I have made a decision to alter and/or remove various restrictions on Voat. I’ve thought a lot about this and it’s something both @Atko and I believe needs to be reevaluated.
Voat has always had a problem with spam. @Amalek would spam posts and hijack the new queue making it unusable. MH101 and then later @SaneGoatiSwear would hijack comment pages making them unusable. The rules Voat uses were put in place in to combat this behavior. They are old rules, mostly remaining unchanged from the initial versions of this site. Most, if not all, of the rules were in direct response to spam attacks. It was never Voat’s intention to limit non-spam accounts, but this is what has happened as an indirect result of these rules.
Voat will not keep in place a system that permanently limits a segment of users from debating and conversing. This isn’t Free Speech as I see it or as I want it.
Voat will shortly be going live with a new code base, and I want to have a new system designed and ready for when this happens, so I am posting this announcement to get feedback from the community.
The main areas of concern:
- Commenting restrictions on negative CCP accounts that aren't spamming their comments
- Limiting any account that spam comments
TL;DR
We need to allow unpopular opinions while preventing comment spam.
How do we do it?
All options are on the table
https://voat.co/v/announcements/1330806
view the rest of the comments →
KingoftheMolePeople ago
Remove restrictions from Negative accts. Put in place a Spam button. Once an account has X number of Spam button reports, acct restrictions go into effect. To prevent abuse, if the restrictions are refuted("I am not spamming"), upon investigation, anyone found to be abusing the Spam button faces consequences, from restrictions themselves to a full on site ban.
10246632? ago
I have suggested this in the past, and I think it is close to the best solution. However, as you've identified, people can abuse the button, meaning innocent people can very easily be shut down if ten or so people cooperate to "report them for spam". Notice how you've said "if the restrictions are refuted" -- well who refutes them? A team of trusted community members, surely -- Putt can't do it himself. Well, if we're going to have a team on Voat dedicated to flagging spam reports as real or not (we have this already, by he way, with /v/ReportSpammers, and they do fantastically) then we might as well alter their approach. Instead of applying restrictions after X number of reports, apply restrictions after the "refutation team" has flagged the report as legitimate spam. That way no innocent account will be wrongly restricted (unless the refutation team messes up, but they will be accountable for that, it will be easier to keep track of, and historically they've been good at not messing up as far as I can tell.).
9347723491 ago
ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT, are you fucking high?
ForgotMyName ago
Let's call them "mods". Let's collude with them to influence the content on the site. Let's call ourselves "reddit."
10248364? ago
@9347723491 the only power these people would have would be to assist with the process of spam-flagging. You two realize that with Voat's system we cannot ever possibly become reddit? All moderator actions are logged publicly. You can't just ban users or comments without others being able to see it or know. The flagging of spam is something we already do in order to ban spammers; this would just remove the necessity for negative CCP restrictions and consequently we would need more people doing the flagging. If said people flag something as spam that is not spam, we will all know and that person will be removed.
Colluding with the flaggers to influence site content? How exactly would that be done? They have no power to influence content.
captainstrange ago
Until the 'community' voats for keeping those logs private. No to insiders. Ever.
10248863? ago
Won't happen; public logs is like an axiom for Voat.
If modlogs as private are ever proposed I and the rest of us will speak out against it. You underestimate Putt's wisdom; he knows the importance of that transparency and it is not going anywhere.
captainstrange ago
I'm saying the exact opposite though. Make everything mods do public. I haven't "underestimated Putt's wisdom", and in fact I'm advocating for more transparency. Read it again.
10249186? ago
I see that, but I am saying that no moves towards opacity will be made. Everything in any new system proposed will be transparent.
captainstrange ago
Well congratulations we agree then. Allow me to just say what I'm thinking..
You should know that and understand that no moves towards private mod logs will happen, thats against everything we stand for here.
See what I just did there PeaceSeeker?
I'm agreeing with you, but I'm making it sound like you're against transparency you shit eater. So if you don't like it being done to you don't do it to others.
10249261? ago
I was not trying to misrepresent your thoughts or ideas. I responded based on your wording. I'm not really concerned with how you portray my ideas; it's how I portray my ideas that is relevant.
captainstrange ago
Well heres a tip, if you don't want people to respond and read ill will into what you're writing, don't overly generalize the others posts in some wild-eyed attempt to suggest they are against something as fundamental as transparency--at least not without trying to understand their original objection.
Point is, whats more reasonable: He doesn't like this idea because (reading comprehension) hes against creating a public list of people who HAVE NOT EVEN been verified as spammers, or inflating that to GUYS GUYS!, HES AGAINST TRANSPARENCY AND COMMON WISDOM ITSELF.
Like give me a fucking break dude, I can't see how you imputed the obvious, that im against treating people as guilty-until-proven-innocent, into something like all transparency is bad.
It would be like me saying
"PeaceSeeker rape is bad. Any suggests that rape should be okay are gonna be shot down."
You see how that reads? It reads like you support rape.
UlyssesEMcGill ago
You kinda went off the rails with this one.
I think you misread or misinterpreted something PeaceSeeker said as an insult, or him somehow misrepresenting you.
captainstrange ago
The misrepresentation was very obvious and very clear unless his reading comprehension is that bad.
UlyssesEMcGill ago
No, you freaked out over nothing, move on.
v/settleadispute make your case if you want
captainstrange ago
This isn't event a dispute. I'm just giving him shit back. And anyway, who are you guy?
UlyssesEMcGill ago
Ulysses E McGill
captainstrange ago
The question was rhetorical.
UlyssesEMcGill ago
Please explain, were you trying to convince me of something?
I'm not understanding your usage of "rhetorical".
captainstrange ago
I'm asking who you are because this subthread which is likely buried at this point has jack shit to do with you. Another way of asking it would have been "whats your business with our petty internet argument?"
In other words it is a kindler gentler way of saying "Stay out of it. We're busy talking shit and you're not invited."
UlyssesEMcGill ago
Oh, you didn't tag me so I can't read it or comment on it?
Then use private messages faggot.
captainstrange ago
This is the correct answer.
..faggot.
UlyssesEMcGill ago
The correct answer is that if you want a private conversation you should use private message?
Thank you for agreeing with me.
captainstrange ago
Jesus christ Ulysses, can't a guy insult you to your face and agree with you at the same time.
Get off my case!
9347723491 ago
in some respect it is already very much like reddit.
there you go, with @puttitout future improvement to out "power"mods problem solved.
And FUCK YOU FOR SUGGESTING FLAGGIN CONTENT YOU FUCK
you reaaaaaaly shown who the fuck you are peaceseeker in this post, all you fuckers have.
10248437? ago
How so? A couple of subverses have been taken by power mods? Putt is going to introduce code to allow communities to vote out power mods.
And you're typing incoherently. You still haven't explained what exactly is wrong with a group of reliable users (transparent!) flagging reports as legitimate spam so that spammers can be most efficiently dealt with. Any "false flags" will be seen and those responsible can be replaced. You're just REEEing here mate.
9347723491 ago
youre a fucking retard and my analysis of you has always been correct. once again im proven correct
9347723491 ago
ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOT, are you fucking high?
10248390? ago
Copypasta, really? How about you make an argument for why this is bad so I can explain to you why your argument is a non-issue? These people will have no real power and anyone can replace them if they don't do their janitoriral job properly.
9347723491 ago
my time is valuable, unlike yours.
you never answers my question regardless...therefore you lose
captainstrange ago
Because PeaceSeeker is a faggot shill whos trying to push this idea for his other shill friends to game the community like they do on redshit.
10248888? ago
Nothing I have said gives any user any real power; I am simply a student of engineering who understands how to produce a functional system. We need people to flag (transparently) to increase efficiency, especially if this method is going to replace negative CCP restrictions. It's possible none of this will come to fruition at all. I'm just putting forward suggestions that I have been able to justify. There is nothing wrong with my suggestions as there are axiomatic checks and balances in place to prevent corruption or abuse.
captainstrange ago
As a means of moderation it will be used to attack reputations and ignore people who haven't even been found to be spamming or not. I could see it working for people who have spammed, especially if we're looking to avoid those people. But even when I was a total noob to voat it wasn't hard to recognize people like sanegoat for the shills they are.
As a suggestion goes it was a worthy effort.
10249176? ago
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Either reports are accurate and thus deemed true, or they are false and ignored.
captainstrange ago
Its because we shouldn't trash people like some shit watchlist before they have been 'convicted'. Thats the idea I'm against. How you got "he against transparency" from that is anyones guess.