You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

3
12

[–] 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.).

0
14

[–] 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.

1
1

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

No it is true, so many users have turned 180s and I'm just a casual observer. Users are volatile and are always a risk.

0
0

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

Trusted Bots? Mod-Bots? I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

5
13

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

A team of trusted community members, surely

ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT, are you fucking high?

4
11

[–] ForgotMyName 4 points 11 points (+15|-4) ago 

A team of trusted community members, surely

Let's call them "mods". Let's collude with them to influence the content on the site. Let's call ourselves "reddit."

0
0

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

Agreed.

0
6

[–] 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.

0
8

[–] 10246781? 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I'm just trying to propose a method that never restricts anyone unless they are actually a spammer. Restricting them after spam reports have been confirmed seems the most reasonable to me.

0
4

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

And if the reports come from throwaway/alt accounts, what's the real punishment for the brigaders?

0
2

[–] 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".

0
0

[–] 10263208? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

There are ups and downs with this system. Bots could game it and non spam could be hidden