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 →
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.
Crensch ago
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
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
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.
.
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.
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
And we don't take after them at all. We don't parrot shit from them, we have our own culture.
The site is populated by idiot consumers like you, and content providers like me, empress, and kevdude.
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
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.
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
"Guys, I'm too cool to create content - creating content is so vain"
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.
Attacking me because I've gotten under your skin.
My points are nothing but an indicator that I provide information and viewpoints that people have chosen to upvote.
I'm sure your virtue-signalling would help your case on a libtard website. It doesn't really work here.
You need to read my words again, apparently:
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.
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.
No, it doesn't. Nice try though.
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
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
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:
http://archive.is/EPwic
http://archive.is/FSbiT
So either way, you're a liar.
Jixijenga ago
From the archived post directly:
What lie?
Crensch ago
https://voat.co/v/announcements/2077695/10272537
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:
Crensch ago
https://voat.co/v/announcements/2077695/10272537