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

[Deleted]

1
2

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

Are there any ideas, or parameters that you feel could enable the idea to work? I'm using this poll to see what the site thinks, so I can see if I should dedicate more time to coding a secure voting function for sub verses. I personally think it could work, but I also share concerns about keeping the results pure and out of reach of brigades or groups of people, so it would help if there were any suggestions or anything you've got in terms of how hypothetically you could design it.

4
-2

[–] 12_Years_A_Toucan 4 points -2 points (+2|-4) ago 

The biggest con is tyranny of the majority; a completely democratic process to anything is simply flawed. It should be something the admins deal with. We need ways to report mod abuse to the admins and they should decide the process they want to use to determine what should happen. You can't trust the user base to be objective

0
1

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

I kind of equate the responsibility of a mod to that of a judge. They kind of have to be above the pettiness of agreeing/disagreeing with posts made by submitters--so I totally agree with you that voting might get too political after a while.

But I do think mods should be able to be censured/removed by some kind of represented group of the sub--In order to vote, a user should have to have x number of upvoats on the particular sub...just throwin that one out there.

0
5

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

Went back to reddit, voat is no different.

[–] [deleted] 6 points 3 points (+9|-6) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

6
-1

[–] mcseanerson 6 points -1 points (+5|-6) ago 

Plus you can already voat for mods. It's that little button subscribe/unsubscribe. You don't like mods go to a different sub. If a mod is truly bad everyone will leave.

0
2

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

In theory I think this is a great idea, but practically I think it will result in mods rapidly cycling positions due to fickle mob voting. I also fear a group will get enough power to start manipulating mod positions and from there everything will tumble. Perhaps some built in checks and balances could filter out those problems. The idea is well worth carefully thinking through and I would be happy to get on board at that point.

1
2

[–] Gerplunckamo 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I'm not voting for you, if that's what you're getting at.

1
3

[–] gatordontplaythatsht [S] 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Trust me, I don't want anymore responsibilities, I just want good moderators.

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

[Deleted]

0
0

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

This concept would only be used if there were bad moderators that needed to be replaced if the subverse had perfect moderation than this concept would not be used.

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

[Deleted]

3
1

[–] Astromachine 3 points 1 points (+4|-3) ago  (edited ago)

I voted no. There simply isn't a practical was to prevent these things from being abused. And that is how you end up with subs being taken over. If you don't like the way a sub is being handled and communicating with the mods does not work, vote with your feet and go to another sub. Or start your own.

0
0

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

The community needs a way to get corrupt mods out but voting is not the answer. Voting will never work for this, the amount of things to consider is just too much.

For example lets say a subverse has 12,000 subscribers. This is what you have to think about:

  • How many subscribers are active?

  • How long have they been subscribed?

  • How many SCP and CCP do they have?

  • How many are alts? (Sure I.P can be tracked but people at work, universities, coffee shops would be unable to participate in votes)

And voting is always has been and always will be a popularity contest. Absolutely nothing can be done to change this. Even in a case by case basis it won't work very well.

load more comments ▼ (3 remaining)