This may not be a bug, but I was seeking clarification on the Use Case for banned users who report comments.

Within the preview environment, the report button under each comment is still visible to banned users... and when they click it they can complete the Report Content form by clicking on the spam, illegal or dox radio buttons and then clicking Submit.

This doesn't provide any feedback to the user beyond changing the caption of the "report" button to "thank you"... but it doesn't generate a user report for the mod to see either.

'Just wanted to check this is working as expected... particularly that the banned user receives no feedback about the failed / ignored report generation and the report button is supposed to be visible to banned users.

This seems like a fringe Use Case, but I thought I'd check anyway.

5 comments

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

10032112? 7.3 years ago

I assume you are referring to subverse bans and not sitewide bans. Previous to now I did not know whether or not subverse bans prevent users from using the report feature, but at least on preview Voat this seems to be the case. I'll test this on real Voat momentarily, but I suspect the result will be the same. If this is so (and if the report button on real Voat also displays a "thank you" message, I will mark this as EXPECTED, although Putt may decide to change this functionality going forward.

EDIT: this functionality exactly mimics real Voat. Banning users on real Voat still allows them to click on the report button on comments, which results in the button changing to "thank you", but the report does not go through. Thanks for the report.

link

guinness2 7.3 years ago

I assume you are referring to subverse bans and not sitewide bans.

Yes, subverse bans. I wasn't aware of sitewide bans.

I wonder if sitewide bans have had much testing?

Edit: Awesome, this was such a minor thing but I just wanted to capture it just in case...

link

10032337? 7.3 years ago

I wonder if sitewide bans have had much testing?

That would require work on Putt's part. And good thing to consider, though.

link

Grifter42 7.3 years ago

Putt and work don't belong in the same sentence. We're talking about the same Putt who's response to the chat getting flooded by SBBH, after people called them out for being upvote farmers and manipulating the front page, was to shut down chat for a week, implement a CCP restriction so that the upvote farmers could restrict people from calling them out, and claim the problem was fixed. That, and banning Discord. Don't want us goys to be able to govern a chat without the SBBH brigade being able to shut it down when the discussion gets to places where Putt doesn't want discussed, like where he got the initial funding for the site.

link

heygeorge 7.3 years ago

Yeah, this place is compromised and set up as a limited hangout from day one. It's time to move somewhere else.

Let me explain something about your discord issue:

Yout kind marketed (on the site, spam) and continue to market it as an "Offical Voat" Chat. What is a very simple to reveal that statement is a lie, every single time, with the least amount of harm done to the site?

_{I wager you cannot come up with a better answer. Now please, as usual, get back to your continual baseless character attacks instead of addressing my question.}

_{_{Although, I suspect, you may ignore this so as not to draw attention to why the domain is really banned. Spam.}}

link