abusing your user base, even while your vetted users literally spam "schill" every post is NOT a viable solution. GOD DAMN.

0
0

[–] redpilldessert ago  (edited ago)

Perhaps have a meritocracy Google rank type system where the WEIGHT of votes towards others are based on how much credibility they have themselves. So someone with a high amount of CCP will be able to exert more influence on anything they vote on. The mathematics work out brilliant.

0
5

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

When downvoting, a person can only be downvoted to a certain negative numbered tier?

Like the first day he shit posts, he gets downvoted by a million people, but is only downvoted to -10. The next day if he tries that shit again, the tier recognizes that he was once previously at a -10 tier, so the million of people pushes him back down to -50, then the next infraction down to -100, then the next infraction after -100 is up to the actual number of downvoters, since he's had three strikes when it comes to douchnozzling?

0
3

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

That's what I'm concerned about too... censoring people might become easier if people have an army of bot accounts to use. The 100 CCP requirement does make it marginally harder though.

0
1

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

Yeah, make a 100 bots, they all make 1 comment which they all upvoat eachother in a massive cyber circle jerk, then bam, they can downvoat a person with 100 CCP per post.

3
30

[–] SpaceRosa 3 points 30 points (+33|-3) ago 

5 comments a day...Hmmm.

I don't know about this. I think if I were limited that way it would just put me completely off of using Voat. Then instead of having a reformed or pissed user, you have an empty space where they used to be. It also allows people to shout down unpopular opinions. Just downvote them enough, and they have all of 5 comments a day to make their case. And if their opinion stays unpopular, what do they do then? They roll over and agree with whatever's popular or they stay with 5 comments a day until the wind eventually changes and their opinion becomes popular again, or they just make another account, or they leave.

I see why this is being done, I think, based on your statement. Are you perhaps referencing-but-not-referencing a certain white supremacist who likes to post the same copy paste crap everywhere? That I could understand. It's just concerning to me that this could very easily be abused to support the circlejerk and shout down dissent, especially from new users. I wouldn't want to be the feminist joining this website right now with this in place.

1
19

[–] Atko [S] 1 point 19 points (+20|-1) ago 

To solve that, we could also add a subverse setting to turn this off, although subverses with this feature turned off should be hidden from /v/all.

0
9

[–] dragonsarefake 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I think this would be a good middle ground.

0
4

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

This feature may be seen as as a tool to limit free speech

Nah, speech-hogging is not free speech, it's anti-free speech. You have the right idea. :D

@SpaceRosa may be onto something but I have no idea where the line would fall. Only one way to find out...

Run with this and see if drama happens. Make adjustments later if needed. This is a great idea.

0
1

[–] w00dy 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

although i can see why it would be suggested in this case, nothing should ever be hidden from /v/all

0
0

[–] Nationalist ago 

That sounds like a really good idea.

There are a lot of features that should be sub-reddit specific but aren't yet.

0
5

[–] Get9 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Conversely, if people are downvoted to hell, is that not also censoring their words? Brigading in this sense seems to me almost exactly the same with one exception: I guess their words are still available to be read, but do you often go and read those hidden comments?

I'm not able to really propose an alternative to either, as I can see how both have their place, yet have drawbacks.

0
5

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

Yes. I always read the hidden comments.

0
0

[–] fightingbuddha ago 

•If a user has -50 CCP or less, they will only be able to post 5 comments

Not all users!

0
0

[–] SpaceRosa ago 

Explain.

0
18

[–] TwoTailedFox 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This is a fine feature for now, but this may become an issue in later years. As we've seen on Reddit, brigading happens, and users have been reduced to figures well into the negative through no fault other than a set of users who disagree with what that user has said.

I would advise that a petitioning system be implemented at a later date, and a provision for users to be exempted from this comment throttling if it can be demonstrated that, on appeal, their conduct falls within site rules.

0
12

[–] Wafflebutt 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Once there is significantly more traffic on the site, it probably won't be a problem to remove the rule altogether. I would think this has a lot to do with the ratios of crap vs real submissions.

1
4

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

More traffic means more attention from the corporate world. That means the inverse of your suggestion will happen.

1
1

[–] Nationalist 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

Filtering out 0 point submissions from subs becomes less of a problem when the sub gets popular and there's a ridiculous amount of highly upvoted content. Go into reddit /r/aww for example and the main page is all posts with over a few hundred points. Once Voat grows a bit this won't be such an issue.

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

[Deleted]

0
2

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

Except brigading is often performed by groups of users who have been part of that sub for a long time. That requirement down the line is functionally useless.

1
0

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

"Later years" has already come. If you disagree with people as a newbie now you're not getting out of the ccp hole Atko dug for us.

1
-1

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

That is a good idea, it involves a lot of people hours but still a good idea. Who would be the people to decide whether brigade get was happening? Will they be voted in or is it going to be cronyism and nepotism? It seem like this site has some really good ideas, lets not adopt anything to quickly. I would like to think there is a way for social Darwinism to take place without stifling new ideas.

2
17

[–] j_ 2 points 17 points (+19|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Isn’t the shitposting already contained by downvoting?

Take the hypothetical -300 CCP guy. He’s already getting downvoted, obviously. The majority of users won’t see his comments or posts because the first few “good” users to come across them do the job of filtering it out.

The whole purpose of a peer moderated site is to have users filter good and bad content. Rate-limiting like this is attempting to filter content before it is posted. I don’t like it.

0
13

[–] unfair 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

I think the main problem being addressed here is /v/all/new - downvoting doesn't have any impact on a posts rankings there and CommonSenseWarrior was taking advantage of this to repeatedly post racist content to a variety of subverses - some of which weren't even remotely relevant to what he posted, and many only tangentially. Once the block person button is implemented it will be easier to solve for yourself, but they'd still be able to spam everyone else.

1
7

[–] Atko [S] 1 point 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

You are 100% correct as to why this was implemented. This feature targets /v/all/new and the feature is a tool given to entire voat community. If you guys don't like something, you can now at least make it show up less often in /v/all/new without me having to do anything. Use the downvotes carefully I guess. We'll see how the test-run goes, I may remove this feature if majority is against it.

0
2

[–] j_ 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This doesn’t solve shitposting to /v/all/new — anyone can create a new account and shitpost to any subverse.

Blocking of users, blocking of subverses, and banning users from subverses will help. This doesn’t and is only open to abuse.

0
10

[–] Atko [S] 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Shitposting wasn't contained by downvoting because users with -300 CCP had full freedom to keep posting shit regardless of how many downvotes they got. This is a tool which you, the users, now have. If you don't want to shun people - don't downvote them.

1
14

[–] j_ 1 point 14 points (+15|-1) ago 

I didn’t ask for this tool and I don’t want it.

I want to be able to block a user if I personally consider his posts to be consistently shit.

I don’t want the software to silence a user based on votes, because I can disagree with the popular vote — just because a comment is negative, doesn’t mean that it is shit; and just because a comment is positive, doesn’t mean that it can’t be pure and utter shit to me.

0
2

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

Personally, I don't think any one user should be able to overwhelm the front page.

This problem will reemerge later with power users, all your current solution does is sweep the annoying people under the rug.

Is there any way to limit how many times a specific user can show up per page of /v/all? This ensures everyone "has their say" equally while limiting the annoying people.

0
3

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

The whole purpose of a peer moderated site is to have users filter good and bad content.

Except this can be abused. Shills, PR companies, and corporate interests can all manipulate the voting system.

0
2

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

And this throttling is based on the voting system, therefore...

0
0

[–] j_ ago 

Yes, vote manipulation is a problem… but that’s not what this feature is about.

1
9

[–] chags 1 point 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

About how I feel about it: I don't like it. I think it will bring a shitstorm of censorship accusations. I know where you came from, but I think the "block user" feature would bring better results with no side effects. This does not affect me and will clean my/v/all/new from a lot of shit, but I don't like it anyway.

0
5

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

I also would prefer if the block user function worked.

0
2

[–] Number-5 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I agree. I don't like this idea.

0
6

[–] higs87 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I literally just got here from that other site and this is the first thing I've read and I'm very very pleased to see it. Fantastic idea I hope it tests out well.

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

[Deleted]

1
2

[–] higs87 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Good intentions that got trodden all over.. There can be no progress without change

0
6

[–] dThinkahea 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Absolutely, let the community moderate itself.

0
6

[–] CantStopPooping 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I love this feature. I don't believe that it impinges on free speech in a negative way. It does discourage the trolls that are a blight on sites like this.

load more comments ▼ (62 remaining)