You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

2
2

[–] Stoic 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago  (edited ago)

  1. "Why do posts sometimes get actioned for things that aren't expressly against the rules? By this I mean when something gets actioned for "soap-boxing." I removed that rule days ago? That has already been solved.

  2. Agreed. https://voat.co/v/ModsOfAskVoat/comments/330380/1279369 https://voat.co/v/AskVoat/comments/284043/1012594

  3. This is something we have no control over right now, as the only ones with the power to do something about that are /u/kva and the admins and the former has been inactive for months.

  4. Atko stated it was because of the way rule #1 was applied. He wanted us to calm our tits, after which he'd make it a default again.

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

[Deleted]

2
4

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

We had a discussion about that removal with the mods and we agree with you: it was a terrible decision. I apologized to K_Digi.

0
0

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

Hi there, thank you for the reply.

I'm a little confused on your answer to number 3 and hope you might elaborate. Should I take this to mean that some of the currently active mods are unwilling to publicly commit to not moderating in bad faith or using what bothers them as a yardstick for mod action instead of the rules? I realize it's not possible to do things that require a level 1 mod when the current l1 mod is inactive, but how does this affect whether or not the active mods will promise the community to moderate fairly going forward?

I ask this not to be inflammatory, but I genuinely don't understand your answer. You've been pretty reasonable through all this, so I don't think there's any bad intent or anything on your part, I do though think my point 3 is somewhat of a sticking point for me and probably others.

0
0

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

but how does this affect whether or not the active mods will promise the community to moderate fairly going forward?

We will probably add a leniency clause to the sidebar and then it just comes down to the good judgment of moderators to know what to remove and what to stay. I can already say this is going to lead to problems, as rules must be interpreted and moderators can always try to find the outer limit of a concept to legitimize a removal. I hope we can create rules that don't allow much room for interpretation. I'd have a discussion with the community about this, but it'd get insta-hijacked by the protectvoat crowd.