Restrictions Will Be Changing (announcements)

submitted ago by PuttItOut

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:

  1. Commenting restrictions on negative CCP accounts that aren't spamming their comments
  2. 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

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

10246470? ago

:D

Spam is an issue and we don't want it overrunning the website. But at the same time you're right, these restrictions have been inhibiting people who have done nothing wrong but share too many unpopular opinions, and it isn't in the spirit of Voat.

We should consider what tools we have available. The /v/ReportSpammers community is very hard-working and dedicated to keeping Voat free of spam, and it is a community very capable of growing. Spam is against Voat's rules; accounts that spam get permanently banned from the website. We determine that accounts are spamming by responding to user reports against specific accounts, evaluating their comments / submissions, and then deciding if they have indeed spammed. If they have, you eventually ban them. I think that's the basic process.

Waiting for a spammer to accrue negative CCP is actually relatively slow. What we could do instead is this: if an account receives spam reports, and one of the trusted community members in /v/ReportSpammers marks the report as actual spam, then upon that marking the account could be restricted until such time as you or someone else is able to review the reports and ban the guilty users.

As far as I am aware this follows the same process as right now, except it will not restrict any account's commenting ability based on CCP, only on confirmed spam reports. As I understand it this should restrict guilty accounts much faster than negative CCP would have, without restricting non-spam accounts. All we require is a sufficiently large and trusted report marker section of the community, and then the awareness of the Voat community at large to place spam reports instead of downvotes in the first place.

The community at large can vote on who they want / trust to mark reports as actual spam, and we can keep those who have been doing a perfect job already (@Cynabuns namely. I'm sure @NeedleStack would do well also).

I can adjust anything I've written above for feasibility reasons but I think some interpretation of this will work for Voat well without punishing the innocent.

Howie ago

p0ssum in not an innocent. He hates all Voaters.

No one has named a single innocent yet.

I don't think they exist.

10275053? ago

I proposed that there was a potentially innocent group affected by this system, and it is conceivable that these restrictions could be applied to non-spamming users. My argument is founded on this potentiality. What some people dispute is that the restrictions should apply to only spammers, and there are arguments that can be made for that. My proposition seems to have failed in the case of dealing with non-spamming shit-disturbers, for moderator action seemed to be the only solution without downvotes being able to restrict comments.

So I'm not even sure anymore. Inaction may be wisest, but I suspect we are going to try something at least once to see if some system could be better. Of course if whatever is tried fails, I am certain Voat will revert back to what we have now.

Howie ago

In theory you can have non compliant users in your midst. Look at the Innuit in the Canadian Nunavut territory as an ideal.

In an ideal world I wish Africans and Native Americans could still be left in peace to live a life off the land the way things were for thousands of years.

The trick is how do you coexist with people who don't share your values and consider you their sworn enemy.

It seems like we are going to be disarmed, and then risk being banned if we use the downvoat button too frequently to add insult to injury.

Because we are a tiny minority on the web. It's going to go planet of the apes around here real fast most likely.

A whole bunch of moderator action is the last thing I'd like to see. Anywhere that has much of a mod presence, is not somewhere I like to spend much time in.

Guess I'll have to be ready to do battle once the new system kicks in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB3inHJO2FM

10279891? ago

As I've said, if whatever new system kicks in is worse for the community than what we have now we will surely revert. Mod action won't come into play, as it shouldn't. Excessive downvoting will only earn a ban if it is actual brigading -- and hopefully a more accurate depiction of what that means will be released sometime soon.

Howie ago

I appreciate the work you guys are doing to make Voat less expensive.

But making Voat into some kind of administrative minefield seems gay.

"Excessive downvoting" sounds like something thats ripe for abuse.

Once you release your downvote fatwas, the enemies of Voat are going to use them against legitimate users.

Anything that is manual is mod action, and there's quite a bit of it here already.

I get that there is an admin and mod distinction from the insider's POV.

But won't regular users experience changing of rules and bans based solely on downvoats as "mod action."

I've been active on these type of forums for over 5 years, and I would say "brigading" is just some buzzword that gets thrown around.

I hope brigading doesn't become an official concept on Voat. As far as I can tell, it's not even a thing.

10361040? ago

"Excessive downvoting" sounds like something thats ripe for abuse.

These are just my words and interpretations / phrasings and expectations. Nothing I say is formal and it should not be treated as such. Downvote brigading is downvote brigading; that's all I meant by "excessive downvoting", and like I said, we will be given more insight into exactly what constitutes brigading, I am sure.

won't regular users experience changing of rules and bans based solely on downvoats as "mod action."

I've been active on these type of forums for over 5 years, and I would say "brigading" is just some buzzword that gets thrown around.

I hope brigading doesn't become an official concept on Voat. As far as I can tell, it's not even a thing.

When you have a user going through all 19 pages of someone's comment history and downvoting every comment such that they go from 1000 CCP to 0 in a day, it is downvote brigading and users who do that will be banned from Voat (as far as I can tell, anyway; users have been banned for "Vote Manipulation" already. Perhaps only users who do this with bots are banned. I don't know for sure).

That's an extreme case but I don't think Putt looks for anything less than that level of manipulation because, with the current system, it allows a single user to debilitate other users. That's probably part of why he wants to try another system.

Howie ago

I'm lost already. This is all very depressing from a users standpoint. By definition the word brigading means people acting in concert.

I don't understand how one highly committed angry sperglord can be accused of brigading.

He's just one user.

How long would that even take in minutes.

Wouldn't that take days?

Maybe I don't want to know how the Voat sausage is made.

Thanks for taking all your time to answer, how is preview.voat going?

10361547? ago

By definition the word brigading means people acting in concert.

I believe that is the traditional meaning: multiple users collaborating to do as I described. Perhaps my "lone wolf" example is simply vote manipulation. It is certainly a confusing topic and I assure you that any actions taken against non-bot accounts will come with more clarification than I have been able to supply. You should not be depressed; normal users should not be affected by vote manipulation bans, I suspect.

Wouldn't that take days?

No, it could be done in one day if the user / bot was dedicated. Plus at present 1000 comments cannot even be accessed, only 475 or something (25 comments/page X 19 pages) but that's still a large hit to take from only one user, and I think it is against the rules but it might only be against the rules if multiple bots are used. I don't frankly know.

Thanks for taking all your time to answer, how is preview.voat going?

Pretty well. We're on the third environment (one more to go after this one) and a rather damaging bug was found, which is good (better to find it now than after the Port!). Things are proceeding nicely. Many of Voat's usability issues should be solved after the Port.

NeedleStack ago

Thanks for the ping but this level of power should be up to the users rather than individuals.

The ReportSpammers process works. It's slow-going but it eventually works alright once Putt sets the bots on the reports (or however he does it).

Cynabuns (who you also pinged) and I and the rest of the users who report spam do so in the spirit of service; as worker bees trying to protect the hive.

10257302? ago

but this level of power should be up to the users rather than individuals.

The only power I proposed was a janitorial ability to flair reports as spam or not spam, which Cynabuns already does and which Putt already uses when banning spammers. My proposition was to add more than just Cynabuns to this team in the event that spam reports were used to replace negative CCP restrictions.

If this "power" ought to remain up to the wider community and not just individuals, why is only Cynabuns in possession of this power now?

I just want to make sure you understand what I am actually proposing.

guinness2 ago

I like this idea, but the current CCP restrictions works well against bots... I'm not so sure your idea would survive malicious script kiddy attacks that create new accounts for immediate farming and spamming or flood /v/ReportSpammers with random reports just to keep the mods overworked and unable to keep up with legitimate reports.

10252237? ago

Now that is a compelling argument. At the very least the current system does not give bots a reason to generate spammy reports. Doing so after implementing my suggestion could effectively derail the system. Some CCP requirement would likely be necessary just to submit reports (just like we had the 100 CCP to downvote) in order to prevent this. Maybe a higher requirement level, 1000 CCP or something. Only one report is necessary, perhaps, to draw someone's attention to the spam account in question, so fewer community members are required to have the ability to report. And anyone with less than the threshold could still contact someone above the threshold and ask them to file a report, whereas that was not possible or meaningful with downvotes.

There is certainly a great deal to consider.

guinness2 ago

There is certainly a great deal to consider.

When trying to solve any problem, I think it's always worth asking "Have I solve this problem or just moved it?".

Some CCP requirement would likely be necessary just to submit reports (just like we had the 100 CCP to downvote) in order to prevent this.

But without the existing voting and posting CCP restrictions, farming with bots and new accounts would be even easier and the extra CCP constrains on the submit reports function could be quickly overcome.

The problem of CCP restrictions on voting and posting hasn't been solved, it's just been moved to the Report button.

'It could be really nasty!

10252365? ago

But without the existing voting and posting CCP restrictions, farming with bots and new accounts would be even easier and the extra CCP constrains on the submit reports function could be quickly overcome.

Vote manipulation is still vote manipulation, and Putt can detect it easily. If so the guilty accounts would be banned.

The problem of CCP restrictions on voting and posting hasn't been solved, it's just been moved to the Report button.

The thing is, by only assigning comment restrictions to people who have been successfully reported for spam, only actual spammers will ever face the restrictions, which was the intention from the beginning. In this case "moving the problem" has some justification -- because it is the location that is the problem.

guinness2 ago

In this case "moving the problem" has some justification -- because it is the location that is the problem.

I disagree because in both cases you are using human intervention to fight bots... and that's not a winnable strategy.

The malicious purpose of bots will be to create so much work for Putt and the Report Spammer mods that they can't keep up with deleting farming alts and dismissing fake reports... while spamming or brigading is taking place.

Currently, a malicious user is required to manually create and tend to a set of alts in preparation for a single brigading or spamming event, which takes human intervention and time and effort... whereas bots without posting / comment / voting CCP restrictions can tend to themselves at lightning speeds to rapidly gain enough CCP to begin fake Report attacks.

10252546? ago

The malicious purpose of bots will be to create so much work for Putt and the Report Spammer mods that they can't keep up with deleting farming alts and dismissing fake reports... while spamming or brigading is taking place.

This is the fundamental issue with my suggestions, I agree.

whereas bots without posting / comment / voting CCP restrictions can tend to themselves at lightning speeds to rapidly gain enough CCP to begin fake Report attacks.

Could not CCP restrictions similar to those in place for downvoting stymie this enough, though? I know others have suggested ways of limiting the formation of reports -- a CCP requirement plus ten different reports on one comment for a report to actually be generated, in combination could probably keep bots away, somehow, maybe?

guinness2 ago

Could not CCP restrictions similar to those in place for downvoting stymie this enough, though?

If a new alt can up-vote comments, then no... because then bots have control over farming each other's CCP... and they wouldn't need to be blatant about it either because each alt would only need to up-vote another once and then it's served it's purpose. I wonder if Putt's farming / brigading logic could cope with that: a bot that creates a disposable alt that only votes once?

I know others have suggested ways of limiting the formation of reports -- a CCP requirement plus ten different reports on one comment for a report to actually be generated, in combination could probably keep bots away, somehow, maybe?

No, alts are disposable and creating one that posts one fake report is as easy as creating ten that each post one fake report.

All solutions would need to place up-vote and down-vote restrictions based on CCP and then you've recreated the existing solution, but with extra steps.

Think of how the poor Voat database would feel after such abuse!

10252638? ago

I wonder if Putt's farming / brigading logic could cope with that: a bot that creates a disposable alt that only votes once?

I think if they are either coming from the same IP or the same machine he gets alerted by that, in which case he would be able to ban those accounts before they started flooding RS with reports.

All solutions would need to place up-vote and down-vote restrictions based on CCP and then you've recreated the existing solution, but with extra steps

It's not the 100 CCP restrictions that currently exist for downvoting that we are considering changing, though. Those work and would remain. It is the negative CCP restrictions that would be moved to have a different cause, potentially. If accounts are required to have a certain amount of CCP to submit reports, then it seems we would have as much issue with bot reports as we have with bot brigaders now -- in short, not too much of an issue, less so if we up the requirement of CCP.

guinness2 ago

I think if they are either coming from the same IP or the same machine he gets alerted by that, in which case he would be able to ban those accounts before they started flooding RS with reports.

I wonder how that works with anonymous proxies?

then it seems we would have as much issue with bot reports as we have with bot brigaders now -- in short, not too much of an issue, less so if we up the requirement of CCP.

Fair enough... but I suspect the lack of bot attacks thus-far is no guarantee the future won't be dominated by bot attacks, especially when the other vulnerabilities are mitigated.

MadWorld ago

Yes, feedback on negative ccp to determine spamming is way too slow and undesirable as this can be mixed up with unpopular opinions. I have thought about using neural network or plagiarism detection. It sounds interesting at first. But it's really just a game/evolution of the cat and the mouse. Sooner or later, the spammers will always find new ways to cheat the system. Human elements will remain to be the best judgement.

@PuttItOut, I would propose something like this toward the spammers:

  1. Use a threshold on the number of spams been reported on a potential spam user.
  2. Then automatically generate a /v/ReportSpammers (or relevant subverse) submission, along with relevant info, when that threshold is triggered.
  3. Like any other subverses, the subverse users vote, discuss, and decide the accuracy of the report been submitted.
  4. If the report is correct(true), give warnings to the user and further ban persistent abusers.
  5. If the report is a lie(false), keep an abuse score on users who abused the spam report. Keep the thread ids/content if possible.
    1. When the threshold(spam report abuse) for this abuse score is triggered, like any other spammer, we can automatically generate another submission to the subverse for review.
    2. If the user who falsely and repeatly reported with the spam button is identified, restrict his account, like any other confirmed spammers.
    3. Relax this user's restriction when the user stops abuse on false reporting over a certain time period.
  6. If the report contains ambiguous(uncertainty, the grey area) content or not obvious enough to been classified as spammer, we should let it slide without any side-effect.

Something optional to keep the users motivated, but I suspect voaters might not care much since they love voat so much.

  • Reward the users who reported the spammers accurately. Reward them for their dedication and hard work. They can become the Protectors of Voat.

PuttItOut ago

I really like the idea of automatically making a post in v/reportspammers when any trigger level has been detected. This is a very transparent way of verifying the accuracy of the code.

If we move into any sort of reporting system, we have already decided we will have to build a confidence interval for users. If done right the system would be able to flag spam based on reports very quickly depending on who is reporting content and their history of reports vs outcomes.

This can also be gamed so we will have to still have accountability and not trust the system fully.

guinness2 ago

But how would this solution cope with shit like:

  • bots that create a single new accounts just so they can maliciously down-vote a random post in a sub or on the front-page;

  • bots that create a single new account just to make random false reports to /v/ReportSpammers so the mods are too busy dealing with fake reports to keep up with dealing with real ones;

@MadWorld

MadWorld ago

The new code base will have Vote Identity 2.7/2.8 built in to restrict the number of alt accounts that can vote on submissions and comments, assuming the bots have acquired minimum of 100 ccp. With a few exceptions, I believe it won't be possible to simply keep on creating new accounts to get around the barrier. When fake reports are identified, the bot accounts will be restricted or banned. This ban, in combination with Vote Identity 2.7/2.8 could be used to prevent bots from creating new alt accounts. Note that both spammers and false accusers can be restricted or banned.

In the case of sole upvoting/downvoting that doesn't leave any trace of spamming, how would a bot acquire enough ccp points to perform the downvote? It cannot earn enough ccp without making meaningful comments that generate ccp to permit downvoting action. If it is smart enough, possibly using AI, it would be the borderline between legitimate user and spammer.

guinness2 ago

Ha ha: Vote Identity 2.7/2.8 sounds fantastic!

Thank you for being made from pure awesome!

Hearing this makes me even more excited about Voat's bright future!

MadWorld ago

Yeah it is awesome! Both rules were discovered while testing on the preview site. I thought it was the pre-existing rules, but it turned out to be new features. The vote identity is probably hashed based on some hardware attributes of the machines.

guinness2 ago

Ha ha ha: I can't wait for "certain users" to throw a fit when they learn about this... they'll claim malicious spamming and brigading attacks on other users is how they express their free speech!

10249524? ago

That's why I mentioned some sort of flagging system like what Cynabuns does now. Of course if this is to replace downvotes in terms of restrictions Cynabuns won't be able to manage it alone.

At first I was thinking that you could just give more people Cynabuns' janitor abilities in /v/ReportSpammers, but then I considered that we could use a certain upcoming feature to community-decide on reports. Probably wouldn't be fast enough though. I definitely think that auto-restricting based on a certain number of spam reports would just result in the same issues we have now, without some kind of confirmation.

MadWorld ago

I didn't suggest auto-restricting based on number of spam reports. I suggested generating a submission to the /v/ReportSpammers subverse for review when the spam report passes certain threshold. Automated restriction is good if the confidence(as Putt mentioned this terminology) level is high. But human reviews will be most accurate, plus the logs will keep the users accountable should the users decided to abuse/corrupt the review process.

10249703? ago

I didn't suggest auto-restricting based on number of spam reports.

I wasn't specifically referring to your suggestion, but other root suggestions. Sorry if it came across as referring to you. I was just making a general comment based on something Putt said.

MadWorld ago

It's a tough problem, any system can be cheated, even the human review, if there is no log to keep the process accountable.

10249765? ago

No matter what is done we'll definitely want logs. Even then we might find the whole thing isn't viable and switch back to way things are now.

Crensch ago

Spam is an issue and we don't want it overrunning the website. But at the same time you're right, these restrictions have been inhibiting people who have done nothing wrong but share too many unpopular opinions, and it isn't in the spirit of Voat.

The problem is that some of these "unpopular opinions" are actually paid-for opinions.

I know of people with unpopular opinions that don't garner downvotes. I've seen it happen all the time, actually.

The ones with downvotes were rude, or expected everyone to agree with them without supporting their position. Or they were MSM narratives that are very obviously manufactured and being espoused by suspicious usernames.

Jixijenga ago

paid for

Prove that. I want you to prove every single allegation of this nature to be, without a doubt, completely true.

I can't begin to count the number of times I was accused of being CTR and then ShareBlue simply because I'm not a far-right nutjob and didn't agree with the thread's circlejerk. A bunch of downvoats because I didn't accept the tired narrative pushed by morons parroting an old post on Stormfront.

These unpopular opinions are often fabled to be the work of whatever bullshit bogeyman morons cook up, but I rarely see any evidence supporting that.

Crensch ago

Prove that. I want you to prove every single allegation of this nature to be, without a doubt, completely true.

I want you to prove that they're legitimate users. We already know that shareblue and CTR have been here, so your claim will need just as many assumptions as mine.

I can't begin to count the number of times I was accused of being CTR and then ShareBlue simply because I'm not a far-right nutjob and didn't agree with the thread's circlejerk. A bunch of downvoats because I didn't accept the tired narrative pushed by morons parroting an old post on Stormfront.

.

parroting an old post on Stormfront.

If you had been around for the full 2.1 years you've supposedly existed, you'd know that stormfront parrots us. You'd also know that bringing up stormfront as a pejorative here will get you downvoted because it isn't considered an insult, and is absurd.

These unpopular opinions are often fabled to be the work of whatever bullshit bogeyman morons cook up, but I rarely see any evidence supporting that.

When their points match CNN's narrative, which has been proven to be a fake-news outlet of LIES, well... it's not really that big of a leap to conclude that they're likely being paid to post here about it.

2.1 years, 120scp and 2k ccp with profile "I'll lurk on here"

@kevdude if your cabal/designed-subversion narrative is true, this guy is just about right on time to show up as a "poor downvoted legitimate user".

None popped up for 24 hours, but now one finally shows up. I'm not really sure why, because his comments don't appear to be downvoted for their opinions.

Jixijenga ago

Uh? Stormfront's been around far, far longer than voat or it's predecessors. It's old, and it's tired, yet old talking points made on there are still touted as an undisputed truth.

My point was, as you've so eloquently proven, is that this site is populated by the dumbest motherfuckers and that doesn't mean they're paid to be this way. On the contrary, it makes little sense to assume that some paranoid fantasy is automatically true because you feel threatened by other people. I know you feel threatened, by the way, or else you wouldn't have pinged @kevdude to back you up and then try to pigeonhole me as some ~poor downvoated legitimate user~ too. Desperation makes the stupid do interesting things, why else would you do that when I have positive CCP and none of my posts, ever, fit your version of events.

In short, you're talking out of your ass because what you seem to want is an ultra-right reddit, something voat was never supposed to be.

Crensch ago

Uh? Stormfront's been around far, far longer than voat or it's predecessors. It's old, and it's tired, yet old talking points made on there are still touted as an undisputed truth.

And we don't take after them at all. We don't parrot shit from them, we have our own culture.

My point was, as you've so eloquently proven, is that this site is populated by the dumbest motherfuckers and that doesn't mean they're paid to be this way.

The site is populated by idiot consumers like you, and content providers like me, empress, and kevdude.

In short, you're talking out of your ass because what you seem to want is an ultra-right reddit, something voat was never supposed to be.

Showing your true colours here.

@kevdude

Jixijenga ago

I've never hid my colors, Crensch, that's why I'm here.

This is precisely the shit I was talking about, you don't want me to have a voice because I genuinely want a free speech platform where people can't arbitrarily decide a type of wrongthink needs to be purged. Get fucked if you don't like it, but I won't change my opinion because you're offended.

Crensch ago

This is precisely the shit I was talking about, you don't want me to have a voice because I genuinely want a free speech platform where people can't arbitrarily decide a type of wrongthink needs to be purged.

You have a voice, and you use it for fuck-all, apparently. In 2 years you contributed a net 2,046 ccp, and peanuts for scp.

In short, you're talking out of your ass because what you seem to want is an ultra-right reddit, something voat was never supposed to be.

What voat was supposed to be is a bastion of free speech, and all I see around here are faggots like you begging the question about how limiting how often you get to comment because you're being a douchenozzle is not free speech.

Tell me who is silenced for their opinions.

Because nobody is.

Jixijenga ago

I mostly keep to myself rather than flying all over the site like the super COOL ~content creators~ such as yourself, a strange concept I know, but I'm just not that vain. I guess only when I aspire to collect the maximum amount of internet points will I truly fit in, oh how humiliating to be so mundane.

Of course I need to remind you that all of the above is sarcasm, lest you think I actually give a fuck about your incessant need to dick measure because you're a sniveling, insecure bitch. I don't. My 30 submissions to my out of the way sub are intentionally discounted because I don't believe in farming internet points. Unlike some people. Everything proposed likely won't affect me at all, I have positive CCP and SCP, I rarely post links, I don't spam, and I tend to shower everyone in upvoats because in spite of my bitter attitude I'm generally a positive person. You keep trying to make it seem like I'm only making this argument because I'm "begging" to be "unrestricted." Odd, I never had any restrictions. What I am doing is pointing out what you truly are and holding you accountable, so far all you've done is downvoat me (lol) and throw a fit.

As for who's silenced you bragged elsewhere how you "personally identified" all these oh so terrible people invading voat. A little investigation into your post history shows me a different story, my first demand in my first post is quite relevant here.

You're full of shit and a danger to the purpose of this site, you demonstrated it here, with me, by trying to call in support to more effectively brigade me. Problem was, kevdude's seen me before and knows I hate shills of any stripe.

That is why I said something to you in the first place.

Crensch ago

I keep to myself rather than flying all over the site like the super COOL ~content creators~ such as yourself, a strange concept I know, but I'm just not that vain.

"Guys, I'm too cool to create content - creating content is so vain"

I guess only when I aspire to collect the maximum amount of internet points will I truly fit in, oh how humiliating to be so mundane.

Well, at least you admit you contribute fuck-all to the site, and don't think much of those that do. Good start there, buddy.

Of course I need to remind you that all of the above is sarcasm, lest you think I actually give a fuck about your incessant need to dick measure because you're a sniveling, insecure bitch. I don't.

Attacking me because I've gotten under your skin.

My 30 submissions to my out of the way sub are intentionally discounted because I don't believe in farming internet points. Unlike some people.

My points are nothing but an indicator that I provide information and viewpoints that people have chosen to upvote.

Everything proposed likely won't affect me at all, I have positive CCP and SCP, I rarely post links, I don't spam, and I tend to shower everyone in upvoats because in spite of my bitter attitude I'm generally a positive person.

I'm sure your virtue-signalling would help your case on a libtard website. It doesn't really work here.

You keep trying to makr it seem like I'm only making this argument because I'm "begging" to be "unrestricted."

You need to read my words again, apparently:

all I see around here are faggots like you begging the question about how limiting how often you get to comment because you're being a douchenozzle is not free speech.

Since you're showing yourself to be somewhat absurd, and a little stupid, I'll translate:

Faggots like you are begging the question; you say limiting how often you get to comment means that there isn't free speech here. The fact that the limitations don't actually force you to agree with anyone doesn't really seem to register with you. Also the fact that no one has been shown to have been downvoted into limitations because someone disagreed with the narrative here seems beyond your ability to grasp. The only ones downvoted to limitations are spamalek shill douchenozzle types.

Odd, I never had any restrictions. What I am doing is pointing out what you truly are and holding you accountable, so far all you've done is downvoat me (lol) and throw a fit.

I never said you did, and I don't really care to put in the effort for a "what I think I'm doing" comic for you, but that's not what anyone else sees. Nice try though.

As for who's silenced you bragged elsewhere how you "personally identified" all these oh so terrible people invading voat. A little investigation into your post history shows me a different story.

No, it doesn't. Nice try though.

You're full of shit and a danger to the purpose of this site, you demonstrated it here, with me, by trying to call in support to more effectively brigade me. Problem was, kevdude's seen me before and knows I hate shills of any stripe.

I didn't call him there to brigade you, you're literally the only one defending these faggots, and he was the first to post that this seemed like an organized effort. Also, I don't believe you about what he's seen or thinks about you. @kevdude

That is why I said something to you in the first place.

Nah, you said something to me in the first place because you didn't do your homework, and thought I might be an easy target.

Jixijenga ago

I didn't read any of that except the part with the pretty blue @kevdude mention. Sorry. (not really)

I'm not defending anyone, I saw something that was bullshit in your post and responded. That's it. So far I haven't seen you actually define "these faggots" so I'm not exactly sure who I'm supposed to be defending in the first place. If anything they're props for my argument in that you're a paranoid loon claiming the site's full of paid shills and to that I'd say slow your roll, Sanegoat, no it isn't.

A quick scan through your post tells me I'm not far off the mark, the part about "you say limiting how often" made me laugh because I don't recall saying that at all. Please quote me.

You're projecting whatever insane bullshit you have in your head about all those damnable shareblue shills behind every corner on me. Sorry, champ, but I'm actually for the downvoat restrictions staying as-is because they're the least-worst option we have.

Crensch ago

Since you don't read anything but my pings to kevdude: @kevdude Feel free to comment if you want, I'm done with this shill.

Jixijenga ago

quote me

Your answer? Run away. I'm really not surprised.

Crensch ago

You didn't read my words, so I didn't read yours. I'd say that's a fair deal, and you expecting more from me than you're willing to give just really shows your character.

Jixijenga ago

I read some of your words, though, and then I gave you the courtesy of briefly browsing over the rest of your post.

I'd really like you to actually marry your projections and whatever the fuck you have in your head with my actual comments please, because most of our exchange has been marred by a gross disconnect from reality. We haven't been able to find common ground because you keep trying to hammer round peg of "defending these faggots" into the square hole of my posts, I don't think you've actually read anything I've posted besides the bits necessary for you to continue this behavior.

We have nothing else to say otherwise.

Crensch ago

Maybe you'll read your own words:

I didn't read any of that except the part with the pretty blue @ kevdude mention. Sorry. (not really)

http://archive.is/EPwic

http://archive.is/FSbiT

I read some of your words, though, and then I gave you the courtesy of briefly browsing over the rest of your post.

So either way, you're a liar.

Jixijenga ago

From the archived post directly:

A quick scan through your post tells me I'm not far off the mark, the part about "you say limiting how often" made me laugh because I don't recall saying that at all. Please quote me.

A quick scan through your post tells me I'm not far off the mark, the part about "you say limiting how often" made me laugh

A quick scan through your post tells me I'm not far off the mark

A quick scan through your post

quick

scan

What lie?

Jixijenga ago

Point out how I'm a lair. You're full of shit, proof is in the very post you tried to use as evidence.

I say I read one part, and then after responding to that part (this is still some of your post) I "did you the courtesy of briefly browsing over the rest" and said as much by stating I did a "quick scan through the rest of your post."

Pathetic. If you want to stop this grow a fucking spine and just say, "let's stop." Don't resort to literally making shit up just so you can pretend like you're taking the high road as you run away.

EDIT: I'm still waiting for you to do this:

I'd really like you to actually marry your projections and whatever the fuck you have in your head with my actual comments please, because most of our exchange has been marred by a gross disconnect from reality.

10248263? ago

I don't disagree with any of that, but at the same time we cannot say with certainty that a bunch of people behaving like autists or aggressively and espousing unpopular opinions are necessarily paid shills. Are we not, who possess free speech, strong enough to refute their baseless claims without limiting the number of claims they can make per day? If they spam their paid viewpoints they will get banned for spam; if they manipulate votes so that they can downvote they will get banned for manipulation -- but if they are just commenting as much as any other user and they happen to get downvoted for it, what justification do we really have for restricting their speech? We are stronger than that, and they are weaker than for us to need to restrict them.

Crensch ago

I don't disagree with any of that, but at the same time we cannot say with certainty that a bunch of people behaving like autists or aggressively and espousing unpopular opinions are necessarily paid shills.

What we can do currently is force them to jump one single hurdle to continue posting here. A hurdle I posit is extremely trivial to overcome.

Are we not, who possess free speech, strong enough to refute their baseless claims without limiting the number of claims they can make per day?

I think you're missing some of my point here. When 5/6 of the comments are from those paid-for liars, those looking for the truth will stop looking and upvoating, and those writing the truth will conclude that their input is not appreciated.

The truth is strong enough to survive when not drowned out by bullshit. If the lies had to meet some kind of criteria that the truth requires by definition, the truth would always win.

I think we've seen the truth lose plenty of times IRL to a hailstorm of lies, because lies are held to absolutely no standard, and the liars go unpunished.

If they spam their paid viewpoints they will get banned for spam

Is not the definition of spam currently just posting the same words over and over? How would you justify calling it spam when it's really just 12 "users" in cubicles posting their "thoughts" that aren't just copy-pasted?

As it stands, I think it's difficult enough pinpointing these users when the users of the site are working to do so. We seem to be right often enough, though.

but if they are just commenting as much as any other user and they happen to get downvoted for it, what justification do we really have for restricting their speech?

The users downvoated into restrictions didn't get there from simply unpopular opinions. Or if they did, they only posted unpopular opinions, which I posit is simply trolling.

Anyone can get plenty of upvotes here without much effort. Even those heavily downvoted users can make comments with +7 if they set aside their "unpopular" opinions for a single comment. Are we saying that asking them to do that more is too much?

We are stronger than that, and they are weaker than for us to need to restrict them.

The truth is only strong when it's not drowned out by half-truths, lies, and irrelevancies.

All of which would have garnered downvotes, and allowed the users to limit that username.

Imagine a username that goes around and lies on purpose. Every comment. Constantly. In order to make himself seen and heard.

No downvotes can stop him.

Now there's 10 of them.

Or 20. Paid for.

Only some small amount of mods or admins or council members to deal with them. Only nobody can, because they're not spamming.

Every political post, and comment in that post, is now responded to by 20 of these "users".

No hail of downvotes can stop them. 20 clicks of downvotes by five real users to even hide them - if they don't get upvoted a bit by each other.

But maybe I'm missing something. Some puzzle-piece of information that didn't fit.

10248596? ago

What we can do currently is force them to jump one single hurdle to continue posting here. A hurdle I posit is extremely trivial to overcome.

Though is is rational and reasonable on the surface, what it boils down to is: "Behave the way I want you to or have your speech restricted" which just isn't freedom of speech. If people aren't spamming or otherwise breaking the site, they ought to be able to post a bunch of incoherent nonsense as often the rest of us can post our coherent nonsense. We can downvote them and push their incoherence out of sight, at least.

I think you're missing some of my point here. When 5/6 of the comments are from those paid-for liars, those looking for the truth will stop looking and upvoating, and those writing the truth will conclude that their input is not appreciated.

But we will identify the paid comments if they are so evident, we will downvote them, and they will be pushed to the bottom, leaving only the quality comments we are looking for at the top, no?

As it stands, I think it's difficult enough pinpointing these users when the users of the site are working to do so. We seem to be right often enough, though.

And we can continue to moderate in this way as a community. If only a few words are changed from a two paragraph rant, it will still be considered spam. If the same argument is made, but re-typed every time, and it is posted to twenty threads in five minutes, that's probably spam. These are the judgments we can make transparently and act on, and if there is outcry there can be reversals.

The users downvoated into restrictions didn't get there from simply unpopular opinions. Or if they did, they only posted unpopular opinions, which I posit is simply trolling.

Again, a fair point, but they are free to troll without consequence so long as the trolling is not actual spam etc..

The truth is only strong when it's not drowned out by half-truths, lies, and irrelevancies.

Notice the key words in that definition: short span. If the bullshit is essentially the same then the community might decide it's spam. Of course we have to be careful about this which is why its all transparent. But if five 30 minute accounts show up and fill a thread with different ramblings about how great Stalin's USSR was, we can probably safely deduce it's spam and ban the accounts if it is truly agreed to be spam. IF NOT we can downvote and the comments will collapse out of sight anyway.

magine a username that goes around and lies on purpose. Every comment. Constantly. In order to make himself seen and heard.

No downvotes can stop him.

Downvotes push his comments out of sight. Same with the other 20. If they spam (or the accounts are linked, thus confirming the spam) they'll be banned. All the arguments I'm making from the point of "ban the spammers" depends on it being obvious spam, though, which is why generally I'm responding with "downvotes still hide the shills/ lies"

Crensch ago

Though is is rational and reasonable on the surface, what it boils down to is: "Behave the way I want you to or have your speech restricted" which just isn't freedom of speech.

No, I view it as paying for that freedom of speech. Freedom isn't free. Some things must be sacrificed in order to have a government that will protect you from the other assholes that want to come in and make you not free.

When you come to this site, you are entering a community, and while you have the right to say what you want, there's still a bare minimum effort needed to be a part of this community. Voat exists because people contribute things here. They contribute things here because there's a community here to share their ideas with.

It's like moving into a neighborhood. Keep your damn grass cut, or you ruin the place for everyone around you.

If people aren't spamming or otherwise breaking the site, they ought to be able to post a bunch of incoherent nonsense as often the rest of us can post our coherent nonsense.

I'm not really sure I believe what I just read. I don't want to jump to any conclusions, so please, explain yourself here. To give you an idea, this sounds a lot like Merkel of Germany style rhetoric.

We can downvote them and push their incoherence out of sight, at least. But we will identify the paid comments if they are so evident, we will downvote them, and they will be pushed to the bottom, leaving only the quality comments we are looking for at the top, no?

Until we can't, or until it's not worth it.

To continue the neighborhood analogy, neighbors have to come and mow your lawn to keep the place up. Then more lazy fucks move in, and more neighbors need to mow their lawns. At some point, those neighbors are just going to stop or move away.

And we can continue to moderate in this way as a community. If only a few words are changed from a two paragraph rant, it will still be considered spam.

All it takes is a few people paid to say about the same thing constantly. They won't be copy-pasting, they'll be rewording it entirely. No, they're not "spamming" but they're not legitimate either, and their comments encroach on the legitimate real estate of the site.

If the same argument is made, but re-typed every time, and it is posted to twenty threads in five minutes, that's probably spam. These are the judgments we can make transparently and act on, and if there is outcry there can be reversals.

Some small group of volunteers are needed to make these judgments that will likely pile up like the current submission spam. These volunteers will get to parse how much of these "users" crap before making a decision?

At what point do those volunteers decide that it's not worth it?

Again, a fair point, but they are free to troll without consequence so long as the trolling is not actual spam etc..

Of course they are, but because they are limited by the users on how much real estate they can cover, the trolls never became more than a small group of semi-irritating staples of the Voat diet. Once the limitations are gone, they'll have no reason to not take up as much real estate as they can.

And like I said, users are going to just stop mowing their lawns so other users don't have to see their comments.

Notice the key words in that definition: short span.

No... no no. That is absolutely, 100% addressed by pointing out that any length of time will result in exponentially more bullshit than truth. Please don't go there, this is the second line of yours that I cannot accept.

If the bullshit is essentially the same then the community might decide it's spam. Of course we have to be careful about this which is why its all transparent. But if five 30 minute accounts show up and fill a thread with different ramblings about how great Stalin's USSR was, we can probably safely deduce it's spam and ban the accounts if it is truly agreed to be spam.

Those 5 accounts with their 30 minutes just caused how much work for us? How much time and effort and resources? Are we talking all hypotheticals here or are we actually addressing the realities of these situations?

A simple equation:

Troll/shill/spammer time X

Voat volunteer time Y

If X - Y is not a decently-sized number, Y will be buried in actions by X.

Some small, in-control group of neighbors have to now not only mow the lawns, but pick up the trash in the yard.

And we're not even talking about the accounts that aren't just 30 minutes old.

All the arguments I'm making from the point of "ban the spammers" depends on it being obvious spam, though, which is why generally I'm responding with "downvotes still hide the shills/ lies"

I realize this, but that small group determining spam is just going to get completely snowed under now. Bannings don't really work, since you can just make a new account in 10 seconds.

The only thing combating this was that every user could waste a troll/shill's 10s, and cause them to waste 5s switching between usernames constantly. We'd crowdsource mowing their lawn and picking up their trash between ALL of the users, and I posit that's why comments aren't really an issue now.

I'm arguing from a position of, "it's working, things are good now, everyone has to pay property taxes". Property taxes being another form of the mowing the lawn analogy. If you're not free because you have to mow your lawn, or pay property taxes, then nobody is free, and the concept of freedom in the context it's being used here is an absurdity.

10249070? ago

No, I view it as paying for that freedom of speech. Freedom isn't free. Some things must be sacrificed in order to have a government that will protect you from the other assholes that want to come in and make you not free.

If someone bursts down your door with an ax the government isn't going to save you or your family. That's why we pursue liberty (i.e. maximized power over self) -- so we can bear arms and defend ourselves. Now, freedom does come with substantially increased responsibility, because it is a form of power. That responsibility includes not going into the town square and screeching at the top of your lungs for hours, and speaking in moderation so that others have the opportunity to speak themselves. In a forum setting this translates to: don't spam. That's why spamming is a bannable offense. Lies, though, should fall within freedom, not an abuse of freedom. Same with "well-manneredness".

The grass analogy is good. Mowing lawns should not be enforced by laws, but they should still be mowed out of respect for neighbours. Likewise, spam should be enforced, but manners and truth-telling should not be -- but users should still be well-mannered and tell the truth. Sometimes they won't; that's their own immorality coming to light, but it is not our place to ban them for it. What we can do is downvote them so their words are hidden, at least.

If people aren't spamming or otherwise breaking the site, they ought to be able to post a bunch of incoherent nonsense as often the rest of us can post our coherent nonsense.

I'm not really sure I believe what I just read. I don't want to jump to any conclusions, so please, explain yourself here. To give you an idea, this sounds a lot like Merkel of Germany style rhetoric.

I don't understand what issue you are taking with it. If people want to post incoherence, let them. That's their freedom. If they want to spam it that's another issue, for the reasons I stated above.

Until we can't, or until it's not worth it.

If we find ourselves unable to downvote obvious shills it is because those shills are buying upvotes, which Putt can now easily detect and ban them for. As for our energy to downvote, that's not going anywhere unless the shills are so overwhelmingly present that surely a community will be able to identify spammers.

At what point do those volunteers decide that it's not worth it?

We've had users doing this for two years, suffering through all the reports, and they still think it's worth it. Because they care about Voat and freedom.

Once the limitations are gone, they'll have no reason to not take up as much real estate as they can.

But the restrictions aren't going anywhere! They're just being assigned in a different way.

I'm arguing from a position of, etc.

I get that. We are only discussing possibilities. No system will be introduced that works worse than the one we have now. If we make changes and all of a sudden Voat is unusable no matter how hard we work, we will return to the previous system. But is seems possible to me that using a report feature instead of downvotes can achieve the same effect without jeopardizing innocent users. That's all.

Crensch ago

Apologies, I'm in a situation right now where I cannot respond to each point as I'd like, but a smaller response is something I can manage, so here goes:

I had the feeling there was some information I wasn't privy to. I think your response here has alluded to some of that.

My concerns are that putt and the spammer groups will be overwhelmed with reports. That this change will cause the burden to be pushed upwards.

That even if these spammer groups are identified, it won't hurt them because they can have hundreds of sleeper usernames. But if Putt can combat that as well, then there's no problem.

We've had users doing this for two years, suffering through all the reports, and they still think it's worth it. Because they care about Voat and freedom.

My concern is when/if it becomes a situation where their efforts don't actually make a dent in the workload. Instead of all the users sharing it, they get all of it - and it'd be an easy weakpoint to attack if you wanted to subvert this place.

10249454? ago

I fully understand those concerns; they are legitimate. We won't be able to properly know how manageable such a change -- if implemented at all -- will be unless we try. With enough people on board I think we could manage it. We could assign the responsibility of flagging reports to random users, but then we run into the issue of inactive users winding up with calls for jury duty.

Andalusian1 ago

Wonderfully put

SexMachine ago

I like this idea, actually was about to suggest something similar, give someone trusted a limited admin account to restrict accounts that have been reviewed and revealed to be posting spam.

Maybe even have an automatic limiter in place for new accounts that are posting 20+ comments/links within an hour to be reviewed as well.

absurdlyobfuscated ago

Maybe even have an automatic limiter in place for new accounts that are posting 20+ comments/links within an hour to be reviewed as well.

Yes please!

And a possible alternative to deal with spam flooding that would be friendlier to new users could involve having the system to automatically report sudden surges of posts or comments. I'd envision something that would detect lots of posts from the same domain or user or IP address - or if any other metrics exist to detect the same source it could use those. Then all those reports would end up in a queue along with the stuff that gets lots of user reports, and a human can review the domain/user/etc. and filter or ban as appropriate. The important part is that certain actions should set off some alarms so they can be dealt with, and flooding and a high number/percent of spam reports should both be easy to detect.

If an automatic system is set up so some kind of rate limit is imposed when an account starts flooding, then when a report goes to the spam review process it should also have the option to flag that source as not spam and at least temporarily remove the restrictions on it. That way you aren't stuck with reddit-like restrictions and wouldn't end up with new accounts begging for karma to get around the filters. I really like ideas like PeaceSeeker's that don't negatively impact normal users, and I think we can build something that can deal with the spam problem and at the same time not be all that obtrusive or put up too many barriers.

10246743? ago

The best part about this suggestion is that whoever is doing the marking will still be accountable the way that all Voat mods are. Every action they take will be logged publicly for the community to see. If ever there is a "Spam Flagger" who steps out of line, remove them and replace them with someone else. Very simple, and no one innocent has to suffer.