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 →
AnTi90d ago
I 100% do not support the removal of restrictions from negative CCP accounts.
The first thing that will happen is the CTR/ShareBlue cunts come back and endlessly post their outright lies, again. If you let those people have fully enabled accounts, you're just asking them to act in concert and upvote each other's posts. (They all work in one office. It's easy for them to organize behind the scenes.)
The next things that opens Voat up to are hostile takeovers like r/the_Donald has outright said they will try to do, again or r/SRS, as they never really gave up.
Taking away negative CCP restrictions sounds so great and altruistic on paper, but that's one of the main things that have protected Voat from organized groups of subversive cunts that aim to control and change this place to their own whim. You aren't helping new users, you are only helping our enemies to attack us and attempt to gain control of the site to change the entire culture of Voat.
I like this place, as it is, and I'm not even a Christian or a Republican. I like being able to stand up and say, "NIGGER-FAGGOT," at my whim. The people that this change will help most are the people that fully intend on downvoting every instance of what they consider, "offensive speech." First, they're allowed to exist and post as much as they want, then they organize a large group to upvote eachother, then they use that large group of now positive CCP accounts to impose their own brand of cultural Marxism on this site, just as they have done, everywhere else.
This is going to be your greatest mistake, @PuttItOut. This could potentially be the beginning for the end of Voat as your current userbase is concerned. If you want to make life easier for new users, that's one thing, but unrestricting negative CCP accounts only serves to empower Voat's enemies.
10247094? ago
Upvote manipulation, especially with alt accounts, is going to be limited on the new Voat and it is also a bannable offense. Also lying is not grounds for censorship.
Crensch ago
No, but saturating this place with obvious lies, and manufacturing popular support will reduce the amount of real estate for legitimate users. If I have to scroll through 3 paid-for 'opinions' for each decent comment I want to read, it won't be long before I find the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
For every paid-for opinion, the amount of visible real estate for legitimate users shrinks, and it will continue to shrink until the non-paid-for opinions stop showing up, because it's not worth fighting for the small spaces left.
10248379? ago
If there are that many paid opinions to block out actual content chances are something is being spammed and those involved will be banned and the content removed. If content isn't being spammed then refute their points, or downvote and move on. Downvoting will still enable us to push undesired content to the bottom and even collapse bad comments. It just won't be the force responsible for getting accounts restricted and then banned.
Crensch ago
My other response works for most of this, so let's continue most of it there. The only thing I'll say here is:
How many downvotes will be needed when it's found that Shareblue can't be fettered by the users? Having to downvote the same user in every political submission will really put a damper on use of this site.
People are going to either stop, or write a bot to do so for them, so they don't have to do it themselves.
I'm interested in who these supposed legitimate users are that are limited from posting. I'd love to see their comment history.
guinness2 ago
Also, Putt said he will ban anyone for brigading... which leaves us defenseless.
10248641? ago
But they can be. It takes four or five downvotes to collapse a comment out of view.
I've encountered many, p0ssum the only notable one whose name I can remember. Most of them are either trolls or affiliated with ShareBlue, but there are much younger and unseen accounts who get downvoted immediately after joining because they said something negative about Trump or criticized conservatives, and thus begin their time at Voat with 10 comments a day. It is an imperfect system and some of the suggestions in this thread can achieve the same restrictions without imposing restrictions on possibly innocent users.
Crensch ago
https://voat.co/v/politics/2077171/10244761
https://voat.co/v/politics/2075320/10236120
https://voat.co/v/politics/2075320/10236120
https://voat.co/v/whatever/2067583/10202192
In /v/whatever.
https://voat.co/v/whatever/955632/4790208
There's a concept on the chans where people that have not been there long are told to "lurk moar".
"Lurk Moar" is a phrase used by image board and forums posters alike to inform other users they need to post less and study the community before posting again. Our "lurk moar" is those 10 comments per day.
The user has demonstrated their ignorance of the customs and social expectations of this community, or otherwise makes an idiot of themselves online.
Are we to inconvenience long-time users with having to do more, or be entirely unable, to keep their website clean, or are we to inconvenience new "users" that won't even take the time to understand the culture of the website they're joining?
Howie ago
How is p0ssum an example of a legit user?
His every submission and comment is antagonistic against Voat as a whole.
He hates Voat.
He is here to disrupt and destroy. And for no other reason
Crensch ago
That was my point. PeaceSeeker brought him up, though I think he has since more or less retracted p0ssum as a legitimate user.
Howie ago
I checked his history. Nothing but vitriol and shareblue regurgitation. Without exception.
What is PeaceSeeker even talking about.
He should not be listened to in this instance.
10249125? ago
This is probably the most compelling argument you've made, at least to me. I understand this perspective and its value. Just discussing possible solutions with you and others I have seen many potential feasibility issues, and in general it does seem that our current system "mostly works". That is not something Voat will jeopardize; whatever Putt changes will only remain changed if we all decide it is a better system. Otherwise we will revert back.
Crensch ago
This is a huge relief to me. Thank you.
Crensch ago
@kevdude peaceseeker's comment above