*** Our usual sticky, the Executive Summary of Pizzagate Evidence, can be found in the sidebar and here. ***
There's been a great discussion over the past few weeks in v/pizzagatewhatever about what users would like to change in order to improve the functioning of this subverse, so we'd like to take an official poll to gauge sentiment. I will describe details here, and list individual proposals separately in the Comments below; please upvoat or downvoat each of them and/or leave a subcomment to voice your opinion on the matter.
Item #1: Should we turn on the 100 CCP Downvoat setting (Doesn't prevent shitposts; Removes us from being visible outside this sub)
The primary concern discussed is cutting down the number of shill and troll posts by limiting downvoats to those who have 100 Comment Contribution Points. Please be aware there was quite a bit of misinformation contained in that discussion. Here are the facts:
Kevdude explained to me how CCP works:
CCP are points we get for comments. The middle number at the top is your sitewide ccp. Once that hit 100 you can downvote. You can not downvote anywhere if you are under 100.
In the sidebar there is the minimum ccp to dv in a sub. That refers to your in-sub ccp which is ccp you generate on the comments you make in that sub. (which is why under that you see "your ccp for this sub"). That does not mean new users with 0 ccp can downvote. It just means tgat you don't have to generate points in the sub to dv there. If you raise the sub minimum 2 things happen. Users can no longer generate ccp for the sub and the sub is blocked from v/all.
@VieBleu characterized the 100 CCP limit to downvoat as a "figleaf" and implied it limits people's ability to submit material. The first point is accurate, the second is not.
To clarify: turning on this setting has NO IMPACT on the ability to submit or comment. It's main effect is to prevent our material from being seen outside this subverse (something many shills and several pedos who frequent this board would love to have happen!) and stop each of us from accruing Comment Contribution Points for our comments within this subverse. This could have the unintended effect of severely limiting those who primarily contribute to v/pizzagate! CCP is an important buffer -- if people downvoat your comments into the negatives, you lose the ability to comment. Organized downvoat brigades can effectively silence those with low CCP. Currently, SCP -- submission contribution points -- have no effect on the ability of your account to take action on Voat (other than demonstrating you are an actual contributor).
Based on this, I believe turning on the 100 CCP downvoat minimum would unnecessarily empower the shills and trolls -- the exact opposite of the intended effect, which is why @Crensch @Kevdude @VictorSteinerDavion and others who have been pinged about this have said no. However, because users have requested it, I am going to include it in this poll as item number one. Please make an informed vote.
Proposal #2: Turn on the "Only allow submissions from authorized users" feature & Authorize users who introduce themselves in new sister-sub
In the thread mentioned above, user @GoodGodKirk suggested we create a Pizzagate Introductions sister-sub, and close submissions to those who have not introduced themselves. I believe that would be FAR more effective and have less negative consequences for legit users than turning on the 100 CCP Downvoat option. However, it would require we stop allowing submissions from everyone until they make a post in the new subverse. The downside to this is that it would radically downthrottle content in the short term. This is a huge change and would need a demonstration of major support from the community, but could be a very interesting experiment! Please vote and comment below.
Include any thoughts you may have about how to get the most out of an intros sister-sub to hinder shills and support legit Pizzagoats. For example, before approving submitters, we could require they subscribe to all five (now six) sister subs -- so that stuff from v/pizzagatewhatever ends up on their front page and people aren't so reluctant to post speculative or unsourced stuff there.
Proposal #3: Change mods/owners (various ideas)
In VieBleu's threads, various ideas and proposals were put forward, including adding me as an O. I have mixed feelings about that and feel really weird putting it in a sticky. I am including it, though, because I said I would do this sticky based on what was discussed. Two new facts have come to light however since that thread that may make this a moot point:
Proposal #4: Revisit what is and isn't Rule 1 compliant (directly related to Pizzagate)
This topic has caused massive frustration for users and mods, and will require it's own sticky, as there are a number of issues and this could dramatically shift what is allowed to remain on the board. For now, please voat about whether we should discuss this, and leave a comment about why stuff that's removed now should be included, or why not, so those thoughts can be included in a future sticky.
Proposal #5: Hide the "Share a Link" button
The low effort required to post in v/pizzagate via Share a Link, as well as the inability to edit post headlines (Link posts are ONLY headlines) to satisfy the rest of the submission rules make this idea very attractive to mods. We have to take down numerous otherwise legit posts because people don't take the time to write a clear, accurate headline that explains how the link they are sharing is directly related to Pizzagate. We can't remove the functionality, but we can hide the button. This would go a long way toward reducing unnecessary post removals on technicalities.
Those are the five main proposals as I saw it. If I've missed any, please include them in the Comments below. Give them a headline like I have done (put a "#" with no space at the beginning of the headline, and a double carriage return after, some text describing why you think the change should be made, and ask people to vote on it.)
Edit: formatting
view the rest of the comments →
Votescam ago
May I ask ... WHY does the link come in the title?
Why not do it as every other thread is done ...show a topic and then give the link separately?
Would that change any of the problems?
Vindicator ago
Votescam, are you asking why Rule 3 requires titles to clearly state the link to PG and accurately describe the content being linked in a "Share a Link" post? Discuss posts already include the hyperlink separately and can explain the PG relevance in the body of the submission. "Share a Link" posts have no body text -- just a headline and link. Therefore, the headline has to do the whole job of satisfying all of the submission rules.
Votescam ago
No -- I was asking why the TITLE also had to be a link .. and why the link couldn't just appear in the body of the message.
But now that I'm reading some of your explanation, why are there two ways to do it? Why not only one?
Unfortunately, I've never really tried before to get deeply into the ways and means of the website/rules, etal. And actually haven't yet finished reading the sticky as it seemed so confusing, but will be back on it tonight, I trust.
:)
cantsleepawink ago
From my experience, direct links to videos or articles sometimes engage people more than detailed discussions which require more effort on the part of the reader. Particularly if it is related to something current in the news or it's a new video that has popped up on Youtube and needs to be seen by other people.
There's an area within computer science called Human Computer Interaction (HCI) which is all about the psychology of what motivates people to engage with digital information. It's where website designers get their 'good design principles' from. Just having a thumbnail next to the title of a post, as happens with direct links, has a significant effect on the number of people who will actually click on it. Discussion within the comments section then becomes an effective mechanism for pooling resources. Perhaps you could try posting a bit more, and trying out both options and observe the difference.
Taking that option away would be a HUGE mistake.
cantsleepawink ago
From my experience, direct links to videos or articles sometimes engage people more than detailed discussions which require more effort on the part of the reader. Particularly if it is related to something current in the news or it's a new video that has popped up on Youtube and needs to be seen by other people.
There's a area within computer science called Human Computer Interaaction (HCI) which is all about the psychology of what motivates people to engage with digital information. It's where website designers get their 'good design principles' from. Just having a thumbnail next to the title of a post, as happens with direct links, has a significant effect on the number of people who will actually click on it. Discussion within the comments section then becomes an effective mechanism for pooling resources. Perhaps you could try posting a bit more, and trying out both options and observe the difference.
Taking that option away would be a HUGE mistake.
Votescam ago
cant --
Thank you for the response and, sadly, you're probably wasting your time sharing your knowledge with me as I've never paid any attention to the systems here and certainly not the discussions about them. But I got an email from someone asking me to look at that thread and to vote. And it's been at a bad time because I'm way behind in my internet reading -- that is backed up! And since I know very little about the systems I do ask a Q or two, but I have no intention of advocating any changes.
On websites that I visit, most often the Title/Subject can be the headline of an article ... but the "title" is not an active link to the article .... the link is at the bottom of a paragraph or two or three or four about the article.
That way readers have the option of deciding at that point whether they want to explore the article and/or subject further.
Also, then, the comments can also be seen at the same times.
In some of the threads here, if you hit the title you're taken immediately away from the website... and you cannot see the comments.
Frequently, not realizing that the title is an active link, I have to back up to the Voat again and then hit "comments."
Not that I'm letting others decide what I'm reading or not ... but because I really prefer it when someone gives me at least some info about what I might find in the article.
:)
cantsleepawink ago
Uh oh. Looks like you guys are seriously fixing to get rid of another important tool for distributing information. Did you not see my example yesterday of my 'direct link to a video' post which had 4 upvoats within less than 5 minutes (explanation and context in the title and comment section); it was then deleted by MF, I reposted in the discussion format - ZILCH votes in 15 minutes before being deleted again?
There are many good reasons to keep it.
Vindicator ago
It definitely makes the page less boring to look at. :-) And we won't get rid of it unless a lot of users agree that would be worthwhile.
Honeybee_ ago
Can we add an image (thumbnail) to our posts headers that appear on the front page instead of a video thumbnail, add that to the "discuss" link as an option?