73
805

[–] EIMR 73 points 805 points (+878|-73) ago  (edited ago)

I don't like this. This stopped new groups from brigading and taught that downvoting is important, not to be used indiscriminately as a disagree button. I don't see anything good coming from this.

EDIT: @Atko , what will happen with subverses that decide to continue having the CCP Requirement? Will they still be out of v/All?

8
106

[–] 12_Years_A_Toucan 8 points 106 points (+114|-8) ago 

They are working on a better system https://voat.co/v/voatdev/comments/413243

9
200

[–] CowWithBeef 9 points 200 points (+209|-9) ago 

I would prefer if the new system was already in place before abandoning the old system. At least I got the joy of earning my first downvote.

4
63

[–] Aaragon 4 points 63 points (+67|-4) ago 

It's at least reassuring to know that when they say they're working on a plan, they actually mean it.

While I don't like the change right now, I have faith that they will make things right.

2
7

[–] eneerg 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

people are so fucking stupid. this is simple. just create an upvoat button and get rid of the downvoat button. it will help people focus on what they WANT instead of making them focus on what they don't want. complaining is always easier than doing something about it. an upvoat says you are shaping voat to become what you want it to become. a downvoat merely means that you're complaining about something that bothers you. but if that bothersome thing is removed, you STILL have nothing if you don't say what you actually WANT.

plus we all know the brigading has started with the downvoat button. we see it all the time on reddit. and we act like it won't happen on here. it's fucking idiocy. if you want to give people a downvoat button, make them EARN IT by contributing heavily to the site. and limit the amount of downvoats they get to ONE per day.

0
1

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

It's almost as though unlimited registrations are a constant source of problems, and make eliminating brigading and shilling almost impossible.

If it were an actual invite system, then a system could easily be developed to eliminate whole groups of shills and brigades all at once, as the invites will link them together.

9
76

[–] Aaragon 9 points 76 points (+85|-9) ago 

Yea, the only good part is you can see how volatile the user is on their profile, meaning their downgoats are viewable by all.

Still it's a shame. I feel like the quality of this site, and discussions are going to go down quite a bit.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 46 points (+46|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
13

[–] fancypantsmanface 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

But now people will see how much you downvoat amalek without context!!! =(

0
1

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

And even downvoats aren't enough to get a good idea of how the user voats. For example, I've made quite a few downvoats, but at least 90% of those were for downvoating spammers and trolls.

0
12

[–] Atko [S] 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Multiple subverses had "please upvote me" threads where their members were able to gain 300+ CCP in matter of hours. At the same time, regular users would need MONTHS to reach this level. Don't you see a problem with that?

All subs with minimum CCP requirement will not show up in /v/all. Homer explained it well here.

1
3

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

Sure, that's a problem. The proper solution is to ban subs and users who manipulate votes, not abolish the system.

We don't make murder legal just because a small number of people violate the laws against murder. We punish the violators. You should do likewise here.

0
2

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

I do see a problem with vote manipulation, however, nowadays obtaining CCP is extremely easy. My parent comment has like 130 points at the moment. And if that is 100 CCP is too much, the quantity could be reduced to 50.

And yes, I've read Homer's after my edit and I understand. My main concern is how to discover new subs with restrictions, as I(and possibly many) discover new subs by seeing their posts on All.

0
0

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

What about something like requiring someone to provide a brief explanation why in order to downvote something?

0
6

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

I still think we actually just need a separate "disagree" left/right-vote, that's displayed next to the vote but otherwise doesn't enter into any metrics. (Disagree|Agree[up]|Spam[down]) rather than (up|down). people want the effect of a disagree button, being visible number of dissatisfaction, and we should just concede that on our terms.

However, @EIMR is right and @Atko is making us more Reddit 2.0 and so less Voat.

0
5

[–] glimmandenymf 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I don't want a disagree button. When someone think I'm wrong about something I want them to point out why or make a counter argument. A simple -1 doesn't lead anywhere.

24
317

[–] Ralesblasband 24 points 317 points (+341|-24) ago 

Well, that's depressing. I really enjoyed the limited downvoting here.

12
148

[–] sqeak 12 points 148 points (+160|-12) ago 

It actually made me not afraid to post... Oh god I'm getting anxious now, please don't hate me.

6
18

[–] erowidtrance 6 points 18 points (+24|-6) ago  (edited ago)

They should get rid of downvotes entirely, at least for comments. It's just ripe for abuse from brigades and as you say discourages people from commenting. All you need is upvotes.

3
11

[–] Chupwn 3 points 11 points (+14|-3) ago 

Hey man, it's okay. Now everyone can downvote trolls like Amalek :)

2
46

[–] InMediaRes 2 points 46 points (+48|-2) ago 

But now the trolls like Amalek and his hundred alts can downvote everyone

0
5

[–] Nithhogr 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

That's one good thing, I've been here a while but hadn't gotten the ability to downvoat yet and I really just wanted like 5 or 10 a day to dole out to the spammers.

0
1

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

It really helped build up the sense of community. I see the problem this is trying to address, however we needed to add another criteria to solve it not less.

(oh god, I just advocated for regulations. ahhhhh)

0
0

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

I mean, you can still go to facebook if you want a system with only 'likes'

10
221

[–] Endymion 10 points 221 points (+231|-10) ago 

So all my hard work for 100 ccp was for nothing? :(

2
218

[–] Sylos 2 points 218 points (+220|-2) ago 

For the briefest of moments, you increased the quality of voat.

1
50

[–] Dryad 1 points 50 points (+51|-1) ago  (edited ago)

And now it's over. :(

Edit: to be clear, I was commenting about the lack of a restriction. I'm very much for the original method.

5
18

[–] IveSeenYouNakid 5 points 18 points (+23|-5) ago 

Molding your comments to get fake internet points, there's something wrong here.

0
0

[–] Pissed-Off-Panda 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

And now he's crap again.

0
0

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

Don't stop trying kids, it's for the greater good!

[–] [deleted] 1 points 24 points (+25|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
34

[–] Sosacms 0 points 34 points (+34|-0) ago 

You know what @flussence, if you want me to wear 200 pieces of flair, like your pretty boy there, @Endymion, why don't you just make the minimum 200 pieces of flair?

0
4

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

Need a good motivational song to keep going! Any recommendation? I can only think of Hearts on Fire video (Rocky montage).

0
5

[–] mcseanerson 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

All those gifs will make no sense to all the new people now.

0
3

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

You will always remember the struggle to get 100 meaningless points tho amirite

5
154

[–] solaceinrage 5 points 154 points (+159|-5) ago  (edited ago)

I kind of liked people having to actually contribute first instead of spending all day downvoting anything they disagreed with with zero input. Even if they were just playing along, for a short time they had to actually argue a point and present their case to get those in agreement to upvoat. I understand why it wasn't perfect since it was easy for fringe subs with enough members to circlejerk themselves to 100 in short order with throway comments like "hi lulz" but it still made for thousands of people digging deep to actually create and express themselves to reach 100, and now I worry that initial burst of output will equal less interesting comments and submissions.

11
20

[–] OneZero 11 points 20 points (+31|-11) ago 

All it did was provide an effective way for the majority to silence the minority. Posting just to get hivemind upvotes does not contribute anything of value to this site. Personally it did NOT make me want to "dig deep" to contribute. It just made me want to go back to Reddit where my account will not be crippled just because I post an unpopular opinion.

0
3

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

I don't get how this makes sense to be honest. On Reddit, the hivemind is way stronger than it is/was on Voat, you have to be much more careful about offending the hivemind. People on Voat didn't downvote nearly as much, because they knew they had to respect that it wasn't a disagree button. You had to use it sparingly, on posts that you felt truly deserved it.

I've probably only been downvoated a handful of times on Voat, maybe once below zero. On Reddit, it happens constantly, over the stupidest things too. It doesn't seem specific to me either, because the votes are visible here, we can all see how rarely people downvoted.

1
8

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

I was in a special club, but only briefly.

0
2

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

I think the zero input part is pretty essential. Make it so you have to comment on the post before downvoating? atleast give some input why you're doing it. Give s a chance to say something back or report if they're really out of line or something.

0
2

[–] jeegte12 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

easy for fringe subs with enough members to circlejerk themselves to 100 in short order with throway comments like "hi lulz"

That's mostly what was happening.

[–] [deleted] 26 points 124 points (+150|-26) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 1 points 58 points (+59|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

1
28

[–] Atherz097 1 points 28 points (+29|-1) ago 

Is exclusion from /v/all really as bad as implied? I doubt those with small subverses (like myself) would be affected.

13
41

[–] sweetholymosiah 13 points 41 points (+54|-13) ago 

Why? Downvoting is the soft censorship the voaters need! Mods should have less power, and the users should vote as they please to control the content.

14
71

[–] Vailx 14 points 71 points (+85|-14) ago  (edited ago)

No, downvoting is what YOU like. There are places where it's utter shit. Letting subverses opt out of downvotes is amazing and smart. Plenty of places have "downvote problems" where a few dedicated shits run around on sockpuppets and obliterate comms. Since the things are of niche interest (specific minor video game subreddits, etc.) these places end up totally crapped on, because the normal rate of upvoting doesn't cover the few metatrolls.

I think the ability to block downvotes in a subverse is a huge competitive advantage this place has over reddit. Some places have the mods as god emperors, and others have them as people pruning spam and crap, and the type of subverse determines which is appropriate.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 28 points (+31|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

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

It's a big problem on Reddit in debate subs (which Voat doesn't seem to be big enough to support yet sadly) because the side with more users downvotes the other side into oblivion. Even removing downvotes via CSS doesn't work, the same kind of asshole who downvotes people for participating in invited debate is the kind of asshole who will circumvent the CSS.

3
2

[–] LemonRose 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

I love this idea! If a subverse is properly moderated, there's really no need for downvotes. If someone spams, contact the mod.

0
2

[–] cfl1 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The reverse is more important. If the subverse has proper voters, there's no need for mods.

0
2

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

If a subverse is properly moderated, there's really no need for downvotes.

That really depends. Depending on your goal for the forum neither upvotes nor downvotes might be necessary, or they might both be. I have nothing against a subverse opting for a no downvote feature, but I would not like that to be the only option for subverses. Proper moderation cannot replace the message conveyed by downvotes of users and it is entirely possible that could be a message crucial to a forum's proper functioning.

0
0

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

Why? People say stupid shit and deserve downvoats.

0
99

[–] NSAOfficial 0 points 99 points (+99|-0) ago 

Not sure IP addresses are a good idea. Some of us use Tor, which has (IIRC) several IP addresses, and there's always a chance two or more people could get the same address at some time.

1
31

[–] Calorie-Kin 1 points 31 points (+32|-1) ago  (edited ago)

So much this. I think a better idea would be session IDs. They're non identifying and unique per visit. Something stored as a cookie or something. Link a username to a cookie, and check if said cookie is around when the user is logging as another account. This way, someone who tries to brigade or manipulate votes would have to delete their cookies each time, which makes it uncomfortable, and not as many people will go through the trouble.

1
14

[–] kactusotp 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago 

or use incognito/private browsing as an easy/quick work around.

A bigger problem will be uni compasses where thousands might get the same ip.

0
5

[–] Reow 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

It's not too hard to write a script to do this. You need something beyond a thing the user can manipulate (if they've done IP checking correctly, spoofing shouldn't work). The only real alternative is to monitor voting patterns (e.g. accounts that vote the same way at the same time, etc.).

0
1

[–] 7veils 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Self Destructing Cookies kills cookies immediately after leaving a web site.

0
1

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

Not a bad idea, but it is very simple to delete cookies. I don't think it would be very effective.

0
26

[–] Aaragon 0 points 26 points (+26|-0) ago 

Or multiple people in a coffee shop/household/university wifi.

I hope this doesn't get any random, innocent users in trouble.

0
18

[–] TahTahBur 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

Aka, multiple people in a big corporate building.

0
3

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

Hell, right now I'm at home, yet my IP changes every day because my ISP apparently assigns IPs dynamically. If there is another Voater who lives nearby, we can "block" each other's votes.

1
9

[–] MadCamel 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

Using IPs is a very bad idea.

What will happen when the UK's IWF or Russia's ROSKOMNADZOR considers a page on voat obscene? These systems implement page-by-page blocking by routing all traffic to any site with a censored page through proxies. The end result is that you start to get entire COUNTRIES of users coming from only 20 or so IP addresses.

Also, I don't see how it's possible to securely store IP addresses given the tiny amount of entropy in an ipv4 address. You'd have to use something really heavy like pbkdf2 with a few thousand rounds. At this point it would take the server a few seconds at 100% CPU load to encode a single IP address. I doubt this is being done. Therefore it's VERY safe to assume that a malicious actor with access to voat's database could pull IP addresses from it. And voat's databases are kept on cloud servers...

Don't get me wrong, it's not a huge problem. There are plenty of easier ways for a malicious actor to get users IP addresses. But I don't like that Atko is promising something he can't feasibly deliver...

0
3

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

Don't know about IWF but Russia's Roskomnadzor doesn't have nationwide proxies. It sends blacklists to ISPs, who then block websites themselves.

But IP-based voating restrictions are still a bad idea because of dynamic IPs, carrier-level NAT and other problems.

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

[Deleted]

0
7

[–] ChillyHellion 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

I agree with you. My fiancee and I are both on Voat and I'm pretty sure I'm using up her voats pretty much all the time.

1
2

[–] Pissed-Off-Panda 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

SEXIST! CONSTANT OPPRESSION!! triggered I declare this "Voat Rape"!

2
72

[–] Kleyno 2 points 72 points (+74|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Oh Amalek is just going to love this... now he'll never shut up with his spamming.

Edit: @Atko, in light of this change, I humbly request that you guys get the block user feature working pronto. If Amalek and the copy pasta spammers like him can't be stopped with Negative CCP or Submission limits, I want the option to just block their junk outright.

1
74

[–] Atko [S] 1 points 74 points (+75|-1) ago 

Ability to block individual users is definitely coming.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
6

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

Can we see who has us blocked?

1
4

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

I'd guild you with a golden goat's horn...but someone hasn't implemented that yet!

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

[Deleted]

0
14

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

What good is that? Being able to block him is just averting our eyes. The subverse would still be filled with spam, we just wouldn't see it. New users, and new people who don't have an account yet would though, and that wouldn't be good.

0
5

[–] Kleyno 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

It is not our job to get rid of the spam. That is the Moderators job, and eventually auto-mod as well, when that is available.

If I see spam, I'll report it and then make a decision as to whether or not I block the User posting it.

It is then out of my hands.

0
1

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

Perhaps if enough people block a person on a certain subverse it's brought to the mods attention. So say there's a really disruptive user that isn't technically breaking any rules the mods can use that info to decide if a user should be banned for the benefit of the overall community.

0
10

[–] 1810080? 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Seconded. We are going to be in desperate need of user blocking with this change.

0
6

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

That still doesn't help as those who haven't registered or are newly registered will still see amalek and other spammers. IOW, blocking users like that helps individuals, not Voat.

1
48

[–] Calza 1 points 48 points (+49|-1) ago 

Won't this make brigading much easier for people who want to just come over and downvoat everything?

load more comments ▼ (285 remaining)