You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

5
-2

[–] darkknight111 5 points -2 points (+3|-5) ago  (edited ago)

IIRC, I could have sworn that #1 was about 100 CCP in order to make a submission. I remember that being discussed.

Would certainly prevent PGIsDumb types from ever wrecking havoc ever again, especially when comboed with #2.

I am in support of the "100 CCP to make a submission proposal.

Proposal 2: Aye

Proposal 4: Aye

Proposal 5: Aye

Have some ideas.

Proposal 8: Clarify the definition of spam.


This is a matter that is frustrating a lot of users in regards to bans. As such, it would be good to include some definitions for the sake of clarity.

Proposal 9: "Reset Bomb" in regards to users with multiple accounts.


A signature tactic of shills is to have more than one account. Typically 3+ accounts. This tactic involves using the multiple accounts to give their posts upvoats in order to have more ready access to downvoats and more effectively resist downvoats. Likewise, shills use multiple accounts as part of "downvoat bombs" by using these accounts to downvoat the same person multiple times (one man downvoat brigades).

A "Reset Bomb" (named after the MO of an antagonist from the videogame Kid Icarus: Uprising) would entail taking those with multiple accounts (3+) and banning all but one (the one with the lowest CCP and SCP). Using "spam" as the reason.

This proposal cripples shills ability to "game the system" as a way to bypass the defenses provided by other proposals.

Proposal 10: Basic Human Decency Standards (good idea from 4InquiringMinds)


We are supposed to be a community about protecting the "little ones". It can be very demoralizing having to constantly deal with people who are "assholes and proud of it". Certain misogynistic people here are quite abusive to the female members of this community, which is a BAD thing because quite a lot of us here are women.

Under Human Deceny we could implement a crackdown on "False Flag Baiting". Intentionally trying to bait false flags shows an utter lack of basic human deceny via having zero concern for the safety of the community as a whole. Given that the left is willing to DOX people who disagree with their views as seen with Charolettesville and the attempted false flag against us two days later, it is therefore obvious that those who try to bait false flags against us are simply evil people.

0
6

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

Proposal 10: Basic Human Decency Standards

I believe in human decency as much as you guys do and I strive to practice it every day.

But, giving a mod the power to decide who is being "decent" and who is not is decent is not a good idea. One person's sense of decency can be diametrically opposed to another person.


This is a slippery slope we cannot afford to trust to a mod. If this rule is implemented it is only a matter of time before this subverse is worse than Redditt. This is too subjective and if we allow this to happen we can kiss free speech goodbye in this subverse.

--

I appreciate your appreciation of decency but I have to give this one a resounding NO vote.

0
0

[–] Vindicator [S, M] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

LOL. Have to agree with @ESOTERICshade on this @darkknight111. We want to reduce subjective decisionmaking by mods -- that power belongs in the hands of users. It's the whole point of the vote button.

0
4

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

A "Reset Bomb" (named after the MO of an antagonist from the videogame Kid Icarus: Uprising) would entail taking those with multiple accounts (3+) and banning all but one (the one with the lowest CCP and SCP). Using "spam" as the reason.

How exactly do you propose to determine who is whose alts? Other than accusation, youll need some form of proof that someone is an alt of someone else. I cant see how tbis could actually be implemented.

1
3

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

The 0ccp in the sidebar is different than the global restrictions. No new accounts can downvote in the sub. Make a new account with 0ccp and try to downvote. Go ahead. @viebleu has spread a lot of disinformation in this regard and at this point I have to question his motives.

1
1

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

I am in support of the "100 CCP to make a submission proposal.

No feature exists to restrict posting other to restrict to "approved submitters". So putting a barrier up to new accounts posting is possible, it just has nothing to do with the ccp settings for the sub.