You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
23

[–] bikergang_accountant 1 points 23 points (+24|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Haha, no. If your account is old enough it is invincible. I don't want someone comming after me just because I disliked their particular nsfw contribution.

At the very least the admins have the vote record so they can identify abusive behavior. What we really need and I've argued for about a year and a half now is downvote rations.

When you are new you can't downvote at all, but when you are not new there is no reason you need more then 10 downvotes in a day. Instead they get hundreds per day.

1
20

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

I would disagree. Once the shills start posting bullshit, it's important to seek out all of their posts and comments and hit them all. It's pretty obvious who they are.

6
13

[–] logical-explanation 6 points 13 points (+19|-6) ago 

Haha, no. If your account is old enough it is invincible.

this is incorrect

2
2

[–] bikergang_accountant 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Ok guy with 3 days on voat. I'm sure you know more about voat than me.

Very old submissions cannot be downvoted. This means that for my comparatively few submissions that are available to be downvoted they would need hundreds of accounts to counter the year of upvotes I've had on this account.

But if we put in downvote rations then they would need even more accounts because they would want to use their accounts to downvote other people and would have none left for me. That is more than 100 accounts would need to be managed for them to do what they do now.

Right now what they are able to do to you can be done with 8 accounts. They just downvote everything you have. If you make 25 posts or comments they can knock you down 200, and they can repeat for as many users as they like.

200 against me would do nothing. If I post more 400 would be nothing. They could keep it up and then it would be a problem. They could take me out on CCP in 10 weeks if they worked it straight. But some simple downvote restrictions of some kind would stop them dead. It would stop them dead on your issue as well.

6
5

[–] SaneGoatiSwear 6 points 5 points (+11|-6) ago 

because i disliked their particular nsfw contribution

so you're saying you downvoat on preference

that's cool, they're your voats to voat with but ummm....

there is no reason you need more than 10 downvoats in a day

um wat?

1
1

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

There was a time when none of us could downvote because none of us had the points. No one on the whole site. The site functioned fine. Then a few of us got downvotes but a limited number and you had to think if something was really worthy of downvote. It was reserved for false information and spam. Then everyone could downvote, with an unlimited number, the place turned into a circle jerk, the majority of people left, the alexa rank started going down (alexa rank is logorithmic), and the subverses began to come into disuse because every thinks the same so lets just use /v/whatever. Most subverses died at the same time and there is a reason.

Voat thrived while under attack and down half the time, yet we lost people when it was running fine. Something changed that was more damaging than 50% uptime. Downvote restrictions were the best thing to happen to the site because it forces people to consider other peoples opinions and forces you when you disagree to articulate a better position if you want to negate them at all.

The sad thing is that the shills are almost necissary. What we really should have is the ability to invite people with oposing views that don't need to manipulate votes to express them. I'm against shills but we could have opposing views from regular users but we don't. There's a reason. If you are downvoting 30 things a day you are doing more harm than good, just as the shills downvoting 100 things per day are doing more harm than good.