It can't be done. Folks will learn to work whatever system you come up with. You'll just end up wasting resources trying to make the system work that would be better spent dealing with problems as they come up. Short of some sort of verifiable voter registration system, you can't have a fair system.
Voat has no need for it anyway because we've already voted for the site owner/admins by creating accounts here. It's great that you want to ask for feedback, but delegating some decisions down to the community will be counterproductive at best, but most likely will end in disaster. There's a reason democracies fail.
Voter fraud would be one of my concerns with this as well. We see tons of shill accounts and fake accounts and alts on here, upvoat farms etc...
It seems to me it would be very difficult to distinguish real users from the inevitable multitude of fakes coming in and trying to manipulate the site.
Perhaps a polling function that has a similar CCP requirement like downvoting does, so the owner or moderator of a subverse can configure a poll to receive this community feedback?
For this to work I would highly suggest a rule and/or action being put in place to remove subverses that are clearly CCP/SCP farms, so that poll manipulation would be kept to a minimum. In this case a CCP/SCP farm refers to a subverse whose main function is clearly to illegitimately increase the CCP/SCP of users who participate in them and who additionally may also have extremely CCP requirements for downvoting users and content within.
Additionally if such a feature would to be implemented, past polls should be unable to be deleted or altered once launched and they should be browsable as long as that subverse continues to exist.
I don't think it will be algorithmic, at least at first. It is usually very clear which way the community wants to go. The default action (if there isn't a clear direction) should always be to not change.
view the rest of the comments →
7584117? ago
How would that be measured? Do you think there may be problems with voat manipulation possibly?
7586111? ago
It can't be done. Folks will learn to work whatever system you come up with. You'll just end up wasting resources trying to make the system work that would be better spent dealing with problems as they come up. Short of some sort of verifiable voter registration system, you can't have a fair system.
Voat has no need for it anyway because we've already voted for the site owner/admins by creating accounts here. It's great that you want to ask for feedback, but delegating some decisions down to the community will be counterproductive at best, but most likely will end in disaster. There's a reason democracies fail.
7585729? ago
Voter fraud would be one of my concerns with this as well. We see tons of shill accounts and fake accounts and alts on here, upvoat farms etc...
It seems to me it would be very difficult to distinguish real users from the inevitable multitude of fakes coming in and trying to manipulate the site.
7587787? ago
I think the cogence of the arguments should be used. No matter how many accounts someone has, quantity is not going to make up for quality.
7584777? ago
Perhaps a polling function that has a similar CCP requirement like downvoting does, so the owner or moderator of a subverse can configure a poll to receive this community feedback?
For this to work I would highly suggest a rule and/or action being put in place to remove subverses that are clearly CCP/SCP farms, so that poll manipulation would be kept to a minimum. In this case a CCP/SCP farm refers to a subverse whose main function is clearly to illegitimately increase the CCP/SCP of users who participate in them and who additionally may also have extremely CCP requirements for downvoting users and content within.
Additionally if such a feature would to be implemented, past polls should be unable to be deleted or altered once launched and they should be browsable as long as that subverse continues to exist.
7584513? ago
I don't think it will be algorithmic, at least at first. It is usually very clear which way the community wants to go. The default action (if there isn't a clear direction) should always be to not change.