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.

  • nyahlathotep@sh.itjust.works
    4·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • User Deleted@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      13·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • nyahlathotep@sh.itjust.works
        4·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • Hagarashi8@sh.itjust.worksOP
        4·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • Goldmage263@sh.itjust.works
    41·
    1 year ago

    Some sort of restriction where the profile must have been active commenting or posting another on other communities might be a good start.

  • Owner_of_donky@donky.social
    2·
    1 year ago

    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

  • Spluk42@sh.itjust.works
    1·
    1 year ago

    Think this is kinda a repost on the vote mechanics. But we need to come to some consensus on how something has “passed” and then do a vote on that.

    Unfortunately that discussion is already so cluttered it’s kinda hard to determine what the best course of action is. Think this would be easier to implement on a more feature rich platform. I.e. the vote thread gets stickied for N days and user created posts are petitions with some metric to get stickied for the final vote.

    Might need to limit votes in this community to this concept till it gets figured out.

  • Spluk42@sh.itjust.works
    1·
    1 year ago

    I think we should come up with a fairly simple algorithm that uses an exponential for different factors (age, posts, etc) to weight a vote. Should be designed so that it will cap at a certain value (ex. 6 month old account same weight as 14 years all else being equal).

    I think we should do some data science on the first couple of votes or maybe even automate that on all votes so we can better understand how the community at large is responding to a specific question. That is if you have a vote and no matter which way you cut it 80% said yes, cool. If you have another that’s swings around a bit maybe it needs to be better fleshed out to account for everyone’s point of view.

    Not a data scientist myself but a related field and can help with some of that if need be.

  • User Deleted@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    0·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • misterchief117@kbin.social
      5·
      1 year ago

      @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.

      @Hagarashi8

    • nyahlathotep@sh.itjust.works
      4·
      1 year ago

      accounts created over VPN cannot vote and must apply for an unrestricted account that has to be manually approved by instance owner

      This assumes @[email protected] 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

    • Hagarashi8@sh.itjust.worksOP
      3·
      1 year ago

      Restrict voting to one vote per ip

      Most IPs are dynamic, so turn off-on router will make the trick

      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.

      Actually, community is more likely wont accept votes from other instances at all

  • sneakyninjapants@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • sneakyninjapants@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • curiosityLynx@kbin.social
          2·
          1 year ago

          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.

  • sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.works
    0·
    1 year ago

    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.