0
7

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

I'd support this. An upvote brigade can alter the conversation as much as a downvote brigade.

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

[Deleted]

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

[Deleted]

0
0

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

Are you certain? I can downvoat and I don't think I've gotten much CCP at all in this sub...

0
6

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

"Minimum CCP required to vote in this sub"

This way, this affects both upvoting and downvoting in the sub equally, not creating any unfair advantages for the sub or the users.

This makes hiding the sub from /v/all redundant.

This part confuses me. Subverses that set a minmum CCP to downvote are removed from /v/all because the posts can't be downvoted from /v/all. Since that would still be the case, how is it redundant?

0
4

[–] thoughtpolice [S] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The posts can't be downvoted from /v/all AND

The posts can't be upvoted to /v/all

Example with current condition:

You have a sub with 500 ccp required to downvoat, 10 users have more than 500 ccp in the sub

All the users of VOAT can upvoat a post in that sub, only 10 can downvoat it

Example with proposed change:

You have a sub with 500 ccp required to voat, 10 users have more than 500 ccp in the sub

Only 10 users can upvoat a post in that sub, only 10 can downvoat it

See? It balances out so the advantage of limited downvoating cancels itself with the disadvantage of limited upvoating.

0
3

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

Yes, I got that. That isn't the part I am confused about, only the part about being removed from /v/all becoming redundant.

0
1

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

This is a bad idea. A better one would be a separate setting for "minimum CCP required to upvote", and leaving the downvote one unchanged.

As written, it would mostly be an attack suggestion, meant to disable a type of subverse (possibly one that the OP wishes to silence, possibly not). But by having both settings you could instead set things as you like.

Right now, you can disable downvoting, while still having a sub where voices are real and the most popular stuff rises to the top. This is highly suitable to a set of subverse types.

By adding a second option, you would be able to have a "voteless subverse" as well. You would also be able to set a moderate requirement for upvoting and a large requirement for downvoting. You'd also get an amusing trivial case (the downvote only place), which you could either allow or disable (by requiring that min req CCP for downvote >= min req CCP for upvote).

I think a lot of subverses, specifically the hateful ones with absolute tyranny, would like to enable voting on a user by user basis, which may be technically problematic. Some others might wish to block downvotes outside of a trusted core. There are other reasons to like this idea, mostly related to prevention of brigading.

For display on /all, either a formula could be used relating to up and down votes, or simply any custom settings could disable /all.

One more idea: right now, it's a number. If you have > than this number, you can downvote. It's interesting that you can set the required CCP to, say, 721, but probably not useful. Meanwhile, setting it to a huge number is the same as disabling downvoting entirely- intended, I'm sure.

Instead of an integer, or a pair of integers, the settings could be:

Default (currently min 100 ccp for downvote, no restrictions for upvote)
Vets only (pretend say, min 1000 ccp for downvotes, min 100 ccp for upvote)
Upvote only (downvotes disabled)
Aristocratic Downvote (anyone can upvote, only selected users can downvote)
Aristrocratic (only selected users can vote)

The important thing about the modal selection, be it 3, 5, or even a few more, is that because the subs would be playing be the same rules as others that chose that category, there could be a /all equivalent for each, or something.

0
1

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

naw

Already a daily upvoat limit

0
1

[–] jaguar0405 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Yeah, let's make it "Minimum CCP to circlejerk in this sub"

0
1

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

This would create a setting that allows select users to dictate exactly what content can move to the top of that subverse, leaving those who never bothered to farm CCP unable to contribute to the rankings.
Since your main concern seems to be the CCP farming that can be done when downvote limitations are in session

The fact that then this creates an unfair advantage for users to farm CCP is currently not addressed.

I consider my idea to be superior in that matter.

0
3

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

This would create a setting that allows select users to dictate exactly what content can move to the top of that subverse, leaving those who never bothered to farm CCP unable to contribute to the rankings.

Exactly. I don't see a problem with that. You mean the owner of a sub should not be allowed to do this? I don't see why not.

If, as a sub owner, I decide to now allow outsiders to fuck around with my sub votes, why not?

0
1

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

At that point you're not making a subverse that is part of Voat anymore. You're making your own personal secret club and effectively opting to indirectly censor the content.

0
1

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

Should there be any voting limitations for subs that are default or want to eventually become default?

0
3

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

Yes, it's an important tool to deal with brigades (at least to make it a little harder on them, if not actually make them impossible).

Personally I'd be in favour of removing default status entirely. There's no need to have second class citizen subs like over on reddit and the only function it actually performs here is to control what goes on the top bad. New users aren't automatically subbed to anything anymore.

1
-1

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

There are no default subs, nor should there be. That's one of the things keeping power mods from controlling Voat. What you call defaults are randomly selected from /v/all until you set your own defaults.

load more comments ▼ (1 remaining)