dogpiled by the community exploiting aspects / loopholes of those rules?
You mean people who get punished for making alts and trying to downvote a lot so they can control things like they did on Voat?
What about people who disagree with new rules added since we've been here
Like the level changes for sub making? That's to prevent a huge flood of people all trying to do it at once.
My point is that gentrification is when people improve a rundown place. It's ungrateful and somewhat stupid to imply Poal was rundown. I still find it funny that people who harshly decry immigration are insulted by the idea that they have to assimilate when they go somewhere else.
You mean people who get punished for making alts and trying to downvote a lot so they can control things like they did on Voat?
No. I have no complaints with how management is handling that. It seems appropriate enough. With that said, it's also clear to me that the people it's effecting are just changing their tactics. Goal post moved, and all that.
Like the level changes for sub making? That's to prevent a huge flood of people all trying to do it at once.
I have no complaints with that. It makes sense, especially as a dam mechanism to stem the flow of abuse.
Then what do you mean, ire?
I think the additional measures taken for blocking users have subsequently created a circular problem leading to proliferation of an echo chamber.
Trying to discuss this seriously is met with the usual behavior, suspiciously reminiscent of Voat's SBBH crowd with users like anticlutch & conspirologist. (see: a bunch of low-IQ retards frothing at the mouth defending this abuse: https://poal.co/s/AskPoal/314336)
This mechanic, specifically, is blatantly being abused by known bad actors. Nobody seems to care, which suggests it's working as intended. If so, this is not the place for me.
I think the additional measures taken for blocking users have subsequently created a circular problem leading to proliferation of an echo chamber.
The additional measure is increasing the blocking slots from 10 to 50. You'd have to expect some kind of increase after a large influx of new users.
Nobody seems to care, which suggests it's working as intended
Hon, you sound like you don't want a block feature at all. I personally haven't blocked anyone, but I get why well-meaning people would. You could argue to reduce the numbers a user's allowed to block, wanting nobody to be able to block anyone isn't reasonable.
Trying to discuss this seriously is met with the usual behavior, suspiciously reminiscent of Voat's SBBH crowd
It could be that people are very touchy about the issue since people can and do have genuine reasons to block. They hear what you say as " the idiots who harass you should continue to" even though you don't mean that at all.
anticlutch & conspirologist
The former is a grump that likes freedom of association more than free speech. I'm unsure about the latter though I hear he's controversial.
Hon, you sound like you don't want a block feature at all.
Not true.
If you block me, you should be prevented from seeing my responses.
Preventing me from responding to you AT ALL, prevents me from defeating your ideas with better ideas (or vice versa), and does not allow me to object if you were to post something wrong and allow other users to decide for yourself.
I'm extremely confident you see the difference.
I have no problem with the block feature blocking you from seeing my posts. I have every problem with the block feature also blocking me from responding to you at all - that is a step too far and only creates an echo chamber with censorship.
They hear what you say as " the idiots who harass you should continue to" even though you don't mean that at all.
Then they are idiots, also.
(post is archived)