[–] [deleted] 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 1 points 33 points (+34|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

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

The larger subs will show up mainly anyway. Without the default status you would have the added benefit that when something interesting/cool shows up in other subs, new users who aren´t subscribed would see them too. It would allow a more organic development of smaller subs and of where voat goes in the future.

0
15

[–] the-code-always-wins 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

I am a fph user, but I don't think that our content should be the first thing users see. Nor would I want league of legends to be the first thing.

Defaults are defined so that you have a base of content that most users can appreciate instead of having the site pushed in a niche direction.

0
3

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

subs should have some way to opt out from showing up on the front page.

0
1

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

https://voat.co/v/Showerthoughts/comments/403004 I was under that impression....

0
4

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

I posted this in atko's thread I think it provides a reasonable mechanism for removing mods when it becomes necessary.

In defaults, Mods may only delete the following (and please point out anything I have missed): Spam (defined as ads, the same link repeated in the sub), copypasta (the same user pasting the same text over and over in the same thread), illegal material (CP), and dox style personal information. In the case of a content-specific sub, off-topic content may be removed, for example lets say someone mods a sub on news, why would an article on how to upgrade your OS be posted there? And I say "removed" not "deleted". We should provide a tool for mods to move such posts to "v/whatever" A mod deleting content that is unacceptable to be deleted becomes one of the conditions for a takeover request. Similar to a mod that is inactive being a valid condition.This gets rid of mob rule elections. Don't want to lose your sub? Don't be a dick to your users. To prevent abuse we could maybe implement a "Petition for removal" button. Maybe require users to meet an advance threshold of sub-specific ccp and maybe an upvote/vownvote ratio in order to be able to push it? If it gets pushed "x" times, the admin team can review the mod log to see if they have overstepped. And no this won't create a ton of extra work. If 2-3 moderators get yanked this way it is probable that most will conform to the new rules and move on.

For non-defaults we would still need some protection. What if something like r/punchable faces happens? In that case the "petition for removal" button would work. First the number of pushes would need to be higher than the "x" set for defaults. And then we could temporarily set voting within the sub parameters to meet the standard for pushing the removal button and have a "poll thread" with a yea/nea (upvote/downvote) feature enabled. FPH and other subs have their own culture where the group has agreed on certain standards for content and they are ok with deletions and bans. But let's say a troll got control and put a "no fat shaming rule" in place and started a Healthy At Every Size posting rule? Sure you all could start new FPH subs and new users coming to the site would have an extra step to figure out where to go, but why? Why should thousands of users be inconvenienced for 1?

The users need to downvote personal attacks. They need to downvote shitposts. Because, unlike reddit, and as we all have seen, getting downvoted hurts your ability to participate in the site. If they keep getting hammered for bullshit they will give up. Here is an example from v/protectvoat. Most of us can't stand what u/she did/is doing in v/protectvoat, but we have determined that we are NOT a brigading sub. Here is what happened when one user came in to call for a brigade: https://voat.co/v/whatever/comments/427810. The users downvoted the shit out of him.

I think we still need moderators, but they need to be held to a higher standard and they need to be removable.

And I think v/askvoat might justify an emergency? Or you could set a rule that if the person didn't create the sub admins may intervene? Or you could simply acknowledge that one user has clearly decided her ego is more important than the community and cut the losses and default v/askgoat or v/askvoat2 by putting their signup button in the "most popular subverses" page (https://voat.co/subverses) and bury the signup button for v/askvoat 2-3 pages deep so it is not subtly endorsed.

edit- or with v/askvoat we could pilot the "election" using a poll with "eligibility to vote" parameters in place.

Then we move on.

0
4

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

I like this idea. It works well, except maybe you might want to put a limiter on this:

VOAT Inc can remove any the elected judges at any time, and another one will have to be elected to fill the vacant slot.

Can we adjust it so Voat inc can remove judges at any time, within reason.

Have the judges agree to a set of conditions and if they fail to meet these conditions then they can be removed. Future proofing would also require these judges to be routinely reviewed and assessed. Also users should be able to elect for a judge to be reviewed by Voat Inc. Potentially in a private but similar way to the court initiation process; a judge specific "report for suspected violation of code of ethics" mechanism?

Great ideas @nomerasques, you really seem to care a lot about Voat! Keep up the good work :)

0
3

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

This was linked to from here: https://voat.co/v/announcements/comments/428674

0
3

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

You are just gonna leave me hanging after I made the trip all the way over here just to say hello?

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

[Deleted]

0
1

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

OK, I'll wait. Take your time.

1
2

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

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

[Deleted]

0
3

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

Well feel free to incorporate mine as well.

0
1

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

I like this. It seems to be workable AND in the best interests of Voat and Voaters.

One caveat: I am not sure that 100% of the default subverses MUST have the User Agreement as the complete rule set. There may be other things that make sense for some 'verses. However, once those are defined, they should change never or at a glacial pace.

Please accept an upvoat AND a mythical Golden Goat from me.

0
1

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

A supreme court for mods, maybe,

but before that, Meta-Moderators to administer some sort of justice - numbering in the hundreds.

should be older accounts with high ccp/scp

voting as a community in their own subverse. setting up committees to make investigates and recommendations. passing on findings to the powers that be for action, etc.

load more comments ▼ (1 remaining)