You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
5

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

It is more than fine for now. However if voat reaches millions of users is that approach still applicable? I would argue that it is not anymore and long term planning really needs to be what is in store here. The easiest one yet possibly the most effective is every mod having a log of moderator activities that is open and transparent for every user. This allows users inclined to do so the ability to determine for themselves through hard evidence if there truly is a problem. If there is they can then point to hard evidence showing their case allowing for legitimate discourse. I am sure that there are other great options as well though it really seems to me this one is among the better ones.

0
0

[–] Lt_Leeks ago 

Maybe an option would be a transparent and careful review process. I know that a true democracy would result in a power of the majority but, a possible election process could help.

Let's say in the Voat future, a powertripping mod is banning people, maybe the verses get the option to impeach a mod would be available. Then if the subverse agrees to impeach, the mod log is revealed on a sticky post.

From their the mod is given another temporary period to improve behavior, OR lose modding privileges, with another user chosen by upvoats to gain temp-mod power and if proven satisfaction gets a full position.

0
1

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

I think a lot of the problem is administration as well. These might be good solutions but without the admins giving permission for this to happen (as well as a way to do it), then it isn't going to matter. Word has been for awhile that the admins at reddit back the SJW types that have been attemting to "take over", which is why we see unfair and uneven applications of rules. Some get banned for things like vote brigading and doxxing and others don't. There's no consistency. And we aren't allowed to just get rid of bad mods on our own, we just have to make new subs to get away from them. The same thing will happen here, assuming that this in run in much the same way as reddit- as users, we have no real power. We can voice our displeasure but unless the admins are on board, we can't just get rid of bad mods on our own.

0
1

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

That is a great short term solution though it is just that. A short term solution is all something along those lines could ever be. What is the number that has to agree for it to happen? 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%? Where is the cutoff? Once a subverse reaches say 1 million users and has abusive mods become abusive how do you plan to deal with that? Even 1% of 1mil is still 10k users. How do you organize 10,000 users to vote for something when the very mod who has to ability to destroy any posts in the sub organizing it is who you are trying to subvert? This solution has real and serious dangers of abuse.

This also allows negative and harmful users to ability to pool together for the express reason of taking over a subverse. Boot a mod with a pooled voting and place their own in their place. This is among the reasons I feel that all moderator use needs to be stored in their account for everyone to see.

An event log organized by subverse for each moderator in their account is easily the best way to handle the ability to hold mods accountable to everyone.