I'm strongly if favor of this. Its a super easy helper... in bot control.

If you read Rimu's analysis post it explicitly is NOT that. (If it had been, e.g. if it would have rate-limited to like one vote per second or some such, then I would have agreed with you, it's just that it is not the case.)

It will not turn away a single bot (at least there is zero evidence that it would, nor is it meant to). It will only turn away humans. By design.

I haven't read it. I just understood:

Rate limiting posts; and thus, rate limiting bots, and increasing human engagement over bots.

I agree with everything that you have said, in theory.

And when you read it, you will understand more: that's not what this is.

Oddly enough, this will actually have the effect of increasing bot interactions over humans - although mainly this has nothing to do with bots whatsoever, only limiting human interactions to be more equitable, at the expense of the highest (voting) contributors among us, e.g. PugJesus.

But we cannot discuss this further until you've read it.

What were talking about, is a simple blog or community to post on new features and additions. And then civil discussions and feedback.

Which one ? I did the same on my fediverse community. Then i did the mediation part with pugjesus and quokk.au, with ada and pugjesus or even rikudo...i tried to solve those issues one by one, some of these worked. Some didn't. it drained me lot energy.

And finally, i also burned out i went mad.

So, right now, i think the best way to solve those is to move our way. Because we see very different thing, we won't ever agree. And that's why fork exist, it allows people to try a very different idea.

They can't answer every request. They find a problem and try to cook up some idea to solve them. The way we solve a problem is different.

Nothing more.

But you seem committed to not understanding why/how you’re impacting and even running off some of your most active users and their contributions. Or the problem with that.

Not specificaly. There is a misunderstanding, i'm not a dev.

I didn't know about voting quota and we haven't discussed. I'm translating the software in french and send some feature request on their codenberg. Nothing more.

I read his analysis on voting pattern and agreed with this idea. And there is also a fork where everyone can enjoy it.

I’d like to see piefed succeed. I thought you all were interested in that too.

Yes, otherwise i wouldn't translate it in french, nor suggest ideas on codenberg. There is plenty magical features : multicommunity, flairs, hashtag, comment merge. Aren't these useful ? And i'm also glad that lemmy will also support them, in a way piefed convainced them.

I believe in piefed and its fork.

honnestly, do you really think we will succed ? We won't ever reach mastodon number. We are very very very small compared to mastodon. But some people use it and are happy. Some people use its fork Pylova and are happy too.

And the last thing that made me trust in PieFed is that Mastodon support was in its roadmap. After a long hardship for API support, (for mobile app), some fedidrama, we are finally here. Isn't that amazing ? :3

Piefed support Mastodon. That's where most of french fedizen are. I hope our french communities and activities will finally grow a little.

So, yes i value a lot piefed.

Don't sell yourself short. Your translations help thousands maybe even Millions have the ability to use the software. A software is only as good as it is usable.

That said I would like to reiterate a few bullet points

• this doesn't solve a vital problem or basic need of the users or administrators. It was something rimu just decided.
• worse it went live with no announcements or discussion beforehand. Being tested and discovered by the user base.
• worse still. This left people such as yourself burning a lot of time and Sanity trying to smooth over issues that could have been avoided had there been debate and discussion about this beforehand.
• low-key kind of damning. This feature can't even do what it claims ultimately. Really only hurting actual genuine users. Anyone maliciously trying to manipulate or unduly influence communities or servers could still easily do so simply by running an extra account or two.

Consider for a moment that rimu might be a bit like George Lucas. Lucas had a vision and was very creative. No lie. But Lucas's Vision when it wasn't moderated or controlled was often his biggest failing. Without someone to push back and say no. Or to ask why. Lucas got in his own way, keeping him from telling the story he wanted successfully. Thus arriving at my thesis statement. This feature is rimu's jar jar binks. A wet stinky gungan turd.

I am not that unique or special. The way I moderate and run the communities I have. I'm sure is pretty common among many other people. Generally when someone posts I upvote. To help the visibility of the post and as thanks for contribution. When people comment on posts I generally upvote them as well again to help with visibility and to show interaction that there are people there. Reading and looking and enjoying the content. Not just lonely abandoned posts and comments sitting neglected.

With only just a couple of communities and only a small but active user base. With those habits. I could easily hit this limit regularly. That is bad. That is bad design. That will hinder the very communities most likely want to foster. And all for a feature decided on a whim that didn't solve a problem. That I think is why people are so incensed.

A real quick addition. If rimu wanted to do the feature right

• never limit or cut off a user's ability to vote in an automated fashion ever.
• average out the voting activity of users on a daily or weekly basis.
• then use that average to weight the votes. Both positively and negatively. Driving overall influence towards the mean.

That would mean every vote by people that barely voted would carry more weight. And people that vote often and frequently can still vote as often and frequently as they like. But their votes might carry a little less weight because they give them out so freely. Had that been the setup instead of a hard cut off. People probably wouldn't have noticed. Not that that's necessarily a good thing. But people definitely wouldn't have been up in arms over it.

Thank for talking your time and sharing it.

In fact piefed had a vote weight system since its beggining where admins could set up for each community how much they weigh and remove them from the all timeline.

I hope that your post reached dev team. They usually read this community.

Consider for a moment that rimu might be a bit like George Lucas. Lucas had a vision and was very creative. No lie. But Lucas’s Vision when it wasn’t moderated or controlled was often his biggest failing.

Honnestly, i can't compare him to George Lucas. Because we also shared our vision for Piefed, even yourself. Blaze, myself, Travis, wj078, Hendrix, Skavau, MrKaplan, Ada, Travis, Pugjesus, Innermerkat, Rikudo, mobile app dev...and so many people that i can't recall their name, but they all took part in it...it's amazing and beautiful.

And yes there are part where we all fail. But we try and do our best. :)

I am not that unique or special. The way I moderate and run the communities I have. I’m sure is pretty common among many other people. Generally when someone posts I upvote. To help the visibility of the post and as thanks for contribution.

Neither i am. I do the same thing as you do. I also upvote people i disagree with, but contribute a lot by bringing another point of view that i haven't thought of. That's my way to encourage opposite ideas. I love them, they are beautiful.

For me, what matter me the most isn't being right. As i said, i agree with the idea of voting quota because it try to solve an imbalance issue as Rimu explained with graph. That's the core idea. The difficult part is how we achieve that.

That's not easy.

It is late and very hot, i cun't think straight with the summer. i'm saving it to reread it more slowly tomorrow. Thank for writting it :3