this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
12 points (62.0% liked)

PieFed Meta

4776 readers
30 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
 

IIRC, PF-dev Rimu recently explained exactly why he was trialing such limits in a recent software update post. I.e., to create a more efficient internal & external software / HW backbone, for us users, AFAIK. Based on network / host / server loads etc, as I read the updates.

But yeah... the amount of recent negative reaction so far upon that seems... weirdly outsized?
(like, WTF?)

Like-- who the heck comes here exhausted upon corporate social media, and expects a free, open-source community of devs not to tinker with the road-posts and such..?

Pardon my puzzlement here, but I'm a happy PF contributor, and love @PugJesus@piefed.social. Both the dev here and PJ are friends of a sort, and some people I will always try to support.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 0 points 5 days ago (19 children)

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)

[–] IcedRaktajino@startrek.website 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (10 children)

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.

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 0 points 5 days ago (5 children)

would be better spent identifying the small percentage of accounts that may be abusing the system / manipulating votes

Fuck me if I know, mate, but my takeaway was that such was the plan..?

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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?

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What exactly are you trying to say..?

[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 4 points 5 days ago

You said that it was already the plan to go about:

identifying the small percentage of accounts that may be abusing the system

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)