all 31 comments

[–]magnora7[S] 5 insightful - 1 funny5 insightful - 0 funny6 insightful - 1 funny -  (2 children)

Proposed rule: Each user can create maximum one subreddit per every 2 days.

edit: we are going to do once a week, with 10 max, with 2 weeks delay to start.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

Hey, that sounds like a great idea!

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 funny1 insightful - 0 funny2 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

But the number is infinite?

[–]necaremus 4 insightful - 1 funny4 insightful - 0 funny5 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

under preferences add a menu item "use dark theme" which can be checked, if you uncheck the "allow subreddits to show me custom themes".

maybe even a little "use custom css"-interface where you can play with color/font settings and it directly displays them in a demo. save them in a cookie and add a little script checking for the values. if a value in this cookie throws an error, catch it and replace that value with a default one.

(not everyone knows how to manually edit css and how to add a script that overrides the css of the site ;))


add an additional sort option, "sort by activity". pretty much the (old) standard sorting of forums, where a post bumps the thread to the top. this is very useful for small subs. (this one really bugged me about reddit...)


add some varying logos like the chans or pouet do. start a pinned thread, where people can submit their design. just randomly pick one on load - maybe add an option in preferences "always load dis logo", but not necessary. the current one is ugly af (personal opinion ;p)

[–]wrez 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (1 child)

I call this feature request "No Politically Motivated general subs; explicit identification of political subs"

The Problem: Through incestuous relationships and machinations, a left-wing group of moderators have seized control of many normal subreddits. This has turned many of them into leftist echo chambers, rather than actually interesting subreddits available to everyone. Furthermore, this has led to an attack on opposing narratives in these subreddits and the removal of information, such as the race or religion of a perpetrator. /r/Politics /r/News & /r/Worldnews are examples of these. While generally leftist, there is some of the reverse such as /r/The_Donald/ although it is clearly not generalist.

The Solution: General subs such as news, politics, and worldnews would have to be moderated in an apolitical manner as part of an agreement with the administration, and the administration must keep this intact. The privilege and labor of moderation must be part of an agreement to moderate fairly. General Subs would no longer become the personal fiefdoms of Mods. Politically motivated subs would be permissible, but they would have to explicitly identify as such, and could not be a general sub appealing to all of the userbase. Where possible, Administration would seek to diversify sub moderation by selecting a variety of political views to form a moderation team, rather than an insular group.

[–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

That's an interesting idea, but I also feel that political motivation and shilling is far from the only type of shilling that goes on. I could see this helping, but I don't know if it would solve the issue.

Plus I think subs like news, politics, and worldnews are already moderated in an apolitical manner, according to the admins who run it (even though it's not).

I like your thinking, but your proposed solution seems exactly like what reddit tried to do, which eventually failed unfortunately.

I like where your head is at though.

[–]wrez 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (1 child)

The Problem: Uninvolved participants can conduct voting brigades, though they do not participate, and are strictly invaders. This can be both purely positive, negative and positive, or both (upvoting, downvoting, or both simultaneously)

The Solution: Elimination of downvoting can help, but another contributing factor that can help create community is to only give voting rights to those that have a specific amount of karma in a community. This can help offset positive upvote brigading too, or, make it slightly more difficult for this to occur.

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 funny1 insightful - 0 funny2 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

Elimination of downvoting can help, but another contributing factor that can help create community is to only give voting rights to those that have a specific amount of karma in a community.

This is a good idea, voat had an idea like this. The end result though is you get groups of people farming karma just so they can upvote. You get whole subs of brigades of people posting garbage just to upvote each other, which is what happened on voat.

I had the idea that maybe there could be levels? And people who are ranked higher have their votes give more points? And you can only ascend to a higher level by getting upvotes from people ranked higher than you? What do you think of that idea

[–]d3rr 3 insightful - 1 funny3 insightful - 0 funny4 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

Update The Lounge chat client to the latest version, many improvements have been made Demo, Changes

[–]Node 4 insightful - 2 funny4 insightful - 1 funny5 insightful - 2 funny -  (5 children)

Proposed rule: A limit on the maximum number of subs one can own. (what number? 5? 10? 500?)

Reddit has mods who own hundreds of subs, which is 'kind of' okay when they're not significant. But with users comes the need to moderate, and everyone has a limit to the number of subs they can moderate effectively.

"Haven't seen the mods in months"

Not uncommon on some reddit subs.

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 2 funny3 insightful - 1 funny4 insightful - 2 funny -  (0 children)

Yeah, good point. I'll think about this one because I think that's a reasonable rule. I'm cool with people having their own corner of the site to make their own, I'm not cool with people registering 50 subs and pretending like they run the site. So that rule makes sense. We may end up doing that.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (3 children)

100, jesus.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 2 funny2 insightful - 1 funny3 insightful - 2 funny -  (2 children)

An infamous example:

https://www.reddit.com/user/davidreiss666/

MODERATOR OF r/LifeProTips r/food r/history r/GetMotivated r/bestof … and 166 more

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (1 child)

He probably doesn't moderate any of them though. How could he manage 166 subs. That's criminal, that's almost satanic.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 funny1 insightful - 0 funny2 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

satanic

That's a separate issue. Just wanted to show the "so many subs he couldn't possibly moderate them" aspect of it.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 funny3 insightful - 0 funny4 insightful - 1 funny -  (11 children)

I don't know anyone who owns more than 5. I'd not want anyone owning 10 subs.

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 funny3 insightful - 0 funny4 insightful - 1 funny -  (10 children)

Well, I already am a mod on 25, to be fair. But I am overseeing the site so I guess that's a bit different.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 funny3 insightful - 0 funny4 insightful - 1 funny -  (9 children)

Yeah, I meant new users. It might be good to limit the number of subs by a new created user (after 6 days) to one or two for a given time, to determine their intentions or agenda. Then after that given time, do the every two days one can create a new sub.

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 funny3 insightful - 0 funny4 insightful - 1 funny -  (8 children)

That's a pretty reasonable idea, I like it.

Maybe we could do your idea like this: limit subreddit creation to once a week, with a 2-week delay on new accounts before they can create their first subreddit. That way it'd be easy to keep tabs on everything as it grows. I think your idea of users having a trial period with limited sub creation abilities is good.

[–]Node 3 insightful - 1 funny3 insightful - 0 funny4 insightful - 1 funny -  (4 children)

I agree with Jesus on the sub-10 limit. Pretty sure you don't want to end up with guys modding 171 subs.

https://www.reddit.com/user/davidreiss666/

The once per week limit, with the initial delay, seems like a reasonable way to combat drive-by shilling too. And/or just to give the miscreants time to identify themselves. If they can hold it in for two weeks, maybe that's how they normally are.

[–]magnora7[S] 3 insightful - 1 funny3 insightful - 0 funny4 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

Yeah exactly, the slower things roll out, the more obvious each of their bad moves will become. It easier to build a pattern over time and easy to avoid an 1-day dedicated attack. I think we'll do this.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (2 children)

10-limit sub creation possibly, or no subs for six to tten days for a new user followed by being able to create one or two for around a month and then doing the time limit with a possible limit in the number of subs.


So, in total...

0 subs for 6-10 days

1-2 subs for 1 month to 2 months

10 subs after the 1 to 2 month period with a time limit inbetween each created sub.

(excluding the owner of the site of course.

[–]Node 1 insightful - 1 funny1 insightful - 0 funny2 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

Sounds very reasonable, and in line with the goal of having moderators active on the subs they control or assist with.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (2 children)

That sounds great but will the number of subs created by unlimited? I feel there should be a maximum amount.

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 funny1 insightful - 0 funny2 insightful - 1 funny -  (1 child)

Perhaps we could set a max overall cap of 10 or something.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

Yes, that would be perfect, and would be much easier to tell who is moderating what.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 funny3 insightful - 0 funny4 insightful - 1 funny -  (3 children)

I know there was an automoderator in one sub that had code which could detect bots and shills bu linking similet names. Like if someone registered as 1AB34A that would be placed in spam and thr automoderator would message the user to see if he/she was real. Or someone registers gaydads22 and is banned only to re-register with gaydads27. It will detect that. Not sure about coding that though.

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 funny1 insightful - 0 funny2 insightful - 1 funny -  (2 children)

Interesting. We may end up doing something like that. We will have to see what kind of attacks are employed against us, that will probably play a big role in what defenses we develop.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (1 child)

Might be worthwhile contacting https://voat.co/user/PuttItOut to see how they're handling this ongoing DDOS attack. Better to know how to deal with that in advance.

[–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 funny2 insightful - 0 funny3 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

Well they have cloudflare protection for DDOS attacks, which is what we have too. We can turn it on anytime. So we're actually prepared for a DDOS right now, should one happen

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 funny1 insightful - 0 funny2 insightful - 1 funny -  (0 children)

Get rid of channel join limit in the Lounge chat, maxes out at 10 channels.