Glad I could help by pointing you to it! :-)

Fwiw the original post in the first link was not deleted at the time I wrote my own post here. That may complicate discovery, though it may help to know that the reply definitely was added prior to the post being deleted.

It's been a couple weeks and I wanted to add another perspective about this.

I noticed a user downvoting posts, https://lemvotes.org/user/FarStare@lemmy.dbzer0.com if it helps to have specifics. In the more than one full year of existing, they have never once contributed via making a post, never once commenting even, just doling out up- and down-votes in roughly equal proportion, and even those nearly exclusively via posts but almost never comments.

I am not concerned about receiving votes from PugJesus - either up or down, as PugJesus has earned the right to speak on behalf of the community. But who is this other person who is influencing how others see my content? Are they male or female? Do they have a degree of some kind? Do they primarily visit meme communities, as the vote pattern might suggest, or other communities as well?

So how do I feel about people who use the Threadiverse more than others? My answer is more complex and nuanced than simply yay or nay. I might prefer the opposite of the implemented feature even - the more someone posts (including comments?), the more upvotes they are allowed to make? Have they not earned such?

Also, if votes were exposed, each individual could decide for themselves how they wanted to make use of voting - perhaps someone would ban PugJesus, or conversely write special code (a 3rd party app / API recipient?) to highlight posts that PugJesus upvoted (isn't that how "boosting" works? at least re-tweeting does).

It's really difficult to guess what someone wants, as each person wants different things. Which is why ultimately in an effort to make things more fair & equitable, the solution can end up making it less so.

I like the follow-up suggestion to leave this new option OFF by default, so that an instance admin would have to specifically opt-in, perhaps as part of an overall suite of features limiting things like posts and comments as well. Although really, I think other approaches might work better - e.g. why would someone want to limit themselves to "some" of PugJesus' content, wouldn't they rather simply have it all or else ban him from the instance and therefore have none? I am not seeing the benefit realistically of having "some", especially when the delimiter is not based on community or overall content but simply what time of day (based on an arbitrary threshold for when they starts and ends to restart the next period) the votes are cast?

Lemmy's issues are pretty gigantic as well - to the point where many people outright refuse to fund its further development, thus impacting the future of the Threadiverse (one example is the inordinate amount of time spent performing moderation activities rather than actually working on adding features to the codebase).

Anyway, it's good to have multiple alternative options - having more software implementations of the ActivityPub Protocol is unquestionably a good thing imho.

The social engineering though is NOT a good thing imho - fortunately it's an option that can be disabled, though unfortunately it is opt-out rather than opt-in, and not transparently handled at all.

Sadly, users of PieFed instances that implement this default without actively opting out will not receive your upvotes:-(. But thank you for your service!! You are kind to have offered them regardless!!

No, this affects each and every PieFed instance that upgrades to v1.7 (I sent you in a different reply here the exact lines of code). PugJesus' instance PieFed.social uses the now-default value of 240 as the daily vote quota. Admins may opt-out by setting the quota differently, however this will only impact votes accepted on your current instance. It will not affect votes accepted by other PieFed instances. e.g. if your instance uses 500 rather than 240, then someone looking at the identical content from PieFed.social will not see any of the second half of your daily votes: you will be able to OFFER them, and Lemmy will receive all of them, but each PieFed instance chooses itself how much it will receive or not.

And btw this information is not presented anywhere to show what these values are across each instance. Like the caps on posts and comments, it is silently effective, but not transparent in the least. So like the whole argument about whether defederations destroy the foundational principles of the ActivityPub Protocol-using Threadiverse, this new issue too is going to wreak havoc on the acceptance of PieFed in the wider Threadiverse & Fediverse communities. :-(

All votes, up or down, whether from Lemmy or the local or a different PieFed instance, are now restricted by an admin-set quota value. This was quietly reported outside of Matrix channels, buried into part of the 1.7 release of the code - see the exact relevant line at https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/src/commit/7e10e92de2cf271088b76a31d725cad67afe08aa/app/activitypub/routes.py#L2335.

This value can be adjusted however the admins desire (e.g. the PieFed.zip admins say they have set it to a ridiculously high value to essentially disable it, and other PieFed instances are coming out strongly against it), but by default is set at 240 (https://codeberg.org/rimu/pyfedi/src/branch/main/config.py#L191, thanks to flamingos@feddit.uk for reporting these lines of code). As in you can vote 240 times per day before you are blocked from doing so further. Logged-in PieFed users can see how much of their local instance quota they've used so far, but (i) no numeric values are presented, only a visual bar where you have to guess at where you are (e.g. do I have 10 votes left now? 100? 2?), (b) this will only show you the LOCAL instance quota - not the quotas of OTHER instances, and in particular the vote quota seems applied to incoming votes from Lemmy, Mbin, Mastodon, nodeBB, etc. platforms as well as PieFed instances, and (c) none of this is explained anywhere, on any page, e.g. there is currently no way to tell which instances use those quotas, nor what values they are currently set at.

And I thought I recalled hearing that there are caps already on posts and comments too, but I haven't studied the code and I think this is not well known, if it is even true rather than me misremembering or misunderstanding something. PieFed seems to be going to some effort to limit its users ability to interact with the Threadiverse. Which obviously for some admins is going to be a big plus, to keep costs down by silencing all the "noise" from messy human interactions (although I don't fully understand this: if that is what you want then why not just stop pulling in votes altogether, and simply sort by New?) but the manner in which this implementation has been rolled out... leaves PieFed open to an immense amount of criticism.

Many posts about it lately but here's a good start:

Good summary: https://piefed.zip/c/home@piefed.zip/p/1635935/can-we-remove-the-vote-limiter-implemented-in-v1-7

"main" post: https://piefed.social/c/fediverse@piefed.social/p/2190040/who-decides-what-you-see-on-the-fediverse-a-look-at-voting-patterns

addressing the controversy: https://piefed.social/c/piefed_meta/p/2200155/improvement-for-the-vote-quota-implementation

Though with a difference that multiple centers exist, rather than exclusively one.

Also for those of us in the USA there are so many other life-threatening additional considerations to add: e.g. if we join Piefed.ca then what happens when the USA decides to invade Canada, so either communication gets cut off or people who use this social media get rounded up onto a convention camp?

PieFed is another federated threaded forum software like Lemmy, though just within the last week greatly surprised people by switching gears to be less like traditional social media that welcomes lots of engagement. The changes were not announced in advance, not something that can be opted out of (except by migration to another instance, which is what PugJesus is saying he will not consider doing) and are quite unpopular overall.

None of THAT background stuff will affect you on Lemmy.World, except that you'll see a quieter network overall, especially now that PugJesus is leaving us.

Overall it is perhaps best to use the Threadiverse not as your sole or possibly even primary social media but as one among several, as this one is struggling (post).

Others have calculated and said that this is false. Remember we are not discussing merely votes on posts but also comments. Someone mentioned that the quota could be reached in two hours at a vote every 10 seconds. I cannot even see the numeric value of the vote quota so I am relying on the math of others who have studied this in greater depth.

This OP was not about whether you personally ever vote for content or not, but about how to manage other people who do want to use that feature.