2
12

[–] flyawayhigh 2 points 12 points (+14|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Get rid of Rule 2.

I am thoroughly opposed to the 14 day rule. In fact, I won't post in this subverse because of it. I will not post here as long as the time limit is ridiculously short. The other rules are a bit excessive too, but that 14 days is a subverse killer for me. Period. :)

2
6

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

I got more complaints .... :P

Rule zero. I might want to deliberately present alternative takes on a subject and see how they do in comparison.

Rule 1. Excellent :)

Rule 2. Already said. Absolutely bad rule. Intolerable.

Rule 3. Too much has been said on this. I oppose it.

Rule 4. Spam rules are always a problem. Spam rules should be based on the history of the user and the quantity of posts -- not upon "advertising."

Rule 5. Bad rule throughout.

Rule 6. Not a fan, can just barely live with it.

Rule 7. What if I don't? :P

Rule 8. I'm on the fence.

0
2

[–] Bricolagefantasy1 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

yeah one month seems to me more reasonable, since "worldnews" is far more complex than domestic news. But older than one month might cause abuse, reporting old news again and again.

0
1

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

I'm hoping for longer. How many times I've come across a US report on a topic for the first time only to find out it's been big in other places for months or even a year. And, of course, the US coverage stinks. :)

0
0

[–] eu9k 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Dublicate posts should be banned. You only need to read it once.

1
6

[–] pembo210 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I'm ok with the current set, but would be open to allowing discussions (rule [0]) if multiple sources are required to tell the whole story. i.e. an article plus photo albums..

edit: maybe social media can be ok if it's like a live stream or something just happened in the last few mins.

1
6

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

Rule 0: keep. It's a noninvasive way to discourage mindless dribble.

Rule 3: Just use the article's title as it was published. Sometimes the titles are click baity bullshit. That is just the state of media these days.

Rule 5: Make a tag for social media. I've seen news break on 4chan hours before mainstream outlets.

1
6

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

Copying and pasting my thoughts from the other thread:

Rule 0: agreed to remove

Rule 1: agreed to keep

Rule 2: agreed to keep

Rule 3: rather than remove it or keep it as-is, I'd like to see it say "User-editorialized titles are subject to deletion only if the title very clearly doesn't represent the article." E.g., someone going "Scumbag and criminal <politician> just <did this thing>" is okay, but not if the article says that they never <did this thing>.

Rule 4: agreed to keep

Rule 5: agreed to remove

Rule 6: either way. How about just "NO ALL CAPS"

Rule 7: I don't think a popular article should ever be deleted just because it links to a mobile version. I think it's fine to delete it if it has no comments and tell the submitter to post again (but only if there's a desktop version available).

Rule 8: English-only is fine

1
6

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

Keep 3, keep 0, delete 5.

/v/news and /v/politics drive me fucking mental with the showerthoughts headline with no body.

black man shot for donating to the poor while preaching the gospel to his neighborhood

Does that fit in the submission box? Seems like a corner case where the headline's too long and needs to be editorialized. I'm against changing the headline, always.

0
3

[–] OhBlindOne [S, M] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Yes, it will fit in the submission box, it's only 87 characters long.

Would you be against changing the headline if the original headline was a lie? For example, the original headline of article X was a lie but someone posted the article and changed the headline to the truth?

0
0

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

Would you be against changing the headline if the original headline was a lie? For example, the original headline of article X was a lie but someone posted the article and changed the headline to the truth?

I'm against that, yes. a) What's "the truth?" but b) I think it's important to preserve the original story. I'm not as into the narrative that "the media" is all in cahoots, but headlines can definitely be slanted towards the publication's viewpoint. Talk about that in the comments, not the post.

2
6

[–] CANCEL-CAT-FACTS 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

Keep 3. Abolish rule 5.

There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world.

Thomas Jefferson

1
4

[–] OhBlindOne [S, M] 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Thanks for your input.

@HenryCorp

9
5

[–] Boukert 9 points 5 points (+14|-9) ago 

Might as well take this guideline away from the sidebar:

Please do not post links in other subverses pointing to specific submissions or comments here. Cite the source directly if you are interested in the content.

https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/1406361

Pretty sure @kevdude , @Disappointed and @cynabuns agree

4
4

[–] Disappointed 4 points 4 points (+8|-4) ago  (edited ago)

[6] Use correct capitalization in titles (i.e. no caps lock).

If the site has a title that is all in caps then it should be allowed as Voats autocomplete also will give the tile in caps and its very annoying to change. All this is only relevant if the users decide rule 6 is kept at all.

[5] No social media links (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit), blog posts, wiki entries or raw files (e.g. PDFs). Exception: "Breaking news" where there are live reports happening through social media.

This really needs to go in a day and age where a lot of news breaks from twitter nd places like it. Sure some stories will eventually be bullshit but the benefits of allowing news from these sources far outweighs any negatives.

load more comments ▼ (9 remaining)