*** 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 →
quantokitty ago
But there used to be a 100 CPP barrier, so is this how it worked?
As I remember it, you have the same barrier before you can up or downvoat anything. I distinctly remember furiously responding to posts to enjoy this privilege. I didn't have to do that in another subverse, I commented here in #pizzaagate. It's why I'm having a hard time believing/understanding why it would be different in this case.
If what you're repeating is true, then it would need to change to being able to comment, etc. in pizzagate. It makes no sense having to go elsewhere, and I wouldn't do that either. It would kill new membership. As for the subverse not showing up, I don't have a problem with that. I came here from Reddit (it does suck) for the express purpose of posting in the one subverse. In other words, I sought it out. I would say most members felt that way, in that, they knew why they were coming here and not putzng around.
If the above does not make sense to you, then what would your solution/remedy be to shills posting ten thousand shit posts to remove informative posts from the "Hot" page? What would be a viable alternative?
Vindicator ago
Quantokitty, this is exactly what the current submission rules were designed to accomplish: allowing mods to remove shitposts in order to protect legit content from forum-sliding shills. Users downvoat shitty submissions, mods look at the downvoat count and vet individual posts for rule violations and either remove them or flare them so users can downvoat them to oblivion.
As I see it, the problem comes from lack of consensus between users, mods, and sometimes O's about which posts violate Rule 1 and which don't. If we have consensus on that, we don't have to change any of the site settings to unduly limit new user posts, the ability for pizzagoats to gain CCP in v/pizzagate, or v/pizzagate posts to get Voat-wide attention.
@VieBleu @kevdude @ESOTERICshade @Millennial_Falcon
quantokitty ago
The point is that there will never be a consensus, that's why a barrier needs to be constructed that is definitive.
For example, this morning, there were four identical posts on Arpaio. This is in addition to the ones posted yesterday. It's ridiculous and obviously a concerted effort on the part of those supporting The Cannibal Elite to disrupt this forum and spread anti-Trump propaganda.
The other way the shills work it is for one new member to post numerous submissions. So we have a member that's been here for fifteen minutes with five submissions. This is almost always in retaliation for a legitimate post that either is attracting attention, or has information they want to bury.
So let's get it through our heads that there will never be a consensus on this, but that we could construct a barrier. It would not solve all life's problems, but it would solve this one. Plus the mods (MF) won't get shit for removing a post by a user that has under 100 CCP. Since that will be a rule, a clear rule, s/he will only be following the rule. In fact, MF or whoever is mod will probably get a pat on the back for getting rid of shit posts effectively. We get tired of downvoating this crap and then having it linger. Like the Arpaio post ... they're still there when we woke up this morning!
cantsleepawink ago
Well said.
quantokitty ago
Thanks.