Comment on User "threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works" is banning users for downvoting his posts.
socsa@piefed.social 1 day agoYes, that is exactly how the original piefed implementation worked, which was a fantastic compromise between true anonymous voting and the need for community management. But this wasn't enough for a small subset of admins and mods who did not actually thing the issue through, and took offense under the guise of "vote brigading."
Skavau@piefed.social 1 day ago
I don't recall piefed showing you any voter details before Rimu changed it. I recall it being completely anonymous, and only deweighting downvoters if they did X downvotes in a row (meaning their downvote wouldn't count locally). Then he changed it, and added non-federated voting.
But supposing we have a sort of proxy voting system, whereby a downvote by you is identified under a proxy name - if you got banned by a community moderator for voting like that, wouldn't they instantly see who you were by checking the community ban list?
socsa@piefed.social 1 day ago
The way it was implemented was that a user was basically two accounts - one voted, one commented. You could ban either one without knowing the other. The point being that if the issue was vote manipulation, you could ban the voting agent and be done with it. If the issue was as content violation then you could ban the other account and be done with it. It was literally just like having an app where you can log in with two accounts at once and choose which one to use to vote vs comment.
Skavau@piefed.social 1 day ago
What would "banning the voting agent" look like exactly if it didn't impact the account that triggered the voting agent? Just muted their downvoting? I assume this wouldn't federate out, so wouldn't impact the negative impact of potentially unwelcome and malicious downvoting from that account across the fediverse.