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.
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.