Well, title says it clear. We might need some condition to prevent trolls from creating a lot of accounts and taking over whole instance. I’d like to discuss ideas for this. Like, amount of days on instance could work, but I’m not sure if it would work out very well. Anyway, please share your opinions on this whole subject.
EDIT: There’s a lot of opinions, but, at least for me, looks like whatever system we’ll come up with, it will either be based on time from account creation or on activity(or maybe both). Correct me if i wrong.
I’d like lurkers to be able to vote so long as they meet a timescale. It could be like 2 months since account creation for lurkers, or 2 weeks + a certain post/comment threshold for more active participants of the instance.
Lol 2 weeks mean that most of us here cannot even vote. We just got here a few days ago. A one vote per ip is far more realistic, and we can make it so accounts over VPN will not be able to vote unless they apply for an unrestricted account requring manual approval.
This all isn’t happening immediately. It’ll be debated for a good while, and then voted on, and then it’ll take some work to actually implement assuming it passes. No one’s going to go through everyone’s account individually to verify their vote, we’ll need a bot for that.
Also, I don’t think 2 weeks is that long at all. The vast majority of everyone’s time on this instance they will be eligible for voting. I really don’t see why 2 weeks when they first make an account is such a huge amount.
Lol 2 weeks mean that most of us here cannot even vote.
Well, it’s kinda experimental thing now, but with future in mind, i think this kind of rule actually makes more sense than just one vote/ip and screw the vpn users. Time boundaries could be discussed, but it makes sense.
On the EH vote I saw at least 10 accounts with 0 other posts and comments so probably not a bad idea to have at least a condition where the account needs to be older than the vote and has previous activity
Some sort of restriction where the profile must have been active commenting or posting
anotheron other communities might be a good start.There are a few ideas with varying levels of reasonability and freedom. Nothing will be perfect though.
We could have timed verification, “karma” limits, both, lock it behind an application, allow al but be very pre-emptive in our moderation taking a ban-first stance, randomly checking voters history, only select participants, or only community mods.
I’d prefer the karma and time gates, but application only could work more effectively if we had more moderators.
correct me if I’m wrong as a noob, but all I can see are numbers of posts, not “karma” which depends on up votes?
That’s correct, Lemmy doesn’t publicly track “karma”
On Kbin I can see a profile’s “Reputation”. Yours is apparently at -18 currently, the person you replied to at -1.
Not sure if that’s the same thing as “Karma” though.
God damn, lol
I wish I knew the best solution. I think having a captcha for signups would help lower the amount as well as an activated email address, though that’s relatively easy to game. I don’t really know if having a minimum account age would help a lot though, but it probably would. Having a minimum karma is useful on the old site, but I don’t think that’s accessible here.
Don’t know if this carries over to Lemmy, but on Kbin I can see a “Reputation” score on profiles.
I wasn’t been able to see a reputation score when I looked at my profile, just the number of posts and comments. That may be easier to see on the site admin side IDK. I guess a combined post/comment score could be used as a way to avoid people using inactive accounts over the minimum account age to vote, but it’s not an ideal solution IMO.
All I can say is Kbin shows it in your profile (on mobile you need to scroll right to see the tab, but it’s there). You seem to currently be at +6.
Restrict voting to one vote per ip, and accounts created over VPN cannot vote and must apply for an unrestricted account that has to be manually approved by instance owner. There should also be a “partial defederation” option so if an instance is too lenient on account approvals for those unrestricted accounts created over VPN, other instance owners can defederate only the votes from the “problematic instance”, but still federate for all other purposes.
accounts created over VPN cannot vote and must apply for an unrestricted account that has to be manually approved by instance owner
This assumes @TheDude@sh.itjust.works is willing to do this. Even if he is, I for one would feel bad about foisting off work like this onto him. Little annoyances like these add up
@IsThisLemmyOpen There are people who live in truly oppressive places where they need to use VPNs to browse and post things or else they can be arrested and in some cases imprisoned or even executed. Requiring manual approval by the instance owner for unrestricted VPN use is unsustainable.
