3
14

[–] FitMachoNaziAtheist 3 points 14 points (+17|-3) ago  (edited ago)

Went back to reddit, voat is no different.

0
9

[–] HowAboutShutUp [S] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I believe I mentioned in one of the subverse request threads that I was ok with the idea of @Atko and @PuttItOut setting it up under @System, but I'd like to believe that if people are willing to try to sort it out it's still a solvable problem. At some point a new Level 1 mod is going to have to be appointed, I just have concerns about how things are going to go after that, which is part of the reasoning why I wrote this post, in hopes there's a way to start trying to fix some stuff.

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

[Deleted]

0
7

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

The mods won't solve any of the ongoing issues they created.

You know what would help? Some transparency from the mod team.

@Blacque , @farqanator , @Flux , @Kva , @shiny , @Stoic

Please can each of you go on record here and simply state 1) Do you agree or disagree with u/she 's actions over the past week in terms of deleting threads over punctuation and "soapboxing"?

2) Do you believe that she should stay on as a member of the moderation team?

I don't see the drama ending or v/askvoat ever getting restored to a default until this is over, but it might help if the community can see where the entire team stands on the issue. I know this maybe puts you all on the spot, but there was a thread that called for no confidence in ALL of you when it was basically ONE of you that sparked the outrage. (And 1100 or so people is a representative sample from a statistical perspective and 87% voted no confidence so you can't really dismiss it out of hand).

(I posted then deleted this comment twice because I was pinging wrong - putting the u/ in the names - and I know that you can't do it from an edit.)

5
0

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

How haven't we solved any of the issues? The only issue still open is the position of She, which we have no control over.

0
8

[–] kevdude 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Couldn't the top mod demod her?

0
2

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

[–] Stoic 0 points (+0|-0) 44 minutes ago (edited 34 minutes ago) How haven't we solved any of the issues? The only issue still open is the position of She, which we have no control over.

Oh. I see.

[–] [deleted] 2 points 13 points (+15|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

1
6

[–] Crensch 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Allegedly she is a feminist but she hasn't to my knowledge abused her mod privileges to push any feminist agenda so I think it's a moot point that needs to be dropped.

To be fair, the only people still squawking about that are the people defending her, since it's the only thing they can defend her against.

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

[Deleted]

0
6

[–] heili 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I did delete posts in an attempt to keep discussion inside the megathread though, and if it was seen as censorship, I apologize.

This is not an apology, it's you trying to weasel out of the fact that your actions were absolutely taken to stifle discussion by limiting people to only one thread in which you full well know any new comment would be buried and you could let any kind of criticism die there.

It's the same reason you try to direct people to another subverse entirely - to deprive criticism (justified and not) of /u/She's actions of visibility so that you can craft a narrative in which /u/She is merely the innocent victim of a witch hunt perpetrated by people who woke up one day and en masse decided they were going to attack her.

That neither you, nor /u/She can see that she, and to a barely lesser extent you, have played an active role in the community's desire to have you removed from moderating it speaks volumes as to why neither of you should be running a subverse.

Take your non-apology and stuff it.

2
9

[–] kevdude 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago  (edited ago)

u/she needs to step down as moderator as a show of good faith. She has overzealously enforced ambiguous rules and censored discussion. Look here: https://voat.co/v/deletedaskvoat and open up the comments for each deleted post to see that many of the posts presented a line of inquiry to the group and facilitated a conversation as the community attempted to answer. Deleting it was heavy handed and suggests that u/she is more concerned with imposing/exercising authority than with what the community wants.There is no excuse for this. She has to go.

I vote that the rules are just fine as they are. I have yet to see "soapboxing" and I truly feel that the term is a slippery slope to a reddit style selective enforcement. v/askvoat will definitely have politically oriented questions. Seeking to implement more rules will eventually lead us to reddit where a post about the TPP was deleted from r/news because "not news, politics" and then deleted from politics because "not politics, news". I think the whole notion of insisting on arbitrary rules like a "?" and the discussion I read over on v/modsofvoat about the issue points to a group of people more concerned with "rules" than discussion and more concerned with maintaining their "power" (they use the word power in their sidebar) than with being a part of the user group that happens to clear out the spam. So to show faith u/she should step down, a statement should be issued, and as a community we should petition for the sub to be returned to default status.

Nothing except spam should be deleted. And no new rules should be added. In the words of u/atko the mod team just needs to "calm their tits" and let the sub grow organically as users submit and discuss topics.

1
6

[–] Cynabuns 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Really well articulated - nicely done.

0
6

[–] HowAboutShutUp [S] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Thank you. I hope something useful comes of it.

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

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

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

[Deleted]

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.

[–] [deleted] 6 points 2 points (+8|-6) ago 

[Deleted]

0
7

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

Can I ask why you and she are so focused on making rules that really do nothing but allow you to subjectively police and delete conversations users are having in the sub? A rule like "Soapboxing" is just begging for abuse and shitstorms. And the ? is ridiculously anal-retentive. Come on dude, your sidebar is fine, there are no shitposts. Are you guys just bored and looking to make rules that give you the excuse to delete things?

1
1

[–] Stoic 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

To be clear, it has not yet been established whether or not soapboxing will ever become a rule again. At least I dont want it to be.

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

[Deleted]

0
0

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

If you mean the button to submit something, its actually the big speech bubble on the side with a question mark in it. Took me a sec to figure it out, but it could certainly stand to be more obvious.

0
3

[–] HowAboutShutUp [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Hey there, I appreciate your taking the time to reply.

If I may, I'd like to suggest that if the goal is to use /v/ModsOfAskVoat for this sort of thing, any ongoing discussions should be cross-linked in an /v/AskVoat sticky post that will remain active until the close of that discussion and the enactment of anything that results from that discussion (not a secondary discussion here, rather an obvious link that will funnel people into the ModsOfAskVoat discussion if they wish to participate). The goal of this would be to make sure any user who visits this sub is aware that a discussion is happening, without too much effort required on the user's part to find such meta-related topics.

  1. I hope the way this is formulated gets some fairly deep consideration. It could be easily possible to construe something like an attempt to raise awareness about something as "soap-boxing" even if it's about something serious or important. That's not saying I think drumming for causes should become a thing in AskVoat, I'm just not sure the definition of soap-boxing as I understand it is the right way to look at the kind of posts a rule like this might target. Over the course of figuring out what the definition used by the rules will be, perhaps a better descriptor will reveal itself.

  2. Can you elaborate a bit on this point? To be frank, my hope is that if someone clearly phrases a question in the title but neglects to add a question mark, that the post will be allowed to slide.

  3. I support the objective criteria point 100% and feel like this is a great example of the kind of stuff that helps resolve concerns like mine. I'm looking forward to seeing how that unfolds.

  4. Understandable, I'm sure there's a lot to do. Again, looking forward to seeing what develops.

I know I've been kind of a shit lately, but honestly the idea of the internet becoming a place hostile to open discourse is something that really disturbing to me, so I struggle very much with not overreacting to issues like that. I'm sorry for the added stress anything I've personally done may have placed on you, but I really do hope things can work out in a way that's positive for all of us.

0
2

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

I don't think it needs to move to another sub. This affects the v/askvoat community and should be discussed in v/askvoat.

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

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

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

[Deleted]

2
-1

[–] Stoic 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

Which part of rule 3 do you want better described?

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

[Deleted]