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 →
EIMR ago
I don't like this. This stopped new groups from brigading and taught that downvoting is important, not to be used indiscriminately as a disagree button. I don't see anything good coming from this.
EDIT: @Atko , what will happen with subverses that decide to continue having the CCP Requirement? Will they still be out of v/All?
12_Years_A_Toucan ago
They are working on a better system https://voat.co/v/voatdev/comments/413243
Aaragon ago
It's at least reassuring to know that when they say they're working on a plan, they actually mean it.
While I don't like the change right now, I have faith that they will make things right.
Snake973 ago
What's this strange new feeling? Is it "trust in an admin"???
Icy-Defiance ago
It's just a phase. I'm sure we'll grow out of it.
JoeMomma8008 ago
While I side with you in this statement, I fucking hope not. It's nice trusting the admins.
HomerSimpson ago
With their recent actions on the askvoat shit. I am already becoming weary.
Icy-Defiance ago
Eh, I strongly defended she from all the SJW conspiracy bullshit, but removing a sub from the defaults is a very minimal action, and the rule was pretty stupid. As long as he doesn't just start arbitrarily removing mods from power, I personally don't see a problem.
HomerSimpson ago
He didn't say a thing about the witch hunt that happened on the user. He joined the mob mentality bullshit without looking at what actually happened. The thought that he might cause a hostile takeover of the sub as well. Acting like that small rule is going to be the end of Voat. Acting like rules should be lessened just so Voat can grow more. The thought that he wants to add a stupid election system.
@Atko the last few days has disappointed me quicker than the reddit admins have in my entirety of reddit.
Icy-Defiance ago
Which is the main reason I supported the action. He didn't care about that and just thought the rule was dumb. At least that's how I interpreted it. The defaults are really just Atko's favorite subs anyway, and they become irrelevant as soon as someone makes an account and subscribes to something, so he might as well be picky about what kind of thing he supports.
That one does worry me a little, but nothing has happened yet, and I think Putt is more in touch with 'happenings' than Atko is. On that count, I'll just wait and see. There's always 8chan if things go to hell here, but personally, I don't think they have yet.
HomerSimpson ago
So a user being run off the site because they don't have the same views as the majority is fine with you? This site is becoming an echochamber and that will be the downfall of this site.
Icy-Defiance ago
Absolutely not, and I got called an SJW a dozen times and had two people advocate against using my website because I argued against it, lol. However, I think that's a separate issue, and I actually respect Atko for not mentioning it. It's like he neither joined it or tried to stop it, and instead pulled the one valid issue from it (a silly rule) and acted on that.
12_Years_A_Toucan ago
As the admin he should be a leader in behavior for his sight. Simply mentioning it and and at least acknowledging it was occurring would have been nice
Icy-Defiance ago
On that count, I can see both sides. Yeah, it would be nice, but there's also something be said for admins not getting involved in drama. I can tell random people "you're an asshole" because I'm not that consequential, but when Atko does it, it becomes site policy, and having a policy against drama seems pretty bad.