I am going to start getting community feedback regarding the new Vote infrastructure we have been working on. When we release this feature, it will be a huge change for Voat, one I think will truly make Voat a community. I have always longed to empower the community content producers (submitters and commenters) rather than to centralize moderator power. It has always bothered me that a community can be hijacked by a single person or small group. It is my hope that this feature will make us all stakeholders and prevent some of the most obvious problems with platforms such as these.
This feature will introduce a ton of “what if” scenarios and we need to start thinking about the details in order that we introduce a solid feature.
Now that the disclaimer is out of the way we need to accomplish two things:
-
We need to start testing the functionality that is present to ensure we don’t have any gaps in functionality that we will need.
-
We need to start a dialog to find all the weak links and scenarios that this feature will introduce.
Work Flow
- Create and Edit Votes (Votes are private until you "publish" it and can be found in your profile under Votes tab).
- Publish Vote (This creates a submission to the subverse and allows others to see it, comment, and vote on it)
- When the Vote is "closed" the system will execute it, meaning the outcomes will be executed (Not implemented yet)
Create a new Vote:
In Subverse sidebar click "Create Vote"
https://preview.voat.co/v/whatever/vote/create
Find your Votes:
Click your profile name > then click Votes
To see Votes in a sub:
In Subverse sidebar click "View Votes"
https://preview.voat.co/v/whatever/votes
I will be answering questions in this post so if you have a question just comment and I'll get back to you.
Thanks Voat.
view the rest of the comments →
Owlchemy ago
I guess I don't know enough about this whole idea to really comment intelligently, but I do have some concerns. I pretty much like Voat the way it is, otherwise I wouldn't have spent as much time here posting, so as with anything, change can be scary. My biggest concern is that I am in the vast majority here ... those who follow the Voat philosophy and have almost never banned or censored someone from any subs I mod. I've also spent a lot of time building up subs that I enjoy. So my concern is that it now sounds like in the interest of appeasing a few for the misdeeds of a tiny minority of mods like HenryCorp, I could be voted out of one of my own subs by a group which bands together for no other purpose but to take over a sub. Maybe I'm just reading more into this than there is ... but I don't get the point.
PuttItOut ago
Ok Owlchemy, let me try to take on a few points:
This is an issue I have given a lot of time thinking about. Part of sites like Voat is that a user can create their own unique eco-systems and I do not plan on abandoning this.
I do not want malicious take over of a sub by people that don't contribute to it.
So I've designed most of the infrastructure to give the "content producers" the power and to strip it from those who don't contribute. So if it is done right, a group of people who do not contribute to a sub will not be able to take it over. If you don't have skin in the game you have no power.
How this works: Votes with an outcome (mod removal for example) will have a restriction placed on it so that only contributors to that subverse can place votes. Just for simple purposes we can say that in order for a user to vote they would have to have say X comments in that subverse in the last Y days.
All these details are yet to be hammered out but I wanted to make sure you know that I am not enabling a mob here, I'm giving producers their voice back.
In addition, only certain subs will have these outcome votes allowed in them. I was thinking that once a sub gets to a certain size (posts per day, subscribers, etc) it then turns "public" and allows outcome votes.
AnTi90d ago
When I see:
It seems more like:
-
We're a small community. Setting up a majority rule just lays us vulnerable for hostile takeover from a group larger than we are.. whether that group is made of organized individuals with a common, malicious goal or a handful of people with several alt accounts and VPN access.
We already have a malicious group here. Their current strategy is to spam shitposts on a subverse until they get a reaction and then cry wolf that they're being censored. They're motivated and have nothing else better to do with their lives. A system like you are proposing lends them a way to create more discord than they're already capable of.. they just have to change their attack strategy.
-
I do value that you still have a passion for making Voat better.. but I don't like where I feel this is headed.
dragonkiller ago
A VPN alone will not beat the system. The Voat system snoops out more info on you than your IP address. It reads your machine ID. Try it. Make an alt. Up vote something. Then try to up vote it again with your real user name. You cannot do it. You have to use more sophisticated spoofing methods than simply using a VPN
AnTi90d ago
OK, that's cool that Voat does that.. but I can change my MAC address, at will, either with a registry entry or custom router firmware.
Nerobot ago
It doesn't do what he said anyway. Whats defeating him is a cookie.
AnTi90d ago
Hah..
That reminds me of back in 2012, I had a friend that kept getting banned from a live streaming site. So, I'd change my MAC/IP then create an account on my PC. I exported the login and session cookies, drove to his house, removed his browser's cookies and then injected mine into his browser.
They could never figure out how he was getting around the IP ban without changing his own IP. Sometimes I'd have several logins saved, each from a different MAC/IP, watch him get banned and then have him unbanned in 20 seconds. (They eventually stopped banning him and started bargaining, instead.)
dragonkiller ago
On second thought i'm not sure about the router. But changing the mac on the wifi radio still gets defeated.
dragonkiller ago
Don't think so. I think it pulls more info than that.