You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

5
34

[–] you-are-me 5 points 34 points (+39|-5) ago  (edited ago)

maybe the definition of brigading Voat's using is too general?

Exactly this.

Using a "commonly understood" but ill defined term to govern is the bane of all free peoples of earth.

Everyone understands what "brigading" means, of course! But, they each have their own definition of what that means in their head.

@puttitout should list specific examples of activities that will count as "vote manipulation" and "brigading" prior to sighting down the barrel of a gun as a "new sheriff in town". Otherwise, we risk a less extreme, but more dangerous version of SaneGoatiSwear cancer.

People will get pissed, say, "Awe come the fuck on, you let that other asshole get away with X and you ban me"? Then they'll lash out against new rules they feel are unfair, purposefully breaking them this time, reinforcing your flawed belief that they were trolls in the first place. Others will take sides and contribute. Troll-spiral is a hell of a drug.

I support putt's actions thus far, proven smart as fuck for not pulling a SaneGoat and sperging out, banning all the minor bullshit no one has a right to be "pissed off" about. We're not guilty of shit, I'm not buying that. You don't label a lawless town "guilty" because people had to defend themselves when there was no sheriff. It's a shitty place to be, but that's just the way it is.

Vigilante justice can be just IRL even if the "law" gets broken to do it. If the Sheriff wants to prevent that then fix this shit:

  1. No well defined explicit rules to break in the first place.
  2. The place became the wild wild west w/o a Sheriff.

For example, and I keep coming back to this, because it's topical and obvious, not because I give a damn: If your moral convictions keep you from demodding or banning the shit out of a troll like SaneGoatiSwear, when there's ample evidence of modabuse, then you have absolutely zero right to get "pissed off" when other people resort to whatever minor means they have available and combat the fuckery, because admins let it continue, and appointed the trouble making reeeeeetard in the first place.

For the sake of argument let's say you pissed off SaneGoat and they went through and downvoated your entire comment history without reading them (hey, if the comments were actually read, then I wouldn't take issue look at the size of this bitch, amirite?) That shit's been going on and it seems like it's not ending soon. So, you create an alt and upvoat your own comment history, a single time on each comment. Is that vote manipulation? Or is that vote correction? Is it a bannable offense?

Is there grievance process to follow so that your extensive staff can handle each little foible prior to the users taking any retaliatory action of their own. Or, is it better to not need that staff, or very strict rules, and let goats handle their biznazz, while your limited staff only handles exceptional cases? Because if you've agreed to the latter, then we're not guilty, we're just on board with your program. Only the exceptional cases are worth being "pissed off" about.

What if you raise awareness about some obvious asshattery going on and that creates public consensus that a user is a shithead and lots of people organically downvoat them. Is that brigading? Calling a town meeting is not illegal even in towns where there are sheriffs, see. And you might not know this, but in the USA citizens can call a Grand Jury all on their own, without using any of the court system, and hold a trial, and carry out sentencing, all without the government getting involved. We don't because there are dedicated courts IRL, but in a strange frontier cyberland, you might want to re-think your conception of what "brigading" means, because there are no courts here.

Besides that, the community doesn't belong to you putt. Without us you are nothing. You may be maintainer, and operator, and for that we're grateful, but the community belongs to us, we created a lot of it somewhere else and took care to bring it here, and we'll take it with us if we leave. So, if the community says, "The gods have forsaken us! Our prayers go unanswered! We must do something ourselves", then that's actually our right to do that. The role of such a cybergod is to respond to the will of the volk, bringing righteous lightning from on high if the people cry out and the need is great enough to summon you. You can be a vengeful god and lay the smack down however you want, or an indifferent god who ignores the community's wishes, but in those cases that just means people will say, "Bad Deity, No Universe," and stop believing in you.

Not adopting "we're all guilty". That's projection. Personally, I think: Talk is cheap, let's see some action. Till then, I don't give a flying fuck if there are over nine thousand Sheriffs in town.

TL;DR: Fuck the police. There are no clearly defined rules to follow. Come at me bro. If we must break the rules to define them, so be it.

1
4

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

Well putt. The no clear definition is definitely going to cause problems so hopefully Putt putts some objective easy to classify definitions of what constitutes voat manipulation and brigading. While I trust his judgement, I would prefer there are no grey areas for bad actors to lurk in.

2
3

[–] you-are-me 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago  (edited ago)

My primary concern is likewise, however, I realize it doesn't matter much about the rules so long as the dictator doesn't sperg out.

It is sometimes observed by historians that the best form of rule is via truly benevolent dictator... Unfortunately time exists and so benevolence may not be permanent, and offspring may be dipshits.

I would merely like to see the case presented to the public that those banned knew they could get banned for their actions before hand, and evidence of crime commited. I'm willing to wait until voat has grown larger and more profitable before I expect such things as a matter of course, because I trust putt. I may not trust those he delegates authority to later, if the sanegoat fiasco is anything to go by, we know mistakes can be made (and accounts can be bought, so it may be less about putt's decision making that it appears). Planting the seed of this philosophy is essential now.

Mission successful. You don't have to be a shill to have an agenda. In fact, if you don't have an agenda yet, I can sell you mine for the low low cost of 1 Internet point.

[–] [deleted] 4 points 3 points (+7|-4) ago 

[Deleted]

3
3

[–] you-are-me 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Scott free, so long as not pissing admin off, I'd wager.

Only thing we could possibly do would be to.... well, I better not say. Something something Turks.

1
0

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

^This. How can we apply the strictest punishment on the site without clear rules. This actually what happened under Stalin. I'm sure putt didn't mean to produce conditions like Stalism but through good intentions comes tyrany.

It doesn't help that in the past this act was considered virtuous. Amaleks, medical blogs, sanegoatiswears, shills. The hope was that if each user can knock out 1/100th their score and there is uniform consensus that they are abusing the system that we can put a limit on them, if and only if everyone agrees.

What hasn't worked is bots and CCP farming. I would even suggest that with these rules there is no point to CCP. Even among medical spammers, the most hated, their disliked links get -2 at most, and their positive get 20 or 50. Blatantly bad content will always prosper. Then we will have to pursue anti-spam other ways which is subject to mod abuse.

I've said this for a long time. Downvote ration. It solves all your problems. @PuttItOut Max 20 downvotes in a day. Right now it's 1800 (one every 2 seconds). Change it to 20 and you're gold.

My wisdom on this has been before its time many times. Bots, archived, /new trolling to force a conservative opinion which happened before you were in. All of them would have been solved with downvote rationing before the issue came into play.

Edit: If I were you, just because I'm obsessed with "smooth solutions" I would look into upvote and downvote rationing proportional to the log2 or sqrt of their score. Really sqrt(score/c) where c is some constant. 10.

1
0

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

I like your lawless western theme. Over at /v/pizzagate we have specialty CTR bots too, so it is more like Westworld, but a lot less pretty.

2
0

[–] you-are-me 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago  (edited ago)

My theme has a bit more subtlety than that. It is a proven methodology discovered in the BBS era which ultimately serves to preserve and protect online communities by illustrating how lawlessness was handled by the pros who built the nation that produced this lawless cyberspace in the first place. The subversive agenda is carried out in hopes that voat may also persevere in the face of great adversity from competing enemies and hostile native savages.

In the real world there are more than just shills pushing ideologies. There are also patriots who band together to defend our valued volk.