PieFed Meta

4798 readers

5 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

rimu@piefed.social

Okay, maybe I'm missing something? But it seems like the recent backlash upon our dev trying out caps upon our votes is just... WTF!? (piefed.social)

submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social to c/piefed_meta@piefed.social

57 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] Eldritch@piefed.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Don't sell yourself short. Your translations help thousands maybe even Millions have the ability to use the software. A software is only as good as it is usable.

That said I would like to reiterate a few bullet points

this doesn't solve a vital problem or basic need of the users or administrators. It was something rimu just decided.
worse it went live with no announcements or discussion beforehand. Being tested and discovered by the user base.
worse still. This left people such as yourself burning a lot of time and Sanity trying to smooth over issues that could have been avoided had there been debate and discussion about this beforehand.
low-key kind of damning. This feature can't even do what it claims ultimately. Really only hurting actual genuine users. Anyone maliciously trying to manipulate or unduly influence communities or servers could still easily do so simply by running an extra account or two.

Consider for a moment that rimu might be a bit like George Lucas. Lucas had a vision and was very creative. No lie. But Lucas's Vision when it wasn't moderated or controlled was often his biggest failing. Without someone to push back and say no. Or to ask why. Lucas got in his own way, keeping him from telling the story he wanted successfully. Thus arriving at my thesis statement. This feature is rimu's jar jar binks. A wet stinky gungan turd.

I am not that unique or special. The way I moderate and run the communities I have. I'm sure is pretty common among many other people. Generally when someone posts I upvote. To help the visibility of the post and as thanks for contribution. When people comment on posts I generally upvote them as well again to help with visibility and to show interaction that there are people there. Reading and looking and enjoying the content. Not just lonely abandoned posts and comments sitting neglected.

With only just a couple of communities and only a small but active user base. With those habits. I could easily hit this limit regularly. That is bad. That is bad design. That will hinder the very communities most likely want to foster. And all for a feature decided on a whim that didn't solve a problem. That I think is why people are so incensed.