[–] PMYA 5 points (+5|-0)

There is also the issue of the kind of content that gets heavily upvoted. Popular content is upvoted to All on Reddit and Voat, not good content. Limiting votes is going to make people think twice about what they're going to spend them on, and maybe stop the echo chamber/awful posts trap that is easy to fall into with voting systems.

Downvote Restrictions

They're a bad idea in my opinion. Let people downvote from the start, and make them be the same as upvotes. This is partly because people need to be able to downvote spam, and because of what I said above: it will make people feel like they're being restricted because they don't have something that other users have.

On @Silverbanana's comment

I think the square root of level is a bit too low, for example I am pretty active, but it would mean only 4 votes per hour for me. I also think that point 3 is way too low.

It is very low. Voat still has voting restrictions and I think I can vote around 800 times per day. I have not hit the limit since the first day of using Voat. In my opinion, having it this low will shift the focus of participating in the site away from voting, and more towards content creation or discussion. It will push the site slightly more towards the 4chan method of posting, except the content will stay there forever and we will still have votes to filter/sort content.

It is easy to lose attention of people who just stop by, they may not return if we limit them too much.

I read this comment on Reddit about Phuks the other day, and I downvoted him, but he is actually correct in what he says. At the moment, nothing separates Phuks from Voat or Reddit, other than the fact that Reddit has a ridiculous amount of traffic and Voat is a hive of scum and villainy. I think that by adding these features that do not exist on other sites, we will draw users purely because people are sick to death of the same format on every clone site. I have not seen a single instance of a site that is heavily based around voting that has ended well or made for a good platform for users. We should remove ourselves from that mould.

I think a cap on the amount of votes you can have will encourage people to post and comment more. The majority of people that use these kinds of sites do not post or comment regularly. Voat tried to restrict the amount of votes that new users had, which lead to a lot of complaints from new users because they felt like they were left out. By putting every user in the same boat, and using the level system as a way to get upvotes, it will drastically cut down the amount of people voting with alts, and make people feel as though they are working towards getting votes, rather than having them restricted. There is also the issue of the kind of content that gets heavily upvoted. Popular content is upvoted to All on Reddit and Voat, not _good_ content. Limiting votes is going to make people think twice about what they're going to spend them on, and maybe stop the echo chamber/awful posts trap that is easy to fall into with voting systems. #Downvote Restrictions They're a bad idea in my opinion. Let people downvote from the start, and make them be the same as upvotes. This is partly because people need to be able to downvote spam, and because of what I said above: it will make people feel like they're being restricted because they don't have something that other users have. #On @Silverbanana's comment > I think the square root of level is a bit too low, for example I am pretty active, but it would mean only 4 votes per hour for me. I also think that point 3 is way too low. It is very low. Voat still has voting restrictions and I think I can vote around 800 times per day. I have not hit the limit since the first day of using Voat. In my opinion, having it this low will shift the focus of participating in the site away from voting, and more towards content creation or discussion. It will push the site slightly more towards the 4chan method of posting, except the content will stay there forever and we will still have votes to filter/sort content. > It is easy to lose attention of people who just stop by, they may not return if we limit them too much. [I read this comment on Reddit about Phuks](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditAlternatives/comments/5kse13/phuksco_reddit_alternative_brand_new/dbr1umi/) the other day, and I downvoted him, but he is actually correct in what he says. At the moment, nothing separates Phuks from Voat or Reddit, other than the fact that Reddit has a ridiculous amount of traffic and Voat is a hive of scum and villainy. I think that by adding these features that do not exist on other sites, we will draw users purely because people are sick to death of the same format on every clone site. I have not seen a single instance of a site that is heavily based around voting that has ended well or made for a good platform for users. We should remove ourselves from that mould.

[–] InnocentBystander 8 points (+8|-0)

I agree on many of your points, but not this one:

Let people downvote from the start,

Too much abuse. The sockpuppets were at times more active on Voat than legit users. And that was with restrictions.

I can only imagine the shitshow that would result from brand new accounts being able to downvoat. The restrictions also re-enforce that they shouldn't be taken lightly.

Spam doesn't need many downvoats. A few is all it takes to drop it out of visibility, so I don't think downvoat restrictions will have a negative effect on spam.

[–] Boukert 7 points (+7|-0)

Amen to above!

I also back the idea of making downvotes more expensive then upvotes. Like @innocentbystander said a while back;

One limit I like is not being able to give out more total downvotes than up. If a user is having that bad of a time here, they should probably go elsewhere.

[–] PMYA 4 points (+4|-0)

That's a valid point, maybe @Polsaker is onto something. I suppose letting people downvote on new accounts would undermine the effect of limiting the total amount of votes users have in order to stop brigading, as account creation is so easy here.

That is also another point we need to consider. How do we keep account creation easy, but make it hard enough to stop people just making a new account every time they reach their limit and want to upvote one thing? We are currently even more susceptible to vote manipulation than Voat is, because there are so few users. Restricting the number of accounts on one IP does not really work, and I wouldn't want to force people to register with an email either. It's a tricky one.

[–] Polsaker [OP] 3 points (+3|-0)

Only way I can think of is totally disabling voting for level 0 accounts. Not a very nice way though

Load more (1 comment)

[–] InnocentBystander 2 points (+2|-0)

but make it hard enough to stop people just making a new account every time they reach their limit and want to upvote one thing?

I'd be surprised if that ever became a problem. As long as the new account can't downvote, and only has a few upvotes, I doubt there'd be much damage done. And if they really need to give that extra upvote, let them.

I agree that IP restrictions are a bad idea. I understand why Voat did it. It is effective. But it also screws legit users. I often couldn't vote on things when I was at work because there is a couple other goats there.

Load more (1 comment)

Proposed changes to the voting system

47 comments

Downvote Restrictions

On @Silverbanana's comment

/s/ideasforphuks