I notice that many of you have commented (because you can barely do anything else) asking why you don't have CCP (Comment Contribution Points). So I want to explain because I feel bad that this wasn't brought to your attention earlier.
Voat limits all new accounts for reasons of SPAM. To unlock your account you must earn CCP by commenting and having others upvote your contributions. It is orders more difficult for a botnet to unlock accounts with this requirement in place and is why we use this particular method.
For example: You need 10 CCP to make a submission or send a message. You need 100 CCP to unlock downvoat capabilities.
The reason you don't have any CCP is because the moderator(s) set a particular subverse property that prevents the earning of points in v/theawakening.
This subverse property is called: Minimum CCP required to downvote and when it is set to anything but zero three things happen (which are documented in the subverse settings. This information is also displayed in the sidebar so you can see what subverses have set what values):
- It prevents users who don't have at least X CCP in the subverse itself from downvoating content in that subverse.
- It prevents all submissions from showing up in v/all (basically making the subverse private).
- It prevents contribution points from accruing (This is an anti-farming measure).
No one has earned points in v/theawakening since this setting was set to 5.
I hope this helps you understand why.
Edit 5:
This post has been stickied again because people still have questions. This will be the last day of this sticky, I promise.
Edit 4:
Read #3 first. So here is my argument: They aren't super web savvy and reddit/voat layout is not that bad of a tool for what they are doing. They were directed to an image board. You all know that's a big jump coming from Reddit. The natural place is here. It's your call Voat always has been and always will be, but maybe we could learn a bit from them, and them us. Think about it.
Edit 3:
I'm just going to say that the back and forth I've had tonight with subscribers of v/theawakening have been the most pleasurable I've had on Voat. (Maybe I have low standards or you're just good people). I'm voting to keep them. Can we Voat? You owe me this one! ;)
Edit 2:
As @MAGAKAG2020Q mentions below and is important to note: This setting can not be instantly switched. It is on a time delay of 48 hours.
Edit:
More useful information here: https://voat.co/v/Voat/2722975
view the rest of the comments →
4TheRepublic ago
But does it matter?
I meant to ask you @PuttItOut... Where do I get information about contributing to Voat?
PuttItOut ago
It does matter. We are both targeted by the same people. We are in this together, us and you. Sound familiar? Voat may not be your first choice, and you aren't Voat's, but we share similar values and that very much matters. At least to me.
Every good friendship I've had in life was usually preceeded by an earlier conflict. There is a bond that happens when two different parties fight then resolve it. The conflict strengthens the relationship, much like various forms of stress strengthen the body.
In my small mind it would be a great conclusion to this if our teams came together as a whole. We will see, but I'm hopeful.
4TheRepublic ago
Fair enough... Except for the "...and you aren't Voat's [first choice]..."
Maybe it's attributable to my little patch of property on The Spectrum, but I STILL can't get my head around this.
(1) How can ""Voat"" determine that a person isn't its first choice?
(2) If one is a registered member of Voat, is one not ""Voat""?
(3) Is this nothing more than a mostly anonymous version of Survivor? Alliances formed. Plots enacted. Off the island! When the process is complete, everybody's gone but one.
Yeah. I don't get it. But that's OK. There might be some kind of conflict here. But I'm not fighting. I just want to understand ENOUGH to know what's happening...at least as it relates to me. Team? I didn't know I had a team.
Rock on. Live long and prosper.
@PuttItOut
VoatsNewfag ago
I assume you mean the autistic spectrum, I've been diagnosed with autism as a child. Though I still can grasp the concept of generalization and it's usefulness.
So here is unnecessary detailed, downright autistic answer:
Yes. Similarly, if one takes a photograph with a camera, one is a photographer. But if someone describes themselves as a photographer, we assume that they are a professional photographer, not someone who just once made some photos. Technically almost everyone is a ""photographer"", but only some people are photographers.
It is a similar principle. Yeah, technically you're "voat" after making one comment, but at the same time you're not, not really. Just technically.
The same way that any other community or arbitrary group of people can make a choice. For example men decided that the gym is the first choice to better their appearance. Women decided that makeup is their first choice. Doesn't mean that there aren't men with makeup or women hitting the gym and not wearing any makeup.
Generalizations are not about technical accuracy, they are about pragmatism.
Generalizations and abstractions are how we make sense of the world. Every tree you encounter in your life is entirely unique. Every "cat" you encounter is entirely unique. It has it's own unique genetic makeup, unique colors, unique shape, unique personality. "Cat" is an abstraction. Imagine what life would look like if you tried to no longer perceive the world in abstractions and generalizations - you wouldn't be able to function. It would render you useless as you would constantly try to make sense of the world and it's too complex for you to make any noticeable progress.
Some people think it's wrong to apply generalizations to human groups and communities, but I think that's nonsense. I will treat people wearing suits differently than people that have vulgar tattoos and piercings on their bodies. If I had to decide whether I sit next to a bunch of business man or a bunch of skinheads on a train, I'd choose the guys with the suits. And so does everyone who tells you that generalizing people is bad.
Generalizations have their faults and can be unfair to individuals, but we shouldn't try to get entirely rid of them or think of them as entirely bad. No matter what people in your life told you to believe.
Is this the reply to putt stating that conflict strengthen relationships? I'm not certain what you mean. Why would everybody be gone?
Anyway you can make friendship with someone after conflict because you can observe first hand how they treat people that are against them - are they still respectful? Are they fair, or do they distribute lies among your friends behind your back? Are they willing to resolve conflict or do they rather pretend nothing happened the next day?
Seeing someone in conflict tells you a lot about their core values and whether or not they're trustworthy.
4TheRepublic ago
i'm not going to read this bullshit...refer to my other response. you'll know the one. maybe this will help: https://voat.co/v/theawakening/2723150/13879054
keep practicing. ...or not. yeah...re my https://voat.co/v/theawakening/2723150/13879054 response, this is looking more and more like a @PuttItOut sockpuppet.
this is telling.
seeing someone in person, and having some IRL grasp of his/her IRL experience in life is more telling.
keep pissing in the wind. [not to denigrate piss in any way.]
VoatsNewfag ago
I simply don't like it if assholes attack voat or bully our admins. Even if they pretend to be all polite and nice while doing so.
If you want to believe that I'm alt of Puttiout fine, I take that as a compliment. But you do know that this does not render any argument I made invalid, yes? It's just another convenient way for you to dismiss counter-arguments without engaging them.