I've been downvoated into the negatives once gaining mod status (pizzagatemods)

submitted ago by wecanhelp

(@kevdude, fair call with no exceptions on /v/pizzagate. Resubmitting here.)

Shorty after being made into a mod (M) by @kevdude, my account got downvoated to -95 from almost 300 over the course of maybe two hours, in an obvious attack carried out by 3-4 accounts. Apparently @belphegorsprime is [another victim](https://voat.co/v/pizzagatemods/1518769) of this, having been granted mod status a few days ago.

We need to establish a protocol for cases like this, and this would be a good time to do that. I'd also be grateful for a little help, and I'm sure @belphegorsprime would be as well.

remedy4reality ago

BECAUSE YOU'RE A STINKY CUNT

belphegorsprime ago

Thanks for addressing this.

I propose that we:

  1. Check the victim's comment history (due diligence), and if they are legit, upvote what comments we can
  2. Do not base this on political belief, taste in music, or anything like that
  3. Check if it is a legitimate account based on consistency and whether they have made comments in "good faith"
    • comments history shouldn't be schizophrenic in nature (expressing contradictory opinions from one comment to the next)
    • comments showing disinterest in a topic but being posted in a subverse for that topic are a red flag (example: "Julian was always safe and sound, you guys are crazy" posted in whereisassange).
    • obvious spam is a red flag

These are just some ideas that I've used as heuristics in the past.

wecanhelp ago

Thanks for the support, mate, I've made it to the positives largely thanks to you.

Your ideas of due diligence and conditional upvoating are very legit and that's what I do when this happens to others. But what I would like to try to find a solution to is a fast recovery for people like us. If they can downvoat our people in an organized way, we need to be able to upvoat our people in a similarly organized one. Trouble is, nobody really reads this sub, so the recovery period is way longer than how quickly an attack can take place. Should we maintain a private sub and develop a circlejerk alt squad that we use ethically, only for this purpose? @kevdude, @Millennial_Falcon, @Phobos_Mothership, @Crensch, please weigh in.

VieBleu ago

people actually do read here. Your suggestion is noted, too.

wecanhelp ago

It's okay. If I had wanted to keep it a secret, I would have sent it around in private message. The users who do this to the members of our community habitually do the same thing: they maintain alts for this purpose. If you think there's anything problematic with a suggestion like this, you probably think the same about white-hat hacking. A tool is just a tool. How you use it makes the difference.

Phobos_Mothership ago

personally I've found that the community helps just fine. no need for alts, we are not Amalek.

wecanhelp ago

While it does, it does it slowly. What I'm saying is that they're way more efficient in offense than we are in defense.

Phobos_Mothership ago

When you consider how much effort and time it must take to downvote so many things on all of his accounts, they really aren't.

gopluckyourself ago

Going through and trying to find anybody you may have had an argument with or whatever.
I still don't know how I avoided getting downvoated into oblivion.

Phobos_Mothership ago

it was amalek, trust me

gopluckyourself ago

I'm part of the trust but verify crowd.

Phobos_Mothership ago

We all should be. Wouldn't want to upvote any shills in goat's clothing

wecanhelp ago

Being a janitor and removing dozens of posts for the past few days, there's no doubt I have pissed people off simply by enforcing the rules. But your suggestion is important that these are not paid shills but other goats doing this. We should find a way to be able to protect ourselves and our community in the future.