0
8

[–] fightforthehive 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

I'd like to see the exact same rule, with the caveat that a post without a question mark will not be deleted if the following two criteria are met:

  • if a question mark were added to the title, it would read as a grammatically correct question

  • more than 5 users have commented in the thread

0
3

[–] HowAboutShutUp 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

That's pretty good, it seems like a fair and reasonable middle ground. Maybe try posting it to /v/ModsOfAskVoat as well.

0
2

[–] bilog78 [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

  • if a question mark were added to the title, it would read as a grammatically correct question

I must say that I like this criterion very much, although It's still potentially subjective

  • more than 5 users have commented in the thread

I like this because it's objective (say, 5 users + OP at least) and it's a way to say “ok, the post might not have been correct, but it has still gathered enough interest”. (There is some potential for abuse from the poster (sockpuppets and whatnot) to “protect” posts, of course.)

0
0

[–] l23r 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I like the first part, but I don't see why having 5 or 50 or 500 people responding really makes a difference. A question is a question, isn't it

.

.

.

.

? ;p

0
0

[–] fightforthehive 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It's so the mods don't erase a discussion that has already began. I have no qualms with the mods deleting an incorrectly formatted question and messaging OP to repost correctly before anyone has really had a chance to answer.

1
6

[–] yewbontheboat 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Why not just make it add a fucking question mark automatically?

Who cares content is content enforcing rules is dumb let people vote it down if its bad, I hate content shaping by the elite few.

0
1

[–] bilog78 [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Why not just make it add a fucking question mark automatically?

I like this: add a question mark to the title if missing. Does Voat provide the tools to do that?

(No CSS-only solutions please, that would only work in the sub)

0
1

[–] G4 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

CSS couldn't really do this anyways. There's no if statements in CSS, so if something already had a "?", then it would just have 2.

0
1

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

Nope, and no tools for that will be added because it's such a niche case.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] bilog78 [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

¡I love this! ¡US International keyboard layouts for all non-Hispanophones!

0
3

[–] WatDabney 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

If you have to have such a thing (and I'm not convinced that you actually do) then I would think that something along the lines of "This is a sub for questions. Therefore, all post titles must be actual questions." would work.

I think the demand for a question mark at the end of the title completely misses the point, since it's possible to put a question mark at the end of a sentence that's not actually a question AND it's possible to leave a question mark off of the end of a sentence that is actually a question. So the rule potentially fails to accomplish its nominal purpose, and in both directions.

Yes - whether or not a sentence is truly a question is a judgment call, but I'd have to say that if a title cannot accurately be judged, then there's no particular reason it needs to be removed anyway. The only things that should arguably be removed (and again, I'm not even convinced that they should be) are things that are so obviously not questions that it's not going to be in the least bit difficult to determine that.

So, while the Rule 1 as-is is pedantically annoying, it can at least be applied objectively.

Yes, it can be applied objectively, but it fails to actually accomplish the intended purpose, since, again, non-questions can have question marks and thus satisfy the rule and questions can fail to have question marks and break the rule, so that objective application of the rule can actually lead to leaving non-questions in place and deleting questions. Since that's explicitly the reverse of the intent, it's self-evident that the rule doesn't work, and the fact that it can be "objecively" applied is moot.

By contrast, a rephrased Rule 1 might be much less pedantic and annoying, but paradoxically it might be more prone to abuse.

Yes, it might. That's an entirely separate matter though. There are no rules that cannot be abused by those who wish to abuse them, so the key is to find and weed out those who abuse them.

0
1

[–] bilog78 [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Thank you very much.

So the rule potentially fails to accomplish its nominal purpose, and in both directions.

This is quite true. Of course for at least one of the directions you could still patch it up by adding the condition that it must be an actual question (e.g. allow "Am I Sir Walter Raleigh?” but not “I am Sir Walter Raleigh?” based on simple grammar rules), but this introduces the famous “judgment call”.

Yes - whether or not a sentence is truly a question is a judgment call, but I'd have to say that if a title cannot accurately be judged, then there's no particular reason it needs to be removed anyway.

One could argue from a different perspective that on ASKVoat, only posts that are obviously questions are on topic, but see, that's exactly the problem with subjective rules: it depends on the perspective of the individual.

Consider how much noise is being made about a mod that is simply apply an objective rule indiscriminately, and consider how much worse it would be if instead of being such a rule it was a rule based on a judgment call.

There are no rules that cannot be abused by those who wish to abuse them

This is only true up to a certain point. Rules the applicability of which can be assessed objectively are much harder to abuse, if they are applied indiscriminately. The only potential venue for abuse would be to conveniently “forget” to apply them.

0
1

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

One could argue from a different perspective that on ASKVoat, only posts that are obviously questions are on topic...

But to what end?

The up and down vote function is supposed to serve to generally manage the sub - good threads go to the top and bad threads go to the bottom. That should be sufficient for most by itself. I don't see any reason that any thread should ever be deleted unless it's overtly destructive and thus really needs to be removed.

Deleting threads should always be the exception - it should only happen to the very worst of them. The rules should reflect that.

Consider how much noise is being made about a mod that is simply apply an objective rule indiscriminately

The concern self-evidently is NOT that the mod was "simply" applying a poorly framed rule. In fact, aside from this thread and a bare handful of others, the concern isn't really over the rule at all. The actual concern is that the mod has an agenda is is using the mod position to pursue that agenda. That's an entirely separate matter.

consider how much worse it would be if instead of being such a rule it was a rule based on a judgment call.

That's exactly why deleting a thread should only be a last resort.

I would say that if the deletion of any particular thread is questionable, then that means that that thread didn't need to be deleted in the first place. If a thread truly needs to be deleted, then it should be so obvious that there will be little to no question about it - yes, it'd ultimately still be a judgment call, but that's irrelevant, since it would be such an obvious one.

And such a conservative application of the rule would also mostly eliminate the potential for abuse right there.

0
2

[–] Pahyum 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Could just say:

1) The title of each post must clearly be a direct question.

0
1

[–] bilog78 [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I like that. It also excludes rhetorical questions.

[–] [deleted] 4 points 2 points (+6|-4) ago 

[Deleted]

1
0

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

This is highly subjective and based on mod opinion. Should we have a rule which encourages selective application?

0
0

[–] TimberWolfAlpha 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

All rules are enforced at the discretion of the staff. This is why you use a human for the job, instead of automating it. Good cops don't ticket for 2 over.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

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

I would be curious to hear what you feel could be "phased as a question" and be unclear about it? Either the title solicits a response, or it does not. if it does nothing to seek the input, opinions, or other answers of voaters, it is a statement. if it does, it is a question, regardless of punctuation.

What sort of abuse can you imagine occurring? Can you give an example?

0
0

[–] bilog78 [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Well, for example, rhetorical questions (are they questions or statements?), questions for which it's not obvious if they are rhetorical or serious, or titles such as this

0
0

[–] TimberWolfAlpha 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Is a question really rhetorical if you open it up for responses? If you ask the question, even if your intent is rhetorical, if people interpret it as a genuine question, I see no problem here. I also doubt the thread would do very well, and would naturally fail without the need for moderator intervention.

Your latter example could be phrased better, it has a terrible title, but the post has text that fleshes it out and clearly the user has something to ask us.

0
1

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

"Post titles should be in a form of a question that encourages responses and discussion"

0
0

[–] bilog78 [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The problem is the “form of a question”. There is some subjectivity in assessing this.

0
1

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

That's true. But it shouldn't be very hard to recognize a question with some common sense. Also, moderators should have a policy of "when in doubt, don't delete"

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)