Hey I can't make em do anything but if he was so inclinded due to the peace accords negotiated here that would be might gentlemanly but then again I don't even ask that of anyone here. I'm happy it resolved, you really hit negative from all this?
LOL I was down to -19 for a minute. That made me giggle.
Well good to know being negative doesn't have any effects think i should leave it that way?
It worked for me and I'm back out of the negatives.
It has ramifications.
If it limits people, the community can force people into silence. If it doesn't limit people, idiots can keep going and you'll probably want to be a more hands-on admin than we see in other communities.
I suspect the way you're approaching this makes the latter more attractive.
We can see that there are people here who DV based on perceived slights and not merits - and I'd absolutely expect that you'll see more of that behavior. If you're willing to remain hands-on, the not limiting probably makes more sense and is seemingly more consistent with your message.
Personally im torn on that. It wasnt my intent to silence them with the downvoting, just display dissatisfaction.
But the DV restrictions on voat DID work for their purpose very well IMO
Im not the only one that was downvoting, idk who, but looking at the points several people looked over the posts, probly looked at voat, and sided with me on it.
I will judge based on content going forward from here instead of personal bias.
I appreciate that.
(post is archived)