RE: Proposal to return the 12 hour voting window gate
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
If that were true you'd be wasting your time fighting spam. Were you not fighting spam, and the current mechanisms not working, it would dramatically impact every user.
Also, @michael35454's spam comment above was flagged by 20 accounts. This post has ~125 comments. That's a lot more folks countering spam than .00001%. It's about 20%.
0
0
0.000
Those are people blindly following a trail because they want to help but don’t want to do the work.
Honestly, I recommend checking out Blurt. There will be no downvotes and will be perfect for your needs. Basically Whaleshares 2.0. I think you will be happy there.
So, because they automate their downvotes they don't count? I suspect your estimate of numbers may be exaggerated, because I see their flags counting just fine.
Please indicate to me where I have recommended - ever - getting rid of downvotes, or desiring to be on a platform without them. I'd have to apologize for making a false statement that contradicts those I have made in reply to this OP, and ever, actually.
You are either not understanding my point, or deliberately misrepresenting it, because I've never, ever been against flags. You seem to intend to imply that opinion flags are the same as flags to suppress spam.
Is that your meaning?
That shows a bit of ignorance. Just because people that do flag stuff have 10 accounts following trails doesn't mean 20% of the readers of this post actually flags.
That 20 accounts there are just following @steevc's flags minus 1 or 2 of them.
20 accounts is what I see flagging spam on a post with ~125 comments at the time. Maybe you have personal knowledge that some of those accounts are socks. I reckon you could be right, but I have no evidence of it.
TBQH, I didn't look to see which accounts did the flagging. What I saw was spam getting properly hammered, as it should, particularly on this post. With that many flags hitting such comments, that account won't last long before being irrelevant and giving up, just like that Bible verse spammer did recently.
Looks like spam prevention is working fine to me.
Then, don't make definitive statements. Because they aren't socks either.
Then, don't make definitive statements.
Did you look or are you making a definitive statement based on one sock jumping in front of the car and happened to stop?
Let's try again with don't make definitive statements if you didn't look.
My definitive statements are factually correct, and the pretense of wasting time on the details you recommend immaterial to the facts.
If the accounts specified are socks, they're socks. It doesn't matter to whether or not spam is suppressed. Spam is nominally suppressed, and the 12 hour window unnecessary to that task.
You waste your time however you want, such as by making irrelevant comments and flagging mine.
What's so factual about it? When you didn't even touch on the facts? Just the appearance.
Just because you don't deal with the situations described in the post doesn't mean it's not happening. Gasp, much like how you tell @jacobtothe that he wouldn't know because he doesn't feel the impact.
Keep sitting far away from things and chime in about them like an expert.
That's a fact.
That's why @jacobtothe felt no impact of the change.
I really don't understand your opposition to that statement. Rather than making ad hominems about me, perhaps you could explain your reasoning so that I could understand. I'll have a look when I get back from work.
Perhaps read the comments about voting past 6.5 days, which already exist in this comment section?
I read all 125 comments before I commented. I am not the only one that notes spam prevention is working and this proposed change would threaten to make opinion flags impossible to counter.
But I'm having this conversation with you, and it is your objection I seek to understand.