You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] KingoftheMolePeople 9 points 198 points (+207|-9) ago  (edited ago)

Remove restrictions from Negative accts. Put in place a Spam button. Once an account has X number of Spam button reports, acct restrictions go into effect. To prevent abuse, if the restrictions are refuted("I am not spamming"), upon investigation, anyone found to be abusing the Spam button faces consequences, from restrictions themselves to a full on site ban.


[–] PuttItOut [S] 0 points 83 points (+83|-0) ago 

We should discuss this option in detail.


[–] KosherHiveKicker 0 points 45 points (+45|-0) ago 

Put in place a Spam button. Once an account has X number of Spam button reports, acct restrictions go into effect

Such an option could easily be exploited by people known to have multiple alt / burner accounts, which could be used to easily hit "the X number of Spam button reports"


[–] MagicalCentaurBeans 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago 

i suspect the cracks will show when whomever is tasked with investigating is swamped with "i didn't do it" refutes.


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

Its a totally spur of the moment idea. There are certainly things I havent considered and problems Ive overlooked.


[–] Liber 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Have a site wide ‘potential spammer’ flair for people who have been reported for spam more than x times. Upon evaluation you could remove this flair if the user is victim of report button abuse.


[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 0 points 37 points (+37|-0) ago 

Sounds like a big workload for the admins. And if users are placed into these positions, they can become like Reddit powerusers.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 



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

it doesn't have to be work for Admins. There could be a volunteer subvoat section where people could review cases.


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

Either way it takes a lot of "eyes" to make something like this happen. Maybe there can be a formula to judging content that can make it easier. For instance, comments that are primarily emotional in nature have less inherent value than objective statements.


[–] blipblipbeep 0 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago 

If this becomes a thing, there should be a record of who pressed the spam button.



[–] KingoftheMolePeople 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

a public log would be pretty cool. I think that alone would help squash abuse.


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

Seems like a double edged sword.


[–] 10246632? 3 points 12 points (+15|-3) ago 

I have suggested this in the past, and I think it is close to the best solution. However, as you've identified, people can abuse the button, meaning innocent people can very easily be shut down if ten or so people cooperate to "report them for spam". Notice how you've said "if the restrictions are refuted" -- well who refutes them? A team of trusted community members, surely -- Putt can't do it himself. Well, if we're going to have a team on Voat dedicated to flagging spam reports as real or not (we have this already, by he way, with /v/ReportSpammers, and they do fantastically) then we might as well alter their approach. Instead of applying restrictions after X number of reports, apply restrictions after the "refutation team" has flagged the report as legitimate spam. That way no innocent account will be wrongly restricted (unless the refutation team messes up, but they will be accountable for that, it will be easier to keep track of, and historically they've been good at not messing up as far as I can tell.).


[–] heygeorge 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

The problem with "trusted users" is that every trusted/prolific user here becomes subject to FUD attacks.


[–] 9347723491 5 points 13 points (+18|-5) ago 

A team of trusted community members, surely

ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT, are you fucking high?


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

Notice how you've said "if the restrictions are refuted" -- well who refutes them?

What I meant was that if I get tagged as spam, I refute that I am spamming. The team then needs to verify what is true. But other than that yeah.

My idea just shifted the work from being done pre restrictions (as now) to post restrictions. Now, the Reportspammers look and verify and ban the spammer, mine is verified after auto restrictions.


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

We can avoid "trusted users" by creating a spam button, that can only be used X number of times in a period, and this period could increase or decrease based on a number of factors. When a post is marked spam, it could be minimized for a specified period, and it's spam button indicate the community has marked it as spam, possibly allow you to "unspam".