Woke up this morning after making this response here, and the Serchvoat bot alerted me to this. Is there an official definition of what a downvoat brigade is? This is definitely a pitiful example, but it seems like an attempted brigade to me, and I could also be wrong as well.
SearchVoat ago
Bleep bloop, someone mentioned this submission!
'Withi this you guys guys have condemn yourselves here. There are still good ones within you but the ones that control your sub are not' was posted in v/theawakening and includes this reply from @SGM11Z:
This notification (#281) was posted automatically by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress this notification by appending a query(?) to your Voat permalink. You can suppress pings from these notifications on request.
C_Corax ago
I don't think I would define it as such. Mostly because it is a limited amount of people downvoating you. Is it an attempt to control speech, yes I would say so. But that's a different problem and one I hope Voat finds a balance with one day.
FrozenFire74 ago
Fair enough, I would agree with that. I wonder how we would be able to protect unpopular opinions on Voat, since the Voting system can be, and has in the past, been used to censor people.
C_Corax ago
I think the long term plan for Atko and Putt was to make a platform where you could ask a question and get an honest unbiased answer from which you could make up your own mind. But with 95% of the internet trying to force the bias towards the left, the right is going to have to counter hard to have their say heard. I don't have a solution. it's just the way it is.
I didn't particularly disagree with anything you said in that post btw.
Orfion ago
No, it's setting you word for all to see making you an example of the mentality of the brainwashed masses. There is no request for an organized downvoat of you.
FrozenFire74 ago
I guess the problem I'm addressing is a bit more systemic to Voats free speech policy and how the community responds to free speech rather than a blatant call to downvoat. Anyone that isn't a shill or a spammer is welcome to post on Voat and should be free from censorship, even if their post are of an unpopular opinion. Downvoating can effectively achieve censorship if you make enough posts that people downvoat, regardless of being a spammer or shill. Anyone whose CCP dips below zero will suffer the consequences, and that restriction is effective at protecting the site from spam, but it has (inadvertantly or not) been abused to restrict people who are expressing their right to free speech on here.
Orfion ago
There are so many posts that any post that isn't "popular" will get lost rather quickly. Downvoats don't actually get rid of your post. Imagine you post something that nobody cares about. It gets 0 voats. It doesn't so much sit at the bottom as it does not rise to the top. If viewing 'new' posts, it will be seen until it gets pushed down so many pages just because of newer posts. The site is a meritocracy of sorts, in that, what people like get the most attention. The downvoated posts get as much attention as the zero post does.
Regarding, CCP, if it is that low then are you part of the community? Or just trying to troll, spam, or shill? What are you trying to accomplish? Maybe it's not what is being posted but how it is being posted. For instance, this post you've created doesn't come across as demeaning and doesn't have a popular position and, yet, it currently has a positive voat count. I think sincerity can accomplish the goal of spreading an "unpopular" opinion. Asking, respectfully, for others thoughts that may be opposite of your is another avenue.
FrozenFire74 ago
My posts predominantly result in positive CCP, but when I talk about controversial subjects, (not all blacks are niggers and some deserve our respect, liberals have some good points, blue-haired femenism is a cancer but femenism as a whole isn't evil, etc), the downvoats come rolling in. The community on this site believes in Free Speech* (*: subject to terms and conditions on the subject matter and whether we like that speech or not), which isn't what Atko and Putt had in mind for the site. The initial post I made ended up positive, and when OP wanted me to make my stance, then the civil and detailed response ended up with Negative CCP. After that, every response I made stayed civil and still resulted in negative CCP. You may have been around Voat back when civil discussions of currently controversial views resulted in positive CCP for anyone willing to make their stance, so long as the comment remained on point and civil.
And I'm not so worried about a post netting zero or not getting a single vote, positive or negative. My problem is when someone draws attention to a post without making a comment so that people can come in and downvoat without responding as well. In my eyes, that is seen as brigading, because they don't want to discuss the topic, they just want you to know that someone thinks you're wrong and harm your CCP because they think you're wrong.
Orfion ago
I must downvoat you now. JK. I sort of understand what you are talking about but I don't care much about CCP except to post and haven't had an issue. Nuanced discussions are usually not for mass discussion. What would be your solution?
FrozenFire74 ago
I've got some ideas for Old Goats getting a vetted role that will protect them from downvoat brigades, but I have no idea if Putt or Atko would implement it. I made a post about it in detail in the v/ideasforVoat 'verse.