this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2026
30 points (96.9% liked)
PieFed Meta
4767 readers
31 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
Why do you call it antifeature ? The vote quota is the equivalent of scaled feature.
It won't impact them. The vote quota is high and you miss the point. Ask yourself why it was created.
Let's take another example. We organize a metting with several people and two people are completly monopolizying the meeting and sharing their idea.
What if we try to balance a little speech duration during the meeting ? What if we ask those users who speak the most to stop and let other sharing their idea ? That's what we do in our anarchist meeting, we try to balance and limit power.
The voting quota is set above the average voting quota. You won't see its effect except if you belong of the top users that vote a lot.
So what are you arguing about ? It will only impact few users, not you.
Rude. Thank.
I called it an anti-feature bc voting is a feature, but now this works against that. It's a
You said
But I believe this is not the case, at least if I am understanding it correctly? Scaled sorting takes the existing votes and sorts them differently than Hot or New, but this new anti-feature will prevent the votes from being allowed to be submitted in the first place. People have already commented that they want to upvote some things - iirc it was a comment of Rimu's - but could not bc they had already reached their quote for the day.
I doubt I will reach the quota myself personally, but we will ALL be impacted by this change, I believe. It makes PieFed less "welcoming" to discard contributions made to it. It's a hard enough sell to get people to switch to here from Reddit, without such "features" giving them subtle hints that they aren't truly wanted here, and reminders that we are resource-starved while in comparison Reddit will bend over backwards to serve their needs (or at least pretend to).
I have asked not only myself but Rimu and everyone else, but I just don't get it. The various explanations are that it's "unfair", and that it will save on resources. However, while it truly is "unfair" that the likes of ThePicardManeuver, PugJesus, etc. have to submit the majority of content across the entire Threadiverse... that is simply how it is right now, and as unbalanced as it is, it seems preferable to limiting their contributions?
For that matter, why don't we say that it is "unfair" that Rimu makes all of the contributions to the PieFed sourcecode? Should we now act to limit Rimu's contributions, because others are not keeping up? OF COURSE NOT!!! Nor do we ask our heavy posters to limit the actual posts that they submit...? So how then did votes suddenly become undesirable?
The technical burden argument resonates much more strongly with me. But... Rimu says that it is not for that reason. If it were then I could understand it, but since it is not...
What then is the reason that this is being done? It surely CAN'T be the "unfairness" issue - see above, especially the comparison with Rimu's contributions - so what then IS the reason for it?
In your example, what if the two people talking the most were the only two adults in the room, and the rest were children? Or what of it were a technical meeting and they were the only two actual developers? Context matters so much there!!! Nothing in life is ever truly going to be "fair", but at least we all had equal ability to vote on content, before the change, but now we do not - some people have less ability to vote as they wish than others. Consider: someone works very hard all week, then has a single day to check social media, but they reach the cap and then cannot vote anymore - why is their right to do so limited, whereas someone who votes equally but more spread out over the course of a week curtailed? Or someone who works hard all semester long, then has a break after finals week - they want to go on a social media splurge, but cannot, whereas someone who submits 100 times the total amount of votes is allowed to do so, as long as they space it out into multiple days.
You talk as if before was "unfair" - when everyone had the same access to vote as everyone else - but I say that the new method is the truly unfair, when some types of access are favored over others. This is not friendly or welcoming to people who have circumstances that are different than others.
I would be okay with a "rate limiter", more than a "daily quota", as the perception of the former is much more fair than the latter.
This will impact me, you, and all of us. If you think more about what I've said you will see how. It is one thing to handle existing votes on a different manner (opt-in to doing so), while it is another to mandatorily reject submitted votes right at the source (NOT opt-in, nor opt-out either, except by migration to another instance I guess, if you can figure out how to find one that does differently, and hope that they do not change their minds about the situation later).
And your vote quota is low, i think you won't be able to reach its limit except if you use a bot to cast vote.
Yeah few people post lot thing as we do. That's the same for wikipedia. 90-10-1 rule. We could set a post quota too, i would be fine with reducing the amount of content shared here and slower interaction.
Those example above doesn't impact the order of your timeline. And yes they are another problem.
I compared it to scaled feature because scaled is balancing our timeline. The voting quota is also balancing our interaction. So for me they are the same tool.
It won't impact me, i mainly upvote, use chronological order and subcribed. I don't belong to the top voters. If i reach the quota, i would be fine with it.
Here is my vote quota after being back since two days.