Yes PieFed allows community mods to do some strange things on a per-community basis. One cool trick is to only count "subscribed" votes, which helps avoid drive-by voting from All.

Though this vote quota issue is a per-instance setting, not able to be overwritten by a community moderator.

I think Rimu is bored, not wanting to play with UI elements and wanting to jump ahead to more back-end concerns. He gets enough flack from the Lemmy community that he has to develop a thick skin to ignore all that anyway (see latest blog post prior to v1.7), though now may be too insensitive to his real supporters of PieFed.

This communication issue is the really big take-home, as it's causing people like PugJesus to quit in protest and it will work strongly against new people joining.

You don't have to convince me of the flaws in FPTP, or the culpability of non-voters in the final results.

But those are red herrings, because neither one would be solved by limiting the voting rights of everyone including the ones who exercise those rights. That's a flimsy excuse, the kind of scapegoat a braindead right-winger would use. Do better.

Braindead right-wingers consistently vote to deregulate markets and industries they deem to be unfair, just to them, often against their own interests. I'm advocating for regulation for all. Perhaps a sanity check on your own perceived political beliefs might end this discussion

So I always said you lot were just funny words on a screen to me, but I did tear up a little reading your comments. I guess I'll miss a number of you. It made me feel better about the time I spent here posting, and worse about leaving.

I wish I had it in me to keep going like the last few times.

Thanks. To all (or, rather, the vast majority) of you. It was because of you that I enjoyed my time on the Fediverse so much.

Yes, you're totally right, as long as we restrict everyone's voting rights, then it'll be fair! /s

You're advocating for stupid and unnecessary regulations simply because you think you won't personally be affected by it.

Ironically that sentiment is precisely what has driven these developments.

Pure nonsense.

I welcome any invitation to touch grass. I encourage you to do the same, and perhaps look up the definition of equitable

This has nothing to do with equity, you dunce. Voting on the fediverse is not a limited resource. Everyone can do it as much or as little as they want. Until now, when there's an arbitrary limit for no reason.

And if you think the fact that some people don't vote in elections is sufficient justification for taking voting rights away from everyone, then you're frankly an idiot. If that's what you mean by equitable, then that word is functionally meaningless.

I empathize with him from that blog post, but he's just refusing to accept valid opinions.

Well we just have to see how this moves forward.

I was already thinking migrating from piefed.social because they don't federate/block ani.social, and as an anime enjoyer I don't like that.

And I'll make a spicy account for more spicy comms just like how I did with reddit back then. Separation of on the streets and under the sheets, if I may. 🤣

I am not sure what you mean - ani.social is federated, though possibly some communities are blocked or some such?

Rimu can do whatever he wants, but yeah so can you as well. It seems like he is past caring, possibly burning out by all the Lemmy vs. PieFed drama, like the undisclosed vulnerabilities issue that was unleashed upon PieFed recently, causing most of the instances to have to shut down.

I hope he finds joy again. In the meantime, I hope you find what you are looking for as well:-).

ani.social is federated, though possibly some communities are blocked or some such?

Possible that that is the case. I might have conflated it to mean the instance is blocked or defed

I thought I posted something about it but at least as a post it was for a different comm that is just a mirror bot reposting reddit posts. I could have asked in comments but I'm lazy to look for it

The silent majority is made up of more than just the lurkers, and I think you know that despite leaning on it and needless personal attacks to drive your argument

I am curious though now: Attention is a limited resource, you have bots and even some users dominating that resource. How would you go about making it fairer?

"Attention is a limited resource"

What units do you measure that in? Minutes/hours? Everyone has the same amount of it each day, and everyone rations their own attention however they see fit. One person spending hours on the fediverse and upvoting hundreds of posts isn't taking anything away from someone who spends minutes on it and upvotes a dozen.

Whatever you mean by "silent majority", it doesn't matter. You're missing the point that nothing is being taken away from them when someone else votes more than they do.

He called you a fascist because it's true. You are a genocide denier and simp for totalitarian regimes. It is even linked within the argument you linked.

Let's go with minutes per session, and let's go with majority of users interacting with their front page which is their first point of entry and is set to "Hot". You're certain that one person spending hours upvoting hundreds of posts won't skew what other users see in their browsing period? You're sure that their attention isn't now being diverted elsewhere?

PJ can't rest when MLs write delusional shit on the Internet.

Do you this this post of yours? Rimu said it was a bug and already fixed now. He is super responsive (usually) and tends to fix bugs fairly quickly upon reporting them.

Yeah, I remember that post. That's not the post or comment I was thinking of.

Yeah, despite the current situation, I'm glad that rimu still takes time to fix bugs like that quickly.

I don't just deny genocides, I deny literally everything that doesn't have evidence to support it. Claiming that anyone who needs evidence to believe things is a "fascist" or a "simp for authoritarian regimes" is beyond absurd. Especially when the main proponent of the claim you're demanding I accept blindly, without evidence, is itself an authoritarian regime!

Saying that I won't believe things without evidence is the exact opposite of "delusional shit."

Sending most people I genuinely remember seeing around a DM (slow going, poor morale; saying goodbye is always hard DX), but looks like I can't send DMs to you. But you're definitely one of the names I recognized and enjoyed seeing. o7

And anytime I saw you, all I heard in my head was "Maiq knows much!"

How come do you come with the same talking points as neonazis/Holocaust deniers? (denying that evidence exists when you in fact deny the legitimacy of any evidence presented to you)

Using nazi talking points

The Nazis also accused people of being delusional, stop using Nazi talking points!

denying any evidence presented

What evidence presented? None was.

Even then, it's perfectly legitimate to reject evidence of something if said evidence is not credible. I'm sure flat earthers could present me with countless, rambling sources to back up their claims, but those sources would fail any sort of rational, critical evaluation.

Literally in the stuff you linked people presented evidence to you. Stop being such a dishonest POS.

Also I dont deny there was a genocide against Italians in Yugoslavia after the end of WWII. Tito was based in some ways but shit in others.

Thrashing around like an infant are we? Typical of someone backed into a corner and has no decent arguments in their defense.

Hey, where's the evidence that I was shown in that thread? The evidence you claim exists, but can't seem to link to?

I really have to thank you for proving my point. You lie, you make claims without evidence, not only regarding what's happening in the world, but even here, online, where people can see it for themselves. You lied because that's what y'all do. Thank you for discrediting yourself.

Aunt Rainbow took over MWOG. You may as well be talking to goat on voat.

PJ keeps linking to the thread you were presented evidence with and your counter was "western media is not credible", which is a bullshit counterargument. If you are gonna waste my time by acting like and child and using the same tactics nazis use to deny the holocaust, then piss off.

See other comment. You are the one being dishonest here.

I was nominated and accepted. I gladly moderate a group and keep fash regardless of red or brown out.

He has a good heart, trying to help people, e.g. offering PieFed as
FOSS.

looks at modlog and sees your lengthy rapsheet of bans for trolling Well that explains a lot. You are just here to waste time.

Not a shred of evidence, only, "What you said sounds vaguely similar to something a Nazi said one time so you're a Nazi." Not a shred of evidence, only, "Other people of my tribe have removed your comments before, so you must be a troll."

Keep worshipping at the Imperial Cult, bootlicker.

I'll be sad to see you go, PugJesus. Despite what a small number of (very) vocal detractors claim, I've had nothing but positive interactions with you. Your content was engaging and you were one of the few power users who actually participated in discussions in the comments under your posts.

You are by far the user I have most upvoted, currently sitting at 1846 upvotes and one downvote (no idea when that happened). It's frequent contributors like you that have kept me sticking around the Fediverse these past few years - it's a shame you're now being punished for that very behavior.

I was only subscribed to HistoryMemes and its offshoots to read your detailed explanations in the comments, and you were always willing to follow up with more detail when prompted. I'll probably drop those subscriptions with you leaving.

Here's hoping you find your way back here someday. This place won't be the same without you around.

Yes, because that user can still only vote on each post one time. It doesn't skew anything. Either way, for a post to get 100+ upvotes, it requires 100+ users to upvote it, so nothing is going to reach the all feed unless a significant number of users vote on it, and no one single user has a disproportionate impact on that even if they vote on hundreds or thousands of posts.

It's like voting down the ballot when some people only vote for president and governor. It's perfectly fair; they had the same opportunity you did and chose to only vote on two spots. You didn't get an extra vote to cast on any given seat.

I'm sorry you think there's something wrong with reporting genocide denial. But considering that you spend much of your time as an .ml admin removing anyone who doesn't bootlick fascists, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Thanks!
(pardon, I've been... more out of it than usual, recently)
(like, emergency room out of it, haha)

1. Huh. Are we really defining "power users" as ones who vote a whole bunch every day? Because I'd never in a million years chance on that angle.

2. Here I profess ignorance, as I was unaware if there was an announcement schedule for upcoming features. Actually that sounds good, in theory. Get some early-feedback and such.

3. That's not quite true as I understand it. No, I do believe the changes directly help with the stated goals of keeping down vote-brigading / botting and such. That's some important shizzle that needs to happen no matter the implementation.

For sure I didn't realise that some here hit their vote limit, but what are the metrics on that? Is it maybe better for the cap to be lifted in to a sort of zone that meets both requirements? PF as an active project maintained by a single dev (thank you), seems like something at the very least to work with instead of just... yeah.

PJ, is just possible that you keeping up the unholy pace of contributing amazing content here on a daily basis possibly weared on you over time? Personally I know it's been for me, altho I work in a different format. But three years is a hell of a long time to contribute to a free internet project intended for the public good.

I have never needed this current break more than I do right now, for a variety of reasons.

Sorry about my original reply on this one, mate. It sucked.

The cap is 240 votes. I almost hit the cap just upvoting most of the comments here yesterday. If I participated in any real discussions outside of my own comms, I would almost certainly hit the daily cap on that given day.

Damn, I certainly can't imagine voting 240x in a single day. There might remotely be that number of opportunities in my subscribed stream, but that would be like me forming an opinion upon every-goldurn thing that I possibly saw in that day. And beyond, really?

I mean, sure I suspect I'm like you and others, giving a friendly updoot upon loads of stuff that I was only neutral upon, but it was for the 'good' of the FV, but... 240x per day, y'all?

Huh. Are we really defining “power users” as ones who vote a whole bunch every day? Because I’d never in a million years chance on that angle.

Power users are those who use a system a disproportionately large amount. Rimu explicitly said it was because the distribution of activity between the most active users (ten or so of us, if memory serves) and the majority.

This is not actually unusual in any online community, but it was apparently worth Rimu's ire, even after being advised against it by several people, including a fellow Fediverse admin.

That’s not quite true as I understand it. No, I do believe the changes directly help with the stated goals of keeping down vote-brigading / botting and such. That’s some important shizzle that needs to happen no matter the implementation.

Rimu explicitly said that he didn't think that the top ten users who he was targeting were bots or coordinated. Furthermore, as other people have pointed out, it's trivially easy to set up a bot to circumvent the voting limit. The only people this punishes are people who are actually interested in interacting with the Fediverse on one account - in other words, the people least likely to be bots or bad actors.

For sure I didn’t realise that some here hit their vote limit, but what are the metrics on that?

I don't know about the metrics, but I noted in my goodbye thread numerous users whose 'vote quota' bars were filled up. Most of them weren't Piefed.social users, so they won't even be aware that their votes are being rejected by Piefed.social. Their vote is shadow-banned, in a sense.

Is it maybe better for the cap to be lifted in to a sort of zone that meets both requirements?

What 'other requirement' is there, if the problem was not and has never been botting or bad actors? The only two justifications offered by Rimu have been that it's a 'bad use' of 'the commons' for people to vote so much; and that a small number of users should not make up such a large proportion of the Fediverse's activity.

PJ, is just possible that you keeping up the unholy pace of contributing amazing content here on a daily basis possibly weared on you over time? Personally I know it’s been for me, altho I work in a different format. But three years is a hell of a long time to contribute to a free internet project intended for the public good.

No, not at all. Fact is, I miss it terribly, even only a week out. I miss posting much more than voting and browsing, even. But I'm also not going to be half-in and half-out, generating content but stripped of the ability to interact with the content of others on my own terms - terms that I've been interacting on for the past three years, and that has never been a problem - in any instance - until now. "I upvote what I like" is apparently no longer acceptable on Piefed.social, if you're online 'too much'.

Damn, I certainly can’t imagine voting 240x in a single day. There might remotely be that number of opportunities in my subscribed stream, but that would be like me forming an opinion upon every-goldurn thing that I possibly saw in that day. And beyond, really?

There are 303 comments in this post alone. If I have an opinion on 2/3s of them, I'm almost at the cap.

~300 comment posts are not the norm on the Fediverse, but I see a fair number of ~80 comment posts. If I run across two or three of them, suddenly I would have very few other opportunities to upvote.

Considering, on top of that, I post quite a bit and get a fair number of comments on each (I had ~90 comment replies to my posts on a pretty normal day's output on HistoryMemes alone), it doesn't take much browsing to hit 240 votes.

Dammit, much of this is just over my head, and I want to support you as well as Rimu in order to find a way through.

But, here-- are you really saying that the whole idea of vote-capping was nothing but a fraud for... who knows what real reasons..?

Alright, you're right.
I'd forgotten about the post / comment type of vote.
Yes, of course you're right.
(altho that's still a lot voting, mate!!)

I wonder... is there a technical difference upon such votes across ActivityPub/Fediverse?

Not a 'fraud', in any way. Just a bad decision, and possibly poorly thought out in addition.

I know nothing about the technical side, though the fact that Rimu pivoted to a different explanation when pressed has me skeptical. But it very well could be that voting uses up some significant amount of 'the commons' in federating votes. I suspect the actual impact is minimal, though, considering that Piefed.social is the only instance that has even broached the issue, so far as I know, in the three years I've been on the Fediverse. And, as mentioned before, it's trivial to 'get around', resulting in the same vote-federation burden as large numbers of votes with one account.

The other explanation offered by Rimu, which I regard as much more likely, is Rimu's claim that it's in some way unfair for a small number of users to make up such a large proportion of the Fediverse's activity. I take him at his word on this - I think he genuinely believes that. No fraud involved. Just a view that power users are some form of 'influencer' whose activity is undesirable because it 'sways' the community towards the opinions of the most active users.

Rimu, I suspect, thinks that cutting down the tall poppies will just create a more even distribution. Instead, I suspect, it will either result in the former distribution proportion reasserting itself, just with a lower cap and a lower average (thus requiring another reduction of the cap, to ensure a small number of users don't 'dominate' the activity - repeat ad infinitum, or until the instance is dead); or the 'more even' distribution being significantly lower in general from decreased activity, as the core function of social media - interaction with others - generates more activity from others as a knock-on effect. It's self-feeding.

Or self-starving, in this case.

(altho that’s still a lot voting, mate!!)

Sure, but it's maybe two hours of browsing. I don't browse for two hours every day, but when I do, I would like to not be frustrated by the experience.

Well, I'm too weak and sick to try to zoom in with my traditional power-glove diplomacy, so what do you figure you'll do then, mate?

Oof, I followed you and Blaze to PF.S from Lemm.ee, and now it's yet another bloody-well disaster. This is just a bit much.

Seriuously, I have so much stuff queued upon in my archives that I was looking to post on your communities as a personal thanks. Really only had 1-2wks left to sort it all, fuckitall.

Well, I’m too weak and sick to try to zoom in with my traditional power-glove diplomacy, so what do you figure you’ll do then, mate?

As I said in the post.

I'm leaving. I'm out. This is it for me.

I just don't have the energy to undertake another instance migration with all my comms.

I'll go back to doomscrolling Tumblr and playing more games, I suppose.

I’m leaving. I’m out. This is it for me.

Well then fuck my life.
I cannot tell you how fun & interesting it was trying to add on to your posts and/or provoke questions, accordingly. And you were an amazing sport upon such..!

I love history and animal facts to death, so of course, please leave your T# address?