[–]Dirty_Asshole0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
There is a kabal of power users over there who enjoy controlling the narrative. It is a voat moderators job to:
Reserve the subverse to prevent the power user from gaining access.
Rebuff the power users demands to be added to the subverse
Restrict the power users access to the subverse (ala banning them)
Inform the users of any attempted infiltration through sock puppetry.
I've already had the reddit moderator of my one of my subverses (a known poweruser) demand to be added on the voat subverse since "he had it first on reddit". I refused, and minutes later I was banned from the reddit community of which I had earned over 400 karmas by posting informative and useful comments.
We have seen the opposite too, as reddit has now banned links to voat.co that are not to a specific handful of subverses that have installed the same puppet moderation team as reddit. So it is obvious this is their goal and endgame, mirroring of the reddit style of "dick waving in your face" moderation on voat. I'll have none of it.
I totally agree with all of that. Where I take issue is, I would consider things like denying promotion requests from unqualified users, banning problem users, and being transparent in your moderation to be basic moderation stuff. How is banning a Reddit power user for posting shit in the subverse any different than removing off-topic content? Why would you let the votes determine one, while using mod powers for the other? They're functionally identical, they're both just bad posts that don't belong on the subverse.
Many subreddits definitely get strangled by poor, overzealous moderation, and that is definitely something I plan to avoid in my subverses, but I just don't see how you can claim that it's better to let the votes control the content, while at the same time advocating for the removal of content from users you don't like.
[–] Dirty_Asshole ago (edited ago)
There is a kabal of power users over there who enjoy controlling the narrative. It is a voat moderators job to:
Reserve the subverse to prevent the power user from gaining access.
Rebuff the power users demands to be added to the subverse
Restrict the power users access to the subverse (ala banning them)
Inform the users of any attempted infiltration through sock puppetry.
I've already had the reddit moderator of my one of my subverses (a known poweruser) demand to be added on the voat subverse since "he had it first on reddit". I refused, and minutes later I was banned from the reddit community of which I had earned over 400 karmas by posting informative and useful comments.
We have seen the opposite too, as reddit has now banned links to voat.co that are not to a specific handful of subverses that have installed the same puppet moderation team as reddit. So it is obvious this is their goal and endgame, mirroring of the reddit style of "dick waving in your face" moderation on voat. I'll have none of it.
[–] timsandtoms ago
I totally agree with all of that. Where I take issue is, I would consider things like denying promotion requests from unqualified users, banning problem users, and being transparent in your moderation to be basic moderation stuff. How is banning a Reddit power user for posting shit in the subverse any different than removing off-topic content? Why would you let the votes determine one, while using mod powers for the other? They're functionally identical, they're both just bad posts that don't belong on the subverse.
Many subreddits definitely get strangled by poor, overzealous moderation, and that is definitely something I plan to avoid in my subverses, but I just don't see how you can claim that it's better to let the votes control the content, while at the same time advocating for the removal of content from users you don't like.