You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
4

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

It would be best, if AskVoat changed their rules so that an active and popular post that is obviously a question, even if it's missing a questionmark wasn't deleted.

It would be next to best if She had recused herself due to the obvious conflict of interest and alerted a fellow mod to act on it instead.

It would be almost as good if Voat were to be upgraded so that titles could be edited.

It would be better than nothing if the AskVoat staff had exercised discretion in their choice whether or not to delete the thread, and kept in mind that Rules are Tools, not straightjackets.

But like what you propose, none of these things are what happened.

3
-2

[–] Icy-Defiance [S] 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

It would be best, if AskVoat changed their rules so that an active and popular post that is obviously a question, even if it's missing a questionmark wasn't deleted.

It would be next to best if She had recused herself due to the obvious conflict of interest and alerted a fellow mod to act on it instead.

I'll agree with both of those. I just wish those were the points that conspiratards made instead of all the SJW accusations.

It would be almost as good if Voat were to be upgraded so that titles could be edited.

That...I'm not sure about. Reddit didn't implement it because of the potential for abuse. Whether that concern is valid or not, I'm undecided.

It would be better than nothing if the AskVoat staff had exercised discretion in their choice whether or not to delete the thread, and kept in mind that Rules are Tools, not straightjackets.

From their perspective, like they explained in the sticky, they're trying to eliminate subjectiveness in their rules, because abuse of that kind of subjectiveness was one of the major complaints people had about reddit. I'm undecided on whether that's valid or not, so whatever, might as well let them run the subverse how they want.

The only reason anyone cares enough for this witch hunt to happen is because of people who disagree with she on some things and have been out to get her for some time now. I'm just amazed that so many people can't see they're fighting against exactly the same free speech they left reddit for, like they only advocate free speech going both ways when they're the ones being suppressed.

0
3

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

I'll agree with both of those. I just wish those were the points that conspiratards made instead of all the SJW accusations.

Well, I've both been saying these things, AND I'm highly concerned about the fact that She seems to subscribe to a SJW school of thought AND is making a bid for increased power. It doesn't look right to me, and maybe it's not FAIR of me to be suspicious, but I am.

That...I'm not sure about. Reddit didn't implement it because of the potential for abuse. Whether that concern is valid or not, I'm undecided.

This is an entirely surmountable problem. You could leave the original title in the URL, and as an automatic note on the post. You could require moderator authorization to clear a title edit through the system. You could only allow edits that changed less than 20% of the original title (thus allowing us to correct typos and misspellings, and put in question marks). And that's just what I came up with off the top of my head.

From their perspective, like they explained in the sticky, they're trying to eliminate subjectiveness in their rules, because abuse of that kind of subjectiveness was one of the major complaints people had about reddit.

The only times I can think of people complaining about permissive subjective judgements, is when the exercise of discretion favored a group that the moderator themselves associated with (I.e. SRS-Affiliated mods favoring SRS posters and content to the detriment of other content). Other than that, I see people railing not against permissive discretion, but against censorious or restrictive discretion, such as suppressing content or particular users/demographics. I wouldn't want to live in a world where every instance of jaywalking, or every driver 2mph over the limit were aggressively punished, and I see the question mark issue as being the same degree of import as those issues.

I'm just amazed that so many people can't see they're fighting against exactly the same free speech they left reddit for, like they only advocate free speech going both ways when they're the ones being suppressed.

I haven't seen anyone saying that she shouldn't be allowed to say and think the things she says and thinks. I HAVE seen people who are worried about being subject to the authority of someone who says those things and does those things. Likewise, I believe that Scott Walker is absolutely free to say the things he says, But there is NO WAY I ever want to see him as president. I've already watched him destroy so much of what was good about Wisconsin, I don't want to see it done to the rest of the nation. I've already seen SJWs destroy the good in reddit, and I'd hate to see the same done to Voat. And gaining moderator positions in subs is exactly how they start. So, It's entirely reasonable to be vigilant, and make it clear that we will not let it pass quietly. Even if She is innocent, it makes the matter clear to those who would do so with less than benign intentions in the future.