this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
15 points (66.0% liked)
PieFed Meta
4772 readers
53 users here now
Discuss PieFed project direction, provide feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, and engage in conversations related to the platform organization, policies, features, and community dynamics.
Wiki
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, 240 actions per day is reasonable / unreasonable? Okay, what's the REAL STORY, do you suppose?
(if I'm Jim Jefferies, I have a swift response ready, lol)
Honestly, my opinion is that any vote quota that applies universally is unreasonable and development effort would be better spent identifying the small percentage of accounts that may be abusing the system / manipulating votes and applying a quota to those accounts specifically or making it easier to deal with those identified accounts in some other way.
Like, looking at the modlog, you'll often see bans with "vote manipulation" as the reason, so that seems to be working fine for everyone else. Maybe put development effort into making those easier to identify rather than arbitrarily limiting everyone who interacts with your instance.
And I'm not convinced that the underlying reason(s) for having the quotas holds water, so if I have a bias here, that would be it.
Well the vote quota is set above average normal human reaction. How it is not a tool to identify bot ?
Once they switch to their alt account, can't we detect more easily bot ?
Anyway since the beggining that's how piefed was crafted. It was against bot, vibe coding...it hasn't changed.
240 votes in a day is not above 'average normal human reaction'.
That's a lot. How it is limiting your activities as you told us earlier ?
If you stop posting, that's just the choice you made, that's not due to the voting quota. You may claim it limit your activity because you disagree with this, but there is only yourself there.
Fuck me if I know, mate, but my takeaway was that such was the plan..?
That's supposedly part of the justification for the quota, but it hasn't been shown or proven those top 3% or whatever are engaging in any malicious behavior. And it brings me back to "why not just investigate that 3% and deal with them individually? Or make reporting/tools to examine the behavior of those "problematic" 3% of users?
I've been outside working in the heat, so the best comparison I can come up with at the moment is how ISPs use the top 3% of power users to justify data caps for everyone.
*3% used as a "low percentage of users" since I don't remember the exact numbers from the explanation post about this.
Mate, what "Iced Raktajino" level of anything possibly matches that level of hostile insecurity..?
PugJesus already shared with you a link from Rimu - https://piefed.social/comment/12082419 - showing that Rimu knows precisely who those people are. They aren't bots, they are humans who contribute to the Threadiverse in the form of votes.
If they are acting nefariously... then I would not know, bc we are not told who they are. But in theory, if they were, then yeah, just ban them? Or honey pot them I guess?
What exactly are you trying to say..?
You said that it was already the plan to go about:
I was pointing to a post showing that such had already been done, and the results of an analysis of such. There really is a lot of information about this subject, if you want to read about it - the link I sent, authored by Rimu himself - is a great place to start.
If you are strictly a user, and don't moderate any communities Etc the limit isn't too broken. It is still broken. If you moderate any number of communities. This is extremely broken and makes standard community leader/moderator behavior difficult if not often impossible. I had considered at one point migrating some of my communities over to piefed. And even if I did it likely wouldn't bump this quota for me. But this quota certainly is a good reason for me not to move. Especially the way it was handled.
Rimu has a HUGE communication problem. And this isn't even the first time it's caused drama. Had this been communicated instead of discovered. It wouldn't have been nearly the issue it's become. Had it been communicated instead of discovered. People could have given feedback. Had there been feedback there would have likely been much less pushback. Or maybe not even the issue at all. And believe me I get it. People of the programming mindset get into cycles and logic. Forgetting that that's not what people are. And things that might make sense on that front often don't make sense when you're dealing with people. Until Rimu gets some sort of communication pipeline solved. This will not be the last time changes will cause drama. Or alienation of valuable members.
That's not a communication problem.
He nearly faced burn out. So he set his own boundary and communication pipeline so we can focus on Piefed developpement instead on dealing on fedidrama.
I also do the same, it gives us a peace of mind. I just post and move elsewhere with my french mod team because it is much more chill than on the threadiverse.
It's literally a communication issue, and you are having another one right here. At best. I'm well aware of the drama rimu kept getting themselves into. That isn't what were talking about. What were talking about, is a simple blog or community to post on new features and additions. And then civil discussions and feedback.
It's your project, you all can run it as you see fit. And the rest of us are free to fork it or use something else. Something that respects the users more. I'd like to see piefed succeed. I thought you all were interested in that too. But you seem committed to not understanding why/how you're impacting and even running off some of your most active users and their contributions. Or the problem with that.