SCP and CCP no longer play any role in your ability do submit links/start discussions or vote. You can now downvote as soon as you create an account. Please note that you can only vote once from a single IP address (voting IP addresses are stored encrypted and we have no way to reverse this encryption). We are still tweaking this so please report if you notice anything unusual about voting.
Edit: The biggest reason for this change is that I noticed how multiple subverses had "please upvote me" threads where their members were able to gain 300+ CCP in matter of minutes. At the same time, regular users would need weeks or even months to reach this level. That essentially broke the old system and we need something new. Perhaps requiring new accounts to create 100 comments in 100 different subs before being able to vote 100 times? If you have an idea, please feel free to share it, I'm all ears.
Edit 2: Here is an example of the problem I am trying to tackle:
- a large corporation which has hundreds or thousands of employees, comes over to Voat and pushes their advertising links to the frontpage because upvotes are not restricted for new accounts as much as downvotes
- at the same time, majority of Voat users today does not have the ability to downvote or has restricted downvotes
Edit 3: This is now reverted to the way it was. I need to think this through.
view the rest of the comments →
NapoleonComplex ago
Out of curiosity, what's the reasoning for the change?
ExtremeSquared ago
I think some of the "fringe communities" here have been gaming the system to ensure every member had downvoat power.
Vloorshad ago
Let's not kid ourselves and think that anybody we're worried about brigading wouldn't do this to make sure any of their members and alts could downvoat.
I'm with @EugeneNix in that the ability to turn off downvoats for specific subs is a good idea. However, that could also be abused to hell and back by undesirable subs, possibly even worse than CCP requirements. So maybe less "with", and more "I think we might need to get the mods something other than CCP requirements to manage downvoats in their subs".
SpaceRosa ago
How so? They could stop people from downvoting, but right now they can effectively stop that anyway by turning up the CCP needed to an absurd level like 5000. The price is to be removed from /v/all.
Vloorshad ago
I'm currently working some mental gymnastics to keep a sub on /v/all while mitigating the damage a brigade can do.
I don't have the time to think too deeply on it, but the more I think about it, the worse of an idea I think it is to allow a sub that blocks/limits downvoats on /v/all.
SpaceRosa ago
That's the point of it. If you alter the CCP needed in a subverse to downvote, it's removed from /v/all. Early on, some (white genocide, I think it was?) subverse was using an absurdly high threshold. It couldn't be downvotes, so it would keep hitting the front page. That feature was added in to put them on a more even playing field.
Vloorshad ago
Yeah, I figured it was for things like this. Despite this, I don't know that I want subs with downvoat restrictions being entirely excluded from the front page, either. Maybe subtract the required CCP from its upvoats? Thus a sub like your example would need 5000 upvoats just to be at 0.
SpaceRosa ago
Someone suggested a "True All" that would display all subverses, including those with a downvote restriction. I can't remember if it was noticed or not, but that might be good.
Vloorshad ago
That would actually probably be both an easier and better solution. /v/all could be the default like it is, and /v/trueall (or maybe /v/unfilteredall or /v/rawall)could be one that you subscribe to.
Atko ago
It was an unequal playing field.
tex ago
So let's burn the field!
dis_is_my_account ago
Care to consider my idea again? https://voat.co/v/ideasforvoat/comments/89165
JJEvil ago
Did you reach this conclusion because of the ridiculous number of upvotes on anti @she posts?
Atko ago
No, I did this after noticing that multiple subverses had "please upvote me" threads where their members were able to gain 300+ CCP in matter of hours. At the same time, regular users would need MONTHS to reach this level.
JJEvil ago
Well that is a dis-incentive for regular folks to hang around. So the issue is organized groups monopolizing and controlling the content and conversations.
Thisismyvoatusername ago
Of course it resulted in an unequal playing field. I thought that was the entire point. I actually thought it was a good rule since it required someone to establish themselves as part of the community before being a fully active participant. It made people more invested. I'm not going to cry that you changed it, but I am not convinced the old rule was unfair which you seem to imply.
Calith ago
Can you help us understand a little more about what you mean by that? (Example maybe?)
LegoMyEgo ago
A new user comes in believing this is a place where they can state their opinion without backlash. That opinion happens to be that there's nothing wrong with a person just because their skin color is not white or that they are overweight. People who disagree will downvote this person possibly into the -50 restriction zone. The new user can already only upvote ten times in 24 hrs, but now they're limited to how many submissions and comments they can make. Ultimately it doesn't promote discussion or participation unless your opinion fits with the majority; that is that only skinny white people should be commenting or interacting.
The majority of voat's users came from reddit because they or their subs were banned from reddit. There's a strong anti-SJW vibe on voat right now and if you make a comment that could resemble anything a SJW would possibly say, you may be subject to downvotes even if you are not an SJW or don't even support SJW's.
This is an extreme example and I don't have any evidence that this scenario has happened. I'm just giving an example of how the voting restrictions discourage new users to participate.
beren ago
Is it unlimited voting? Have you seen any of the threads about tweaking the voating system such as "earning" down votes (you get one down vote for every 10 up votes earned), or even getting rid of down votes altogether?
cfl1 ago
Downvoting submissions is absolutely vital.
beren ago
There have been tons of discussions on this and what it boils down to is they are not needed, some people just want them. If you want popular comments at the top, they get upvoted, no downvoting needed. If spam/trolls are your concern, they can always be reported and removed by mods if needed.
cfl1 ago
Try reading the actual comment.
With up/downvoting on posts, communities can self-mod without having to rely on the (lack of) wisdom and effort of all-powerful mod gods. This works better in the long run.
Makingbaconpancakes ago
Won't the brigadiers be able to come in and downvoat everything they want on multiple accounts with a VPN?
I liked seeing 0's everywhere instead of -x's.
Icy-Defiance ago
What I've been observing is the circlejerky hate subs are getting a bunch of people over 100 ccp, and the normal people aren't even close. It's been really distorting a few conversations, so this change might fix that.
I can see this going either way, or both ways at once.
FilmMakingShitlord ago
Yeah, it's not hard to get 100 ccp after making 10 comments on FPH
reed ago
My concern as well.
NapoleonComplex ago
Fair enough. Keep up the good work, man!
zoetry ago
I'm thinking it's due to all the people whining about censorship.