[Warning, this is a long comment. I'm sorry. I am terrible at brevity. :( ]

The "Minimum CCP required for downvoting" option in the subverse settings offers this warning: "WARNING: if you set minimum CCP to a value higher than 0, your subverse will be hidden from /v/all ."

(CCP in this instance refers to Comment Contribution Points, so only points gained through having your comments on the subverse upvoted are meaningful here, not points gained from having posts upvoted.)

Doing this would mean that posts from /v/conspiracy would no longer show up on /v/all . There are some implications of this, both good and bad, that we all should be aware of.

• It would mean that anything posted here would only be visible to those actively seeking it out, rather than show up to others looking for a general voat experience.

• It would mean that those with a prejudice against our community or culture would have to actively seek out content posted here in order to attack it, rather than just attack that which hits a prominent position on /v/all .

• It would mean that people could downvote content posted here only if some of their comments here were upvoted collectively to a specific threshold.

---

I think it might be appropriate to perform a cost/benefit analysis. I'm going to toss out some questions and assumptions:

The behavior this measure is intended to deter is: disruption of the subverse via mass downvoting legitimate posts

• What sorts of people would engage in this?
• What potential for damage is there from each sort of group?
• How effective will implementation of a threshold be in deterring each sort disruptive group? At a high threshold and at a low one?
• What potential harm is there to regular subscribers in implementing this?

What sorts of people would engage in this?

1. well-intentioned mobs and witch hunting from passersby

2. Casual trolls downvoting posts for teh lulz.

3. dedicated disruptors - whether trolls acting purely for sport, those with a righteous cause, or those with malicious intentions. (It is likely impossible to distinguish between the different sorts, all we can do is sort by the severity/persistence in behavior)

What potential for damage is there from each sort of group?

I see four forms of potential damage from these three types of non-community members:

1. high-intensity ephemeral (acute) brigade-type damage
2. low-intensity continuous damage
3. low-intensity ephemeral damage
4. high-intensity continuous damage

High intensity ephemeral (acute) brigade-type damage would be where the damage is intense but brief and infrequent. Examples: one post or a handful of posts are mass downvoted, comments on a post may be mass-downvoted, many comments on a post may be vitriolic and disruptive - highly emotional and off-putting, many comments on the post may be misinformation or disinformation.

Low-intensity continuous damage would be where legitimate posts are regularly downvoted a little bit while on /new/, and thus don't reach the front page of /v/conspiracy where casual community members spend time, nor will such posts reach the front page of /v/all where non-community members might find them of value. It might also constitute casual trolling in comments, such as someone making racist comments or calling conspiracy theorists pejoratives, etc.

Low-intensity ephemeral damage would be about the same as the continuous, except infrequent, sporadic in occurrence - possibly in bursts or clusters.

High-intensity continuous damage would be sustained over a long period of time. Examples: continuous downvoting of legitimate posts from /new/, upvoting of (d/m)isinformation or low quality content, spreading such content through comments, downvoting those seeking clarity and rational discussion, upvoting those expressing hyperbole and disruption.

1. I could see well-intentioned mobs causing acute brigade-type damage if a post or comment is linked from elsewhere on voat, reddit, or other websites. I could see well-intentioned passersby causing low-intensity continuous damage from viewing /v/all and downvoting legitimate posts due to prejudice against /v/conspiracy or due to disagreement with the potentially politically-deviant content permitted here. Well-intentioned passersby and mobs may also act in constructive ways by downvoting or contributing useful commentary on posts which are not really legitimately useful - and these instances may potentially contribute to a negative public perception of the community on the whole. The well-intentioned mobs may also be misled into a witch hunt, acting on false information.

2. Casual trolls would like constitute the majority of the low-intensity continuous damage on the subverse. People who pop on now and then just to leave amusingly disruptive comments, to downvote people and celebrate with glee how upset people get. Such trolls would likely participate in any brigades that well-intentioned mobs are a part of as well. Some would likely contribute to the bulk of the low-intensity ephemeral damage as well.

3. Dedicated disruptors would constitute the majority of the high-intensity continuous damage, as well as a potion of the low-intensity continuous damage. These people are likely rare, but also are likely orchestrators of some brigade type instances, leading well-intentioned mobs on witch hunts, attempting to create discord and in some cases potentially harm public perception of our community further. Whether from GOT or the more malicious corners of TopMinds or some corporate/campaign public relations program or operation earnest voice-esque government program (any government that may feel threatened by our little community), these folks are likely driven with a high degree of determination to cause disruption of some sort of another.

How effective will implementation of a threshold be in deterring damage from each sort disruptive group? At a high threshold and at a low one?

This measure of preventing downvotes for those without sufficient CCP will at a relatively low threshold:

• very likely aid in deterring a large portion of damage from high-intensity ephemeral brigade-type damage from well-intentioned mobs and casual trolls in the form of downvotes on legitimate content.

• very likely aid in deterring a large portion of low-intensity continuous damage from well-intentioned passersby and casual trolls in the form of downvotes on legitimate content.

• possibly deter some low-intensity ephemeral dmage from casual trolls in the form of downvotes on legitimate content.

• not prevent trolling or disruptive commentary on our subverse at all.

• not prevent low-quality, trolling, or disruptive content - whether posts or comments - from being upvoted, displacing or sliding quality content and discussions into less visible positions.

• not prevent voting rings where either casual trolls or dedicated disruptors upvote each other's comments in order to circumvent the restriction. (Casual trolls likely would do it only in acute instances, dedicated disruptors would do it for the long-haul.)

• not prevent dedicated disruptors from posting quality comments in order to overcome the restrictions and downvote legitimate content.

A solution to the last two points might be if there were some way to reset everyone's subverse-specific CCP scores, or if there were a sort of half-life to them maybe.

This measure of preventing downvotes for those without sufficient CCP will at a relatively high threshold:

• effectively eliminate high-intensity ephemeral brigade-type damage from well-intentioned mobs in the form of downvotes on legitimate content.

• effectively eliminate low-intensity continuous damage from well-intentioned passersby in the form of downvotes on legitimate content

• very likely aid in deterring most low-intensity ephemeral damage and low-intensity continuous damage from casual trolls in the form of downvotes on legitimate content.

• not prevent trolling or disruptive commentary on our subverse at all in any situation

• not prevent voting rings where ether casual trolls or dedicated disruptors upvote each other's comments in order to circumvent the restriction

• not prevent dedicated disruptors from posting quality comments in order to overcome the restrictions and downvote legitimate content.

What potential harm is there to regular subscribers in implementing this?

• Any content posted to /v/conspiracy will never show up on /v/all . If you want to share information about conspiracy theories with people who might benefit from it, who aren't already actively seeking it out on /v/conspiracy , you would need to post elsewhere.

• Members of the community who prefer to lurk will have a reduced ability to help filter out noise and low-quality posts/comments.

• If the threshold is set high, members of the community who do not post comments very often or are very new will be unable to help filter out noise and low-quality posts/comments.

• non-regular passersby will be unable to help filter out illegitimate posts, spam, noise, trolling, etc.

---

This measure will not resolve all forms of potential damage to our subverse and community. It has some drawbacks. It will likely reduce a few forms of damage.

The question is whether the extent of the potential damage the measure seeks to remedy outweighs the damage from the measure itself.

How real or how likely to happen is the potential damage? Is there evidence of this damage happening currently? Is there historical precedent?

I would posit that both high and low intensity continuous damage has been and is happening to our cousin on reddit, /r/conspiracy , and that it harms things there considerably. Is the same inevitable here without adoption of this measure?