Man, you comment far more than the average user, much less the ‘silent majority’. The average user doesn’t upvote much; they comment even less. Would it be ‘fairer’ for your comments to be limited? After all, you’re a ‘vocal minority’ whose activity is swaying the Fediverse. Wouldn’t it be ‘fairer’ if you participated less, regardless of the fact that your participation does not actually consume (meaningfully) limited resources or space?
Personally, I comment far more than I vote and I tend to agree with Rimu that a comment is far more engaging than a vote is. Still, I like receiving as many votes as I can when I do comment or post.
In general, I agree that a comment usually means more than a vote.
But that’s not really the question here - the question here is whether restricting voting because some people vote ‘too much’ is in any way a reasonable point of view for an instance on the Threadiverse. As Rimu himself pointed out, the primary targets of this are ten ‘top’ voters, who are hardly going to be placing more comments to ‘replace’ their lost votes.
Assuming, of course, comments aren’t next to be limited, since that’s also an ‘outsized influence’ from a ‘small minority’.
Yeah, at best you could frame this as an experiment in trying to keep things small. The conflicting reasoning given makes me think there wasn’t a terrible amount of forethought to this decision and perhaps it was guided more by a strong hunch.
There are levels to it, I agree – and your infamy outbounds my near non-existence, as does mine to those who merely lurk – but if the level of discourse had an upper cap which easily contains the habits of a semi-active user, then I generally welcome it. I have a feeling that this impacts largely a minority of one.
Edit: Just to say - I greatly value the historical topics you post and the detail you go to in your posts. I feel like the quality of your posts can still happily thrive, even if the quantity is less than what you’d prefer
but if the level of discourse had an upper cap which easily contains the habits of a semi-active user, then I generally welcome it.
Again, your commenting far outstrips that of a semi-active user. Perhaps you should be advocating for a comment limit based on the average user as well.
You should probably advocate for a post limit based on the average poster too. Wouldn’t want it to be unfair, after all. And posts are MUCH more visible than votes or comments.
I have a feeling that this impacts largely a minority of one.
It was geared towards the muzzling of ten ‘top’ users (10, mind you, is some ~2% of the daily users of Piefed.social to begin with), but under the presumption that their votes are evenly spread out, day-by-day.
In reality, most people aren’t on the Fediverse every day - they come in, participate in a discussion or three, and then might not be back for a few days. So it’s easy to hit the limit, as it is a daily limit, simply by being active in a discussion.
Whilst I sense the sarcasm of your tone, I do largely agree that post and comment caps would likely dampen the effect of overactive subs (filtering out political posts by curating my subscriptions is a chore…)
I do agree that a daily limit might be too much, as activity does seem to be sporadic as you say. A weekly limit could work though.
Anyway, to get to the crux of it: I’d be sad if you leave, but not sad if you posted a little less
Whilst I sense the sarcasm of your tone, I do largely agree that post and comment caps would likely dampen the effect of overactive subs (filtering out political posts by curating my subscriptions is a chore…)
… most of those political posts aren’t done by the same people. They’re ‘overactive’ because many Fediverse users are heavily political. So limiting the number of individual user posts or comments would do jack shit for that.
Anyway, to get to the crux of it: I’d be sad if you leave, but not sad if you posted a little less
Sorry that I want to participate in a community on my own terms. You won’t have to worry about that frightening level of autonomy from me on here anymore.
Man, you comment far more than the average user, much less the ‘silent majority’. The average user doesn’t upvote much; they comment even less. Would it be ‘fairer’ for your comments to be limited? After all, you’re a ‘vocal minority’ whose activity is swaying the Fediverse. Wouldn’t it be ‘fairer’ if you participated less, regardless of the fact that your participation does not actually consume (meaningfully) limited resources or space?
Personally, I comment far more than I vote and I tend to agree with Rimu that a comment is far more engaging than a vote is. Still, I like receiving as many votes as I can when I do comment or post.
In general, I agree that a comment usually means more than a vote.
But that’s not really the question here - the question here is whether restricting voting because some people vote ‘too much’ is in any way a reasonable point of view for an instance on the Threadiverse. As Rimu himself pointed out, the primary targets of this are ten ‘top’ voters, who are hardly going to be placing more comments to ‘replace’ their lost votes.
Assuming, of course, comments aren’t next to be limited, since that’s also an ‘outsized influence’ from a ‘small minority’.
Yeah, at best you could frame this as an experiment in trying to keep things small. The conflicting reasoning given makes me think there wasn’t a terrible amount of forethought to this decision and perhaps it was guided more by a strong hunch.
There are levels to it, I agree – and your infamy outbounds my near non-existence, as does mine to those who merely lurk – but if the level of discourse had an upper cap which easily contains the habits of a semi-active user, then I generally welcome it. I have a feeling that this impacts largely a minority of one.
Edit: Just to say - I greatly value the historical topics you post and the detail you go to in your posts. I feel like the quality of your posts can still happily thrive, even if the quantity is less than what you’d prefer
Again, your commenting far outstrips that of a semi-active user. Perhaps you should be advocating for a comment limit based on the average user as well.
You should probably advocate for a post limit based on the average poster too. Wouldn’t want it to be unfair, after all. And posts are MUCH more visible than votes or comments.
It was geared towards the muzzling of ten ‘top’ users (10, mind you, is some ~2% of the daily users of Piefed.social to begin with), but under the presumption that their votes are evenly spread out, day-by-day.
In reality, most people aren’t on the Fediverse every day - they come in, participate in a discussion or three, and then might not be back for a few days. So it’s easy to hit the limit, as it is a daily limit, simply by being active in a discussion.
Whilst I sense the sarcasm of your tone, I do largely agree that post and comment caps would likely dampen the effect of overactive subs (filtering out political posts by curating my subscriptions is a chore…)
I do agree that a daily limit might be too much, as activity does seem to be sporadic as you say. A weekly limit could work though.
Anyway, to get to the crux of it: I’d be sad if you leave, but not sad if you posted a little less
… most of those political posts aren’t done by the same people. They’re ‘overactive’ because many Fediverse users are heavily political. So limiting the number of individual user posts or comments would do jack shit for that.
Sorry that I want to participate in a community on my own terms. You won’t have to worry about that frightening level of autonomy from me on here anymore.