2
101

[–] apocsnow 2 points 101 points (+103|-2) ago  (edited ago)

If the mods can keep up - I'm all for quality control.

To clarify - if they can't keep up, rules like that are not applied evenly, which can make people feel shafted.

2
47

[–] moe [M] 2 points 47 points (+49|-2) ago 

With the current level of traffic, I'm able to keep up with the rules I've established here and check every single article (if I miss anything, please message me). Reading through this thread right now.

0
10

[–] Imapopulistnow 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Hey Moe, all I ask is that you maintain objectivity and do not let any personal bias seep into the process. The balance in viewpoints is what sets Voat apart. If it is ever lost, then Reddit and its larger population with greater total content wins.

1
0

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

like a boss.

1
-1

[–] 1982 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Listen to OP oh great mod. Listen the fuck to OP.

0
22

[–] let_them_eat_slogans 0 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This rule allows moderators to delete perfectly legitimate news stories for arbitrary reasons. Any time you implement a rule giving moderators subjective excuses to delete articles, it makes it easier for them to manipulate the sub.

This is exactly the sort of rule that makes /r/politics, /r/worldnews, /r/news etc. so heavily influenced by moderator biases. Can we at least try to make voat work for a while before we start implementing censorship policies left and right?

1
7

[–] moe [M] 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Any time you implement a rule giving moderators subjective excuses to delete articles

I'm doing my best to make sure that the policies in the sidebar are as objective and explicit as possible. The ones that are potentially subjective have yet to be enforced and I've kept them in there more as guidelines than rules. The rules that I've actively been enforcing are: [0] [1] [2] [5] [7] [8] [9]

I do see the potential concerns with [5], though I'd just like to propose that the safest option is to not edit the title at all if you are not entirely positive in your objective summarizing of the article. The rule is needed due to submissions such as [this] that seek to sensationalize or remove all descriptive information from the title.

1
4

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

an interesting idea.... while I am on Voat because of shadow banning, and censorship - the opposite, completely free forums lead to constant memes, jokes, and lack of conversation... which is why I use social media agg sites....

I think the solution is to allow sub rules - which is an opt-in sub - and still have the ability to see what has been "moderated", this way, if a mod is being a censor - we as a community can attempt to lobby to have the mod booted... or just create a new sub....

maybe have different levels of subs, too. like /v/news.... /v/newsdiscussion.... and /v/therealnews..... so that top level subs are not being heavily moderated.... but the subs targeted for more in depth discussion are.

I mean, I would like to have my cake and eat it.

0
1

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

I.agree 100%. There should just be a blanket rule for news to make all sites be archive.is. This kills the sensationalist and clickbaiter's ambition to post their crap here. Having the mod decide what is a newsworthy site just makes it possible for there to be bias in what later on.

1
1

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

Didn't "quality control" mods ruin reddit?

0
1

[–] 1296836? 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Yes.

1
1

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

There are a ton of subscribers here. I definitely understand the concern for their ability to keep up and keep it fair.

0
32

[–] EvilSmurf 0 points 32 points (+32|-0) ago 

I'm more interested in the archive site link idea. That will make us less attractive as a revenue source, which will help us stay out of the corporate bulls-eye.

0
11

[–] SegFault 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Not to mention it improves our ability to spot shockingly extreme agenda-driven rewrites of "breaking news" involving high-profile public people.

For example, stories about a CEO of an extremely popular website.

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

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] johnlocke90 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Most places handle this by having the OP link the source in the thread as a comment.

0
3

[–] Vik1ng 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

But it will also hurt good news sources that write quality articles. I think moderating low quality pages and clickbait is better.

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

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] ebob9 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Could the sub css/style settings be used to rewrite the submission process to automatically link/populate an archive site when a normal URL is submitted?

For example, actual post is rewritten to archive.org or coral cdn link

5
18

[–] MrLove 5 points 18 points (+23|-5) ago 

Why not introducing tags, like in /v/news (even though they are not really enforced there)? Something like [LA] for "Link aggregator", [FOX] for Murdoch's bullshit (if anyone wants to link to them), etc. I personally always check the source before clicking on a link, but having such tags in the title would make it easier for everyone.

1
18

[–] let_them_eat_slogans 1 points 18 points (+19|-1) ago 

Tags are fine. But why delete articles? I was hoping voat would move away from the model of anonymous moderators deciding which articles are worthy and which are not.

Let the users decide for themselves which content they want to see.

1
11

[–] lucky21lb 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I 100% agree. Allowing moderators to delete articles based solely on their source is exactly what I came to Voat to avoid. Tag it and let the users decide.

1
5

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

the model of anonymous moderators deciding which articles

Note that I am not voicing support for the idea of deleting articles based on their source, though I'd like to point out that Moderator actions are not anonymous here: /v/Worldnews/modlog/deleted

1
6

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

Practically nobody follows title tag rules and it'd probably take weeks/months to establish a subscriber base that would actively use them (after several hundred deletions and meta drama threads). I could introduce more flairs as there are currently only four, though I'd need to get community input on what these should be so that they don't cover only a very small subset of content.

0
13

[–] haijak 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

While I can agree with the desire to improve the links posted. I think it would a bad idea to get into the habit of removing posted links just because they go to the wrong site.

Better I think, would be to have the mods make a sticky comment (is that possible) that has the source link, an archive link, and one sentence explanation of why the comment is there.

1
2

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

[...] have the mods make a sticky comment (is that possible) [...]

This is actually a planned feature and I'm looking forward to its implementation!

3
1

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

I don't want to censor anyone. I would prefer if the community would not upvoat news aggregation sites and instead when someone sees an aggregator story they're interested in, go find a legitimate, well-written article on the subject and post it directly to the subverse instead of in the comments. Let that link be upvoated. I like the archive & original sticky idea.

1
4

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

I don't want to censor anyone.

So why are you calling for moderators to censor entire domains?

1
9

[–] gatordontplaythatsht 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

This seems like an unnecessary rule, a story is a story regardless of whether it's directly from the source, or an msn/yahoo/google it's still material for users to read...

1
7

[–] Sacrefix 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

A story is a story, but News aggregate sites often have poorer write ups with a more sensational angle IMO.

0
1

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

But many people are fine with the aggregate site format. I say let the aggregation sites through, and if you are unsatisfied with what is written by that site, find a better source to learn more about the issue.

I for one sometimes like to be able to read a concise, summarization of the story instead of a long, well-researched, in depth report of it. However, sometimes I want the latter instead.

3
2

[–] Meogi [S] 3 points 2 points (+5|-3) ago 

My problem is when one of these stories is four paragraphs, but the paragraphs are only one or two sentences each. Such articles are barely cliff notes. The comment threads on those are usually more informative than the linked article because users went and found actual information on the subject.

0
5

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

Why is this a problem? Is there some minimum word count required for an article to be "news"?

This is exactly the sort of subjective rule that allows reddit news subs to be so easily manipulated by moderators.

0
3

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

So then if you want to know the story but are unsatisfied with that source's reporting of it, it should be up to you to find another source.

I personally sometimes like to have a concise summary instead of a long form, in depth version Even though sometimes I want the latter, banning the former completely doesn't make sense.

0
0

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

I can see that, I just don't know that it's going to be easy to implement or enforce on a sub called "world news."

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

[Deleted]

1
2

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

It is difficult to draw the line, since many news sources also play the role of news aggregation sites. I have a problem with there being a story on yahoo and in it is a link to the original that is being summarized. Just click the link to the original and post it instead. Thank you for pointing out an issue with my rule change I had not considered.

0
5

[–] bill.lee 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

This seems like an unnecessary step. A few times people have asked for an archive and I've been more than happy to make one. Plus, poor @moe is the only mod. That seems like a lot to keep up with.

0
1

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

@moe does need some help, but I completely understand wanting to be selective on who is granted mod privilege.

0
0

[–] moe [M] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[...] wanting to be selective on who is granted mod privilege.

I know that quite a few reactionary users that came over from reddit may view me in a negative light seeing that I'm the sole Moderator of this subverse, but very few people are aware of the fact that a level-2 Moderator can permanently anonymize the subverse without the owner's consent. The subverse basically becomes unusable until administrator action is taken to restore it to its original state, and I don't particularly trust anyone enough to hand out Moderator privileges while that issue is still present.

0
4

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

I also think that this is a fantastic idea.

If you're researching something, you don't just add the first site you find; you have to follow the rabbit hole, and find the primary source.

It gets boring having to scroll through 4 pages of some buzzfeed writer's interpretation of the story to find a link to the actual source.

load more comments ▼ (43 remaining)