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.

  • Eldritch@piefed.worldEnglish
    3·
    7 days ago

    A real quick addition. If rimu wanted to do the feature right

    • never limit or cut off a user’s ability to vote in an automated fashion ever.
    • average out the voting activity of users on a daily or weekly basis.
    • then use that average to weight the votes. Both positively and negatively. Driving overall influence towards the mean.

    That would mean every vote by people that barely voted would carry more weight. And people that vote often and frequently can still vote as often and frequently as they like. But their votes might carry a little less weight because they give them out so freely. Had that been the setup instead of a hard cut off. People probably wouldn’t have noticed. Not that that’s necessarily a good thing. But people definitely wouldn’t have been up in arms over it.

    • Snoopy@piefed.socialEnglish
      1·
      7 days ago

      Thank for talking your time and sharing it.

      In fact piefed had a vote weight system since its beggining where admins could set up for each community how much they weigh and remove them from the all timeline.

      I hope that your post reached dev team. They usually read this community.