You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] NeedleStack 4 points 18 points (+22|-4) ago 

  1. Commenting restrictions on negative CCP accounts that aren't spamming their comments

Definitely remove such restrictions. Unpopular opinions deserve as much say as the others.


[–] PuttItOut [S] 1 points 20 points (+21|-1) ago 

Agree, we need to eliminate or modernize.

The particular problem with this one is that roughly 75% of heavily down voted accounts are uncharacteristically hostile and imo are purposefully seeking this response. The other segment is the side that is hurt by these restrictions.


[–] logos_ethos 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

Some of those hostile accounts act like community stalkers or people who use Voat to practice their 17 techniques for truth suppression or other things. They are technically not spammers, but their posts share the same lack for mutual dialog and share the same irritation as spam. I do not think such accounts should share the same unrestricted access as honest community users, and the current negative post limit addresses that. If these accounts become more active, then I can see myself and others become less interested in spending time on Voat. That is what they want.


[–] NeedleStack 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

Hah, you are reminding me of the case of my darling friend JohnCStevenson (whose sole purpose is to antagonize/troll voat with Shareblue tactics).


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

have negative CCP exist with a timed expiry.

As in, after n hours CCP reverts to the previous 24 hour period.
This prevents long term effects of one off pitchfork emporium sales events, but also permits an auto control on accounts that consistently gain negative CCP on purpose.

If an account gets 3 consecutive resets of negative CCP they enter into a 7 day expiry cycle. After 3 consecutive 7 day resets they account enters a 30 day reset envelope,

This can still be abused of course and mechanisms need to be conceived to prevent that, but the overall goal is to not have "trusted" users become the arbiters of what this community is and is not.
What it also might do is encourage the less civil users to find other means of communicating what they care about that don't involve hostility to the participating users.

The recent 'botting' events and other things I encounter daily show a clear need for the types of reforms you're proposing, but something I'm very weary of is assigning any kind of authority to subsets of users.
Reddit has shown, consistently, the enabling of cabal user groups is the first step to removing free speech of the community.

Almost all the tasks involved in stopping spammers and abusive users can be designed into automatic responses as a software tool, including remediation and reconciliation for when it goes wrong.


[–] JohnCStevenson 13 points -12 points (+1|-13) ago  (edited ago)

Yes, you would be hostile too if people kept calling you a k * * e, f * * * ot, and so forth. The people on Voat have slandered my good name, and you have the nerve to act as if people such as myself are at fault? You remind me of the people that claim that both the neo-Nazis and the counter-protestors at Charlottesville were equally bad; it's classic victim-blaming.

But sure, go ahead and act as if people like me are at fault. I will be glad once these restrictions are removed, so that I can freely inform Voat of Donald Trump's misdeeds and upming impeachment.


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

This comment might be where he got the idea that you support him.