Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

382

He developed this feature on a test instance of poal and I saw it and really liked the concept. I think it would really help with the brigading problems poal has been having.

It doesn't make voting habits viewable on a per account basis just on a post basis so it would take a lot of work to compile someones voting habits.

http://picinfinity.co/d/40a7400a-add3-4e0e-8df3-e3652f374264.png

http://picinfinity.co/d/4cea5437-ad17-40bb-8c39-522d13e84e32.png

So please let us know what you think, is this something you guys think would do some good for the site? I know it would probably at times make people more hesitant to downvote but it also would make brigadiers more hesitant to act.

He developed this feature on a test instance of poal and I saw it and really liked the concept. I think it would really help with the brigading problems poal has been having. It doesn't make voting habits viewable on a per account basis just on a post basis so it would take a lot of work to compile someones voting habits. http://picinfinity.co/d/40a7400a-add3-4e0e-8df3-e3652f374264.png http://picinfinity.co/d/4cea5437-ad17-40bb-8c39-522d13e84e32.png So please let us know what you think, is this something you guys think would do some good for the site? I know it would probably at times make people more hesitant to downvote but it also would make brigadiers more hesitant to act.

(post is archived)

[–] • 7 pts

First off, I'm not a fan of making votes public, but this is a better way to do it.

For consideration - making this "feature" only available until our incel friends move on, making it visible only to admins / moderators of the sub. Why? This will cut both ways as the incels will then know who is downvoting them and can more easily target specific users, so limiting it would limit their visibility unless they are mods.

[–] • 5 pts

You've got a good point, but we could also make this feature visible only to accounts with a certain level.

It won't prevent them from creating a fake friendly account to reach the required level though.

[–] • 4 pts

Yeah exactly. Then they create /s/levelmeup and go there to level up each other's accounts.

[–] • 3 pts

Anything related to gaming votes in the intent to brigade and hurt the community will be handled.

That includes alt accounts and subs devoted to gaming accounts' level and brigading.

[–] • 2 pts

you make a good point. I think you are on to something. What do you think about level restrictions on the feature?

[–] • 2 pts

I think any system can be gamed. It is more like home security. Doesn't actually stop break ins. Just makes it a pain in the ass so it is easier to go to an unsecured house. Make it so much work to game it that it is not worth it.

[–] • 3 pts

Make it so much work to game it that it is not worth it.

That's why making this feature available only after an account has reached a certain level will make it harder for the trolls to access it.

Also preventing new accounts from accessing this feature doesn't take away their rights for free speech.

[–] • 4 pts

It's good enough to test out with the larger group for sure!

[–] • 3 pts

How would you feel about a level restriction on the feature?

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

To clarify, a "tard strength" above which your votes don't appear in the list? or a "tard strength" of a certain magnitude required to view the list?

[–] • 3 pts

a tard strength requirement to see the vote logs.

[–] • 4 pts

It's worth a shot. Still not a fan of showing who downvotes, but this might be a decent compromise.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

I know my idea has zero following...

But I still say we get rid of votes all together. Internet points are useless anyway.

[–] • 1 pt

It would be really hard to do that given the source we are starting from, also I'm not sure that a site like this is the best site for something like that. Long term I just can't see how something like that would work. I have an idea I'm planning on trying soon where we might be able to try something like that and see how it goes and actually hash out how it would work.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I like it. When folks started talking about being able to see who downvotes submissions, this was exactly how I pictured it.

Ive rarely had my stuff brigaded but there are a small handful of specific topics that almost always catch some heat. It happened at Reddit, then Voat and now I think it's starting here. I'd love to know if I'm just paranoid or if there are a couple folks here trying to keep certain topics/perspectives down.

I've seen folks here (and elsewhere) argue that removing the downvote button is a limit on free speech. And now we're seeing folks get upset because others might see how they've expressed that freedom.

So lets assume we have three different users; one likes submitting, one likes voting on submissions and one likes leaving comments. All three use this site to practice their version of free speech.

Lets say that the first user submits an opinion on democrats. The second user anonymously downvotes that submission to zero. The third user isn't able to comment because they can't see the submission.

If the purpose is to protect and promote free speech, then I'd ask which of these individuals is the greater risk to that mission? The first user making submissions to share with other users? The third user wishing to comment on user submissions? Or the second user deciding if the first user's submission will even be seen by the third?

When the first user submits something, that act does nothing to limit the free speech of the other two users. When the third user comments, doing so does nothing to limit the free speech of the other two users. But when the second user up/down votes a submission, doing so can have a negative effect on the free speech of the other two users. All three are contributing to the topic/discussion, but in doing so, only one has the potential to trample upon the ability of the others to contribute & participate.

For the simple fact that their free speech poses a legitimate encroachment to the speech of the other two should be grounds enough to act. If we're not willing to limit speech by removing the downvote button, then at the very least, we should be able to see who's up/down voting what. If all three are contributing to a topic and user one and three aren't anonymous, then why should the second user be allowed anonymity...especially when their free speech has the potential to limit the free speech of others?

[–] • 0 pt

I like your write up it is a very good analysis of the situation.