0
1

[–] immibis 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

0
5

[–] nrd 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I'll admit, what I did was probably wrong.

Why?

The first thing I did was to create a subverse, too. Also one that also exists on reddit. I didn’t have any bad intentions in doing so, I just wanted to bring a topic of my interest over to Voat.

I don’t think a CCP minimum would stop anyone with not-so-great intentions from doing what they do. It would only discourage new users who mean well. There already are rules that you have to keep your subverse active (by posting submissions and comments, if I remember correctly), so an inactive user wouldn’t keep their subverses for long.

I think it might be a better idea to have a general (and low) limit on how many subverses a user can create/moderate. Maybe just one or two for someone with no/very few CCP, more for people with a higher CCP. As long as it stays reasonably low. If people really have to think about which subverses they want to moderate, that’s probably better for the content quality than just tying it to a CCP requirement.

0
0

[–] notencore [S] ago 

A tiered moderation system seems intelligent. I think your proposed implementation is probably the best method of implementing such a system. Well thought out! It would encourage people to post about that which they most care about, and in turn improve the quality of content on Voat! I'd give you a Voat platinum, if such a thing existed.

0
1

[–] nrd 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Thanks!

I'd give you a Voat platinum, if such a thing existed.

Deep down we’re all hoping for the day when we can award outstanding posts a tiny little goat to show our appreciation …

0
0

[–] Jashwua ago 

This is a great idea. Keeping the ability to create a subverse for new users while giving them incentive to grow and be a part of the community if they wish to mod/create more subverses.

0
0

[–] BreakingBombs ago 

I too created a subverse that exists on Reddit. But it is niche and likely won't have many subscribers. No bad intentions, I just wanted it to be available for when more people make the jump.

I like your ideas about subverse limits.

0
0

[–] Spank_My_Bottom ago 

I like your idea more. Limiting the number of subverses would limit "subverse squatting" (akin to domain squatting) and weed out unmoderated subverses.

0
1

[–] lastresort09 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

We need to figure out a new way of deciding who mods the popular subs with common names like politics, news, science, etc. These subs shouldn't be considered the same as others, and shouldn't be simply - first come first dibs. Perhaps there needs be a rubric against which such mods are tested.

0
0

[–] tankfox ago 

I would really like it if they would eliminate tying CCP to site functionality. It effectively cripples the site for new users and makes it really hard to enjoy being here.

0
0

[–] notencore [S] ago 

The only thing that I've found tied to CCP is downvoting, and why would you want to do that on a new account? It makes sense that there are checks and measures for site functionality, and, in my humble opinion, it encourages people to participate in the community.

0
0

[–] randyfox ago 

Well, in light of the news that some of reddit wish to put reddit mods in the position of mods of subverses, it might not be a bad idea. Even if those posts were satire, who's to say that couldn't happen? Having a standard for who can mod, as we do for up and downvoating, sounds reasonable.

0
0

[–] Caboose_Calloway ago 

Creating a sub should cost 1000 SCP and the price should increase as voat gets more users.

In the same manner a single downvoat should cost 50 CCP. This would discourage fickle downvoting but there are times when I'd gladly part with 50 CCP for a downvoat.

0
0

[–] ooli ago 

No! It should put a ccp limit to keep modding: you're inactive = demodded, you're hated by the subscribers = demodded.