0
10

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

@atko, you should really have someone who can help out with regards to filling subverse requests.

Situations like this cause unnecessary drama.

0
1

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

@atko I would be happy to help with this . I would be unhappy to have modship of /v/europe handed to someone else. I am not commenting on the specifics of this case.

1
7

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

I don't think the two subverses should have different audiences.

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

[Deleted]

5
1

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

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

[Deleted]

2
3

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

You should really give the sub back to SovereignMan.

0
3

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

moe, did you ever message SovereignMan or try to reach out to him?

0
4

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

Give it back to the old management, please.

1
2

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

0
3

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

I think it is asking for reddit-like trouble to have one mod in charge of the two biggest news subverses on voat. Regardless of moe's intentions or personality, it is too much of a stranglehold on the influx of news. SovereignMan is obviously here, active, and wanting the subverse he created. Common respect and decency dictates it should be returned to him. Just a neutral stranger's point of view.

0
0

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

Even when he was in charge, he was the sole Moderator and thus the number of Moderators has not changed. I am willing to offer him the position as a Moderator and possibly a return of ownership, despite (in fact, because of) our views evidently being significant different.

I would like to establish that I am not attempting to operate as the sole Moderator and that I am not seeking to place modship solely upon like-minded individuals.

1
1

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

lol

1
0

[–] v 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

yeah really

0
1

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

So, these are the rules under their current form.

[1] Please report rule violations instead of debating them in the comments.

For [1] I don't see any particular problem, except for the possible abuse of reporting. Some users, for a reason or another, can be tempted to pressure mods to remove content they don't like. Illegitimate removal requests authors are dishonest censors and should be warned after a certain number of unjustified requests.

[2] Potentially misleading or sensationalist titles are subject to appropriate tagging.

Tagging a post isn't a bad idea, but untagged ones may imply that they're not misleading or sensationalist. I've noticed a trend on another website where there were a lot of misleading titles, but mods were cherrypicking those that "deserved" tagging, while some others, while being obviously dishonest/misleading/plain wrong were kept intact. Users may report submissions as misleading, [1] applies. Also, if a mod consider a giver title a misleading, he should explain what's misleading about it in the comment section.

[3] Remain civil. [/v/Worldnews](https://voat.co/v/Worldnews) is a place for discussing news and ideas, not petty squabbles.

This is subjective and may lead to mod abuse. But I don't see any sanction of this kind of behavior, which is good. Downvoating is sufficient.

[4] Refrain from making needlessly derisive slurs against people's creed, ethnicity, nationality, race, religion or social order. There are plenty of other subverses for this content.

the same applies here, no particular sanctions are included.

[5] No memes or image macros.

OK

[6] No spam or advertisements.

OK

[7] No social media links (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit) or blog posts.

OK

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

OK

[9] Please refrain from posting links in other subverses pointing to specific submissions or comments here. Cite the source directly if you are interested in the content.

OK

I don't know if mod(s) here are planning to take actual measures (i.e. bans) against members, if so, behavior leading to such measures should be made clear, objective, and transparent on a constant basis.

The rules and guidelines talk a lot about what to refrain from doing, but not about what should be encouraged. Members should be encouraged to do fact checking, finding multiple sources, and providing larger context when needed.

0
1

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

The following hinges upon the assumption that I remain a Moderator here in the future.


Regarding [1], I'm not sure what could sufficiently compel me to remove something that does not violate the explicit rules; I'm pretty argumentative about that. The rule could be redacted entirely if you could perhaps state reasons why it may be beneficial to have lengthy discussions about whether or not content is allowed in the comments of a link post. I could see it turning into back-and-forth "technicality" lawyering and I'd like to see your thoughts on that.

Regarding [2], I had not taken that into consideration. What would you suggest as mitigation to that issue, be it "more mods" or something else? Would a meta subverse dedicated to discussing such topics in /v/Worldnews be a beneficial addition or would you suggest not tagging at all?

Regarding [3] and [4], I have labeled the section as "Rules & Guidelines" as I do not consider anything subjective such as [3] and [4] to be ban-able offenses. I have not considered appropriate punishments that do not include banning, because I believe that opinions within a discussion should not be condemned by such a course. I would like to hear people's thoughts regarding this matter as well, more specifically on whether or not they believe punishment to be warranted in [some] cases relating to these guidelines and, if so, what punishments are warranted.

Regarding your final points, I will assuredly take those into consideration. Punitive measures will be made explicitly clear in the sidebar and will be open to discussion at any point, including before implementation.

1
0

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

In answer to the original question - No. Just delete it and use /v/news . Or, listen to @AssuredlyAThrowAway - just rename this one /v/UnnecessaryDrama ...

( IMO a simple Mea Culpa and return to the status quo would of been waaaaay simpler... from the sounds of it @SovereignMan would of just merged it with /v/News sooner than later anyway. )

0
1

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

Do you have a source statement for that last claim?

I did consider a merger since /v/news isn't American-centric like /r/news, and the original purpose of this thread was to establish whether or not there was even a need for this subverse or if people only subscribe because they're used to the default subreddits.

0
0

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

Given I began the statement with IMO, I don't need one... that's the point of In My Opinion. I also said "sounds like".

Anyway - in the interests of keeping the sub useful and not cluttering the sticky with off-topic debate, cruise on over to /v/VoatIA which I set up last night for this sort of discussion amongst others. WIP, so just use the space as offered - I'll make it fancier later.