LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
  • FrootLoops
    +8

    Hey /u/drunkenninja ,

    what do you mean by witch hunt? I mean, obviously i know what it means but i cannot imagine such a scenario if you use the voting system as intended.

    How will you decide if someone abuses the system? For example. If someone down votes my post all the time with different reasons. I cannot imagine an automated system that can really handle something like that. Especially because i tried implementing something like this before (and gave up after a while because it did not work).

    It is absolutely frustrating when you invested a lot of time in your snaps and 1 minute later see "down voted because copy pasta". It would help me immensely if i could see who down voted me and get in touch with them. Maybe making it public only to OP would be a solution?

    Well, in the end i still don't understand why someone should have the right to stay invisible when downvoting but he can see my username when i post something. It's absolutely the same. But it's unfair how it is implemented right now because it only protects the down voter but not OP.

    -FrootLoops

    • drunkenninja
      +8

      When flags & reports are processed via a queue, administrators can accept or deny them. These decisions are tracked via an algorithm that will put together trends based on users that abuse the moderation tools. Once a user starts trending due to administrators rejecting their reports, a system will track and remove moderation rights of certain users, a three strike rule will ultimately ban abusive accounts for life and can even lead to a termination. It's also good to note that members below level 15 cannot use the report function, and until you are level 10 you cannot use the moderation tools at all. I believe members with high enough profiles will not want to risk having their accounts deleted due to abuse. Either way, I wont reveal the details further as we don't want anyone to try and exploit this approach. I hope this answers your question /u/frootloops.

    • FrootLoops (edited 3 years ago)
      +5
      @drunkenninja -

      ok, so it's a semi automatic system, that makes more sense now. But that would mean all down votes for specifc reasons have to moderated actively, right?

      Any more comments to my other questions / suggestions? If you don't want to answer them now that's ok, i am just making sure you didn't overlooked them.

      1. Witchhunt example, i really don't get it?

      2. Only public to OP?

      3. Difference between OP and down voter protection?

      Thanks

    • drunkenninja (edited 3 years ago)
      +7
      @FrootLoops -

      \/
      1. Not all profiles are anonymous, we don't force people to make anonymous profiles. Making any votes public can cause privacy problems, we don't want to encourage nor enable this sort of activity.
      2. Nope, we are sticking with 100% anonymous.
      3. Not sure I fully understand this question. Can you elaborate?

    • SevenTales
      +4
      @drunkenninja -

      I think what /u/FrootLoops means to say is that while the downvoter is anonymous, the commenter isn't. The protection scale is different for one who voices his opinion through commenting, and one who voices his opinion through voting, which creates inequality.

    • FrootLoops (edited 3 years ago)
      +4
      @drunkenninja -

      Well, I think after reading your answer to 2) there is no point in discussing this further. If it's set in stone there is no point in it.

    • drunkenninja (edited 3 years ago)
      +4
      @FrootLoops -

      Well, I think after reading your answer to 2) there is no point in discussing this further. If it's set in stone there is no point in it.

      This is how the system works now, so the new functionality is focused on improving other areas but not changing our stance on making votes public.

    • drunkenninja
      +4
      @SevenTales -

      Both options remain a choice, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Comments can be about anything and cannot be seen as irrefutable evidence of a vote and thus even if a comment is made, the vote remains anonymous.