Yep, and it could be tiny—five points would probably be a high enough threshold if the goal is just to eliminate jewelry spam and the “everything else is just another trainsmash of the Gregorian Frequency of disconnected heart bio-rhythm” guy.
It really doesn’t seem unreasonable to limit the ability to raise new topics for discussion to those who can, on balance, make useful contributions on other topics.
Yep, and it could be tiny—five points would probably be a high enough threshold if the goal is just to eliminate jewelry spam and the “everything else is just another trainsmash of the Gregorian Frequency of disconnected heart bio-rhythm” guy.
Hell, one point would be high enough.
Or one upvote regardless of downvotes, unless there are bots that upvote posts.
Hmm, so to be attack-resistant you’d need:
at least one karma point to post in discussion
at least one karma point before you can vote at all
admins to look for accounts that are used to upvote spam accounts
How are initial points distributed then? If you need points to post, how do you get that initial point?
You can comment without points.
Which means that the spammers will move to submitting comments.
Still that is better than spammy posts in my opinion.
Thanking for suggesting to cut off my voice.
It really doesn’t seem unreasonable to limit the ability to raise new topics for discussion to those who can, on balance, make useful contributions on other topics.
Actually, you would still be able to bring up ideas as comments in the open threads.