6

Multiple different accounts were created and used to upvote his own stuff and target other users with downvotes. This is the second or third time a user has been banned for vote manipulation, and as far as I can remember, the only reason aside from spamming that a user has ever been banned. Please do not create alts for the sole purpose of giving yourself more internet points, it's pointless and we will be able to find out if it's happening.

In the future, we could implement account restrictions to try and curb this. Currently we have no restrictions on freshly created accounts, other than sub creation and captchas for posting. We could maybe add up/downvote restrictions based on age of account or account level.

But yeah, thought it would be best to make a note of the banning rather than explain what happened in a couple of weeks if someone asked where he went.

PS: No, the irony of making this post on an admin alt is not lost on me.

Multiple different accounts were created and used to upvote his own stuff and target other users with downvotes. This is the second or third time a user has been banned for vote manipulation, and as far as I can remember, the only reason aside from spamming that a user has ever been banned. Please do not create alts for the sole purpose of giving yourself more internet points, it's pointless and we will be able to find out if it's happening. In the future, we could implement account restrictions to try and curb this. Currently we have no restrictions on freshly created accounts, other than sub creation and captchas for posting. We could maybe add up/downvote restrictions based on age of account or account level. But yeah, thought it would be best to make a note of the banning rather than explain what happened in a couple of weeks if someone asked where he went. PS: No, the irony of making this post on an admin alt is not lost on me.

28 comments

[–] Owlchemy 4 points (+4|-0)

I'm not buying this. I've known Saverem going way back to Voat and have never known him to be anything but a straight shooter. Yeah, he changes his user name from time to time, and always has, but I've never seen him do that for nefarious purposes. Holy crap, we're talking worthless internet points here! What would be the point? Phuks has no amazing reward system for accumulating points.

[–] [Deleted] 3 points (+3|-0)

i also have a hard time believing it based on how well i know him but the effort someone would have to go to in order to frame him is more unbelievable in my opinion. either way, i don't think it was about internet points but instead about trying to skew our or others' interpretation of users, the site and/or political beliefs. you can bet i'll be keeping an eye out for anything strangely similar to this happening again.

[–] PMYA 4 points (+4|-0)

This interpretation does match up with the posts/users/comments etc. that had votes applied. At the end of the day the reasoning behind it doesn't matter, accounts were made for voting reasons, and that's all we know.

Also going to reply to @Sarcastaway here. It is a shame he was banned, I enjoyed talking to him from time to time and he made some decent posts. I do think though that the best way to stop this kind of thing from going on is to not make any exceptions on bans for doing it. Honestly, things could have gone differently if he had owned up to it, but he denied doing it when asked directly by @Polsaker, and even went as far as continuing to message us asking for our logs.

[–] smallpond 4 points (+4|-0)

At the end of the day the reasoning behind it doesn't matter, accounts were made for voting reasons, and that's all we know.

I hope that's not all you know. If you can't determine that accounts were made by Saverem for voting purposes to a high degree of confidence, I can't agree with the ban. As @fluf suggests above, is it possible that someone could have framed him?

Do we now have a simple method for getting people we don't like banned from the website?

Also: If you're banning for vote manipulation, shouldn't you add at least something along those lines to the TOS?

[–] PMYA 3 points (+3|-0)

Well, buy it or not I guess. All the admins have seen the logs, which prove beyond a doubt what he was doing. If things like this were based around reputation, Unidan would still be the most loved user on Reddit.

[–] KillBill 1 points (+1|-0)

I noticed from a comment in one of the other threads that this site allows new users to downvote immediately. I'm not sure if you are the OP or an admin, but isn't that asking for trouble? I mean someone could post 100 pepes and upvote them to spam a board to try to force moderation, I guess but the downvote is far more powerful given that it could hide content from the typical user who doesn't browse new and so being far more tempting to those opposed to the posts in question. So, that said, if you site founders here don't want to remove the ability of new users to downvote maybe you could look at removing the ability for posts to be hidden by downvotes or possibly use a different metric to determine which posts are seen by default that posts count. Maybe total votes or controversial could also be shown.

@polsaker @pembo210 - apologies to any other admins I missed.

Not really looking for a discussion here I'm just throwing some ideas at the wall that you can talk about amongst yourselves or not.

[–] Polsaker 3 points (+3|-0)

if you site founders here don't want to remove the ability of new users to downvote

We've been evaluating that for a long time now and we're probably going to implement a few limitations. Maybe still allowing new users to downvote but making the downvotes ineffective until the user reaches a certain threshold?

maybe you could look at removing the ability for posts to be hidden by downvotes or possibly use a different metric to determine which posts are seen by default that posts count

Well, that's the most difficult part. We know votes are not a really effective way to sort content (mainly because it's too easy to manipulate) but we just haven't found a better way to do it while still preserving some ability for the users to collectively moderate the site.

Also, we never got to implement hiding posts that have too many downvotes. They might appear wayy down in the hot and top sorts but you'll still see them in the new sort (that's also why we added an option so sub mods can set the default sort for their subs, so that they can decide whether the content is moderated by voting or if just all content is visible)

[–] COFfeebreak 1 points (+1|-0)

I totally agree with you. Maybe I should send them this for Christmas.