[–] [deleted] 10 points 57 points (+67|-10) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

6
57

[–] sjwking 6 points 57 points (+63|-6) ago 

Right is not wrong just because a mod said it's wrong - sjwking

0
22

[–] 1738384 0 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago 

Are you a professional quotemaker?

15
-14

0
13

[–] Aaaron 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

Good thing we're not concerned with wrong here. People here sound like they want to see it all, right or wrong.

0
1

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

Tolstoy was a totalitarian asshat and supporter of the Bolshevik's murdering millions of Russians. Of course he would want dictators to have more power and the people to have less power. What kind of an idiot would ever appeal to that shitstain Tolstoy for authority? WTF?

6
-5

0
43

[–] purr 0 points 43 points (+43|-0) ago 

I support moderation, but only loose moderation. If you sub's about gaming, and someone posts about cats, well, delete it. But if your sub is about news, and you start deleting posts that support a particular point of view, then that sucks.

0
13

[–] LizardBreathe 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

This plus spam.

0
5

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

Yeah that's about it really. It helps to stay on topic, otherwise we might as well have one big subverse.

Also, on a small sub, good mods can organize events, poll for opinions etc. which is nice. Not to mention the css.

0
1

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

What if your sub is about fat people hate, and people comment that fat people should be treated with sympathy, or less hate.? Is it appropriate to ban people for not agreeing with your views?

0
0

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

I wasn't thinking about that when I wrote my comment. It depends on what the community wants I guess. I think also it's more important for big subs to not be heavy-handed.

0
0

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

People should be able to make obscure rules for their owns subs. However, I agree with "loose moderation" only being applied to default subs.

[–] [deleted] 6 points 28 points (+34|-6) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
18

[–] yewbontheboat [S] 1 points 18 points (+19|-1) ago 

But if moderators make the rules how do they represent the community, its more like they tell the community what to do, wouldn't the up/down vote count represent the will of the community?

5
5

[–] Lowlypeon 5 points 5 points (+10|-5) ago 

If you don't like how a mod runs a sub, make a new sub and run it how you want.

How do you expect a sub of 100 dedicated users to fight against a brigade of 500?

[–] [deleted] 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

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

Upvoat and downvoats are great for the community, but if a post doesn't obey the rules, sometimes it needs to get taken down. Like a screenshot with personal identifying information. An upvoat and downvoat button isn't going to be effective in taking that down immediately.

0
1

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

You can, and should have community input on the rules.

1
10

[–] chakan2 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

You know...like when Voat was picking up steam...it clearly went to shit fast /s.

Downvoting is perfectly acceptable for moderation of a community.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

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

it would go to shit fast

Prove it.

0
0

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

I don't think that's necessarily true. You can just avoid this sub and vote with your traffic.

2
17

[–] G4 2 points 17 points (+19|-2) ago 

Moderation is needed because without it, you get /v/whatever. The rules mean nothing if you cant enforce them.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] cynoclast 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The only thing worse than moderation is no moderation.

0
1

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

I wouldn't go as far as your FDA example, but I agree with the moderation need. Your FDA example depends on the idea that the government is the only body capable of 'moderation.' The store, for example, could moderate what it chooses to sell itself. One store sells venom crap and another doesn't bc its ridiculous garbage.

People will choose what they want to buy no matter what, but the smarter folks won't go to the venom store. The market would weed out a decent amount of those venom shops naturally. Because the FDA dosen't have amount monopoly on research studies, I'm absolutely sure that other entities would do research, and that info would be used accordingly.

0
7

[–] Dereliction 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Some subs can benefit from moderation, though others could (and probably should) just forgo it.

0
5

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

Spam. Goofs. Trolls. Doxxers. And aggressive dickheads who break the rules.

0
4

[–] warpdesign 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Moderators moderate: We don't need them because we have up/down voat!!

Community self-moderates: The downvoat is not a disagree button!!

God people, stop fucking obsessing over this shit and put some good content on this site already.

0
4

[–] FreshieD 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Why do we need someone to protect us from rules we can enforce ourselves with the click of a button??

Just because the community can doesn't mean that the community will, or that they will as quickly and/or efficiently as a moderator can. Moderators ensure that the community standards are upheld in light of brigading, trolls, and all those other nasty things that come with anonymous textual interaction.

load more comments ▼ (33 remaining)