You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
6

[–] Crensch 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago  (edited ago)

My other response works for most of this, so let's continue most of it there. The only thing I'll say here is:

If content isn't being spammed then refute their points, or downvote and move on.

How many downvotes will be needed when it's found that Shareblue can't be fettered by the users? Having to downvote the same user in every political submission will really put a damper on use of this site.

People are going to either stop, or write a bot to do so for them, so they don't have to do it themselves.

I'm interested in who these supposed legitimate users are that are limited from posting. I'd love to see their comment history.

0
6

[–] guinness2 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Having to downvote the same user in every political submission will really put a damper on use of this site.

Also, Putt said he will ban anyone for brigading... which leaves us defenseless.

4
-2

[–] 10248641? 4 points -2 points (+2|-4) ago 

How many downvotes will be needed when it's found that Shareblue can't be fettered by the users?

But they can be. It takes four or five downvotes to collapse a comment out of view.

I'm interested in who these supposed legitimate users are that are limited from posting. I'd love to see their comment history.

I've encountered many, p0ssum the only notable one whose name I can remember. Most of them are either trolls or affiliated with ShareBlue, but there are much younger and unseen accounts who get downvoted immediately after joining because they said something negative about Trump or criticized conservatives, and thus begin their time at Voat with 10 comments a day. It is an imperfect system and some of the suggestions in this thread can achieve the same restrictions without imposing restrictions on possibly innocent users.

1
3

[–] Crensch 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

https://voat.co/v/politics/2077171/10244761

"I love it when boys make things easy on me"

https://voat.co/v/politics/2075320/10236120

LOL

https://voat.co/v/politics/2075320/10236120

LO fucking L, dumb and dumberer

https://voat.co/v/whatever/2067583/10202192

Is this like a fan fiction sub?

In /v/whatever.

https://voat.co/v/whatever/955632/4790208

No, she(Hillary) didn't do anything illegal ... there's a difference.

there are much younger and unseen accounts who get downvoted immediately after joining because they said something negative about Trump or criticized conservatives, and thus begin their time at Voat with 10 comments a day.

There's a concept on the chans where people that have not been there long are told to "lurk moar".

"Lurk Moar" is a phrase used by image board and forums posters alike to inform other users they need to post less and study the community before posting again. Our "lurk moar" is those 10 comments per day.

The user has demonstrated their ignorance of the customs and social expectations of this community, or otherwise makes an idiot of themselves online.

It is an imperfect system and some of the suggestions in this thread can achieve the same restrictions without imposing restrictions on possibly innocent users.

Are we to inconvenience long-time users with having to do more, or be entirely unable, to keep their website clean, or are we to inconvenience new "users" that won't even take the time to understand the culture of the website they're joining?