The justification is that the new page moves too fast. We like to think that merit matters, but it's random and arbitrary whether or not something moves off of

The justification is that the new page moves too fast. We like to think that merit matters, but it's random and arbitrary whether or not something moves off of the new page with that initial vote or two. I openly admit to having previously colluded with nickb to do this for an occasional story. Just a few submissions in my years here. There is no front page sculpting among the top users here like on Digg. Edw and I actually talked about this in a mixergy interview we did with Andrew Warner. Still, if there is something I really, really want to give a chance at getting on the front page, I will not feel bad about making sure it gets 2 or 3 points in the first couple minutes. 4 points would be too many. If it doesn't get any more upvotes, it will fall away quickly. Since nickb and I upvoted stories that we felt were on-topic and deserving of being on the front page, where is the moral problem? And, if it is decided this is bad, how can it be stopped? Should you really only be able to upvote a friend's story if you innocently see it on the new page? Most people don't browse the new page, giving a small minority of users the power to choose what is seen by everyone else. The supposed democracy of the new page is not something wonderful with this naive integrity we must maintain. It's a flawed system we have to work with. Asking friends to vote for your stories is a slippery slope, but when they are stories they would have upvoted anyways, there is no moral dilemna. It's a long slope from nickb and I colluding once every 6 months and people paying me hundreds of dollars to put their acai berry affiliate marketing site on the front page.