One of today's... lucky? ten thousand, I guess

You've missed so much. I won't catch you up because none of it matters, and being aware of petty drama among a group of redditors will not improve your life.

Not just accounts, communities. He was managing a few communities he'd migrated over to piefed who would continue to be affected by that limit even if he switched account, essentially shadowbanning his votes at some point.

Moving a community means hoping that enough regulars see the notification to "jumpstart" the new community to the point the new posts show up in /all for the rest of the old community to pick up on it and realise they're not subscribed. You'll also need to keep reminding people posting in the old community to post to the new one instead for a while.

It's kinda founding a new community for a topic that already has an established community, then trying to get that established one to join your new one.

That's a lot of effort I can see him no longer wanting to do.

The man who always wrote angry comments 24/7 and refuses to have a consistent thought for upset and left. Supposedly. He always lurks when someone mentions his name.

We're on month 2 of him leaving for good.

I never got the impression of hatred from him.

would debate anybody who disagreed with him

I mean, debate is the way to test arguments and refine understanding. If your understanding diverges from someone else's (like mine does from yours here), is it wrong to point out why you think they're wrong and either help them understand some part better or be taught by them instead?

I think that's just a different mode of communication and using social media. I know he's chronically ill and believe he describes himself as "cripple", suggesting that his body has forsaken him, which makes IRL social activities difficult and painful.

The beauty of the internet is that you can interact with people there, even if your body can't handle going to the pub or whatever. So I don't blame him for leaning more on his mind than his body and being chronically online if the offline world is chronically hell.

Sad to see yet another active community member get consumed by hatred and frustration

I think the frustration is mostly at the fact that rimu is pursuing a policy other admins have advised against and it's killing his fun. He has stated several times that he doesn't think rimu is totally off-kilter and that he gets the motive, just doesn't agree that it would have any beneficial effect on the fediverse.

That doesn't sound like hatred to me, more the disappointment of seeing a working partner you otherwise respect take steps that make it hard for you to keep working with them.

it sounds to me like it may have been more about being able to curate the community through active engagement more than an attachment to the end product of such a feature, i.e. total profile “score” of different users’ contributions.

Ok, but this is good actually, there’s a lot more accounts voting a dozen times a minute for hours than people actually reading a thousand comments a day and responding accordingly.

By Rimu's own data, there were about five users who were above the 'cap' of 240 a day. None of which he suspected of being bots.

Sorry that you can't do basic math, or understand that an upvote is precisely so one doesn't have to type a response.

Source?

Last I followed that conversation, rimu stated that it wasn't about vote manipulation or spam, just about the outsized influence of people who spend more time online (for instance because they're chronically ill and the offline world therefore just doesn't hold any appeal to them).

Your comment took a few seconds to read in my inbox. If I made a post that took off and got a hundred replies, most of which are nice but don't warrant an in-depth response, I could read and swipe to upvote each in a few seconds, leaving the ones warranting more time and a reply unread and going back for them afterwards.

If the intention is that people should comment or post more rather than (just) voting, making them vote less isn't gonna achieve that. A comment is nowhere near a decent substitute for a vote. The difference in effort between "swipe" and "swipe, think of what you want to say, consider whether it's too inane to be worth a comment, fret over the wording to avoid accidentally stepping on toes you care about, knowing that people may end up judging you for your choice of words anyway, or maybe even complain about you commenting too much in general" is monumental. The venomous treatment he's been getting isn't helping.

And even if he did comment, what if the other person replies in a civil manner? You'd like to reward and encourage that. If you're out of votes for the day, the only thing you could do is reply "+" or some variant, which would probably result in people jumping down your throat for making such a pointless comment, similar to the "this" comments. "That's what upvotes are for", I've seen people argue. Which is entirely correct, but what if you're out of upvotes? Do you just stop engaging for the day, knowing you'll be frustrated anyway?

The bottom line is that a vote cap inhibits engagement. If we wanna prevent engagement bait and karma farming, we can simply not show anyone's "score" on their profiles and moderate excessive outrage bait posts.

So this achieves nothing good, just punishes those that contributed most.