You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

6
186

[–] GuenMakunikoru 6 points 186 points (+192|-6) ago 

I like this idea. To be a default sub admins hold the mods to higher standards. Mods can choose to be dicks, But then they'd lose their default status. Consistent, no whack-a-mole and voat keeps its integrity.

2
27

[–] moderator_ 2 points 27 points (+29|-2) ago  (edited ago)

I second like this idea: ^^ "To be a default sub admins hold the mods to higher standards. Mods can choose to be dicks, But then they'd lose their default status. Consistent, no whack-a-mole and voat keeps its integrity."

askvoat has been demoted from default sub @she is still a mod there, and that's fine too. they can do whatever they want now, and everyone is free to subscribe. block, comment, or vote. LET"S MOVE ON

and +1000 to @Atko for asking voat and making an effort to make things work smooth for all of us.

2
7

[–] donkeyqong 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago  (edited ago)

More than "held to higher standards" The default subs should be content we, as voaters, would be proud to share as a representation of why we choose to visit the site.

I don't think a lot of the content is what represents why I am here. I would be embarrassed if people associated me with some of this content.

2
1

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

Let me explain this another way. This thread was recently on the frontpage:

A man representing 2,350+ professionals appeared on C-SPAN 1 year ago to discuss the science behind all 3 tower collapses on 9/11--it's now the Most Popular video on the C-SPAN site with 400,000 views

Researching the claims produced this popular sentiment though:

Many mainstream scientists choose not to debate proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, saying they do not want to lend them unwarranted credibility.

The problem is this is the most common sentiment used today: demonize the messenger so you don't have the be held accountable to the message. Refuse to debate your critics. This implies that ignoring criticism undermines its credibility. But just the opposite is true. Ignoring criticism bolsters the critics.

This is an important principle of debate. The truth is not threatened by public scrutiny, but cowardly keyboard warriors today seem to think that the truth is some fragile princess that needs to be placed in an ivory tower to be protected. What these cowards are really admitting is that their fragile self-esteem needs to be protected. The truth laughs at their insecurity. When has the truth ever been threatened by a dissenting viewpoint?

Voat is being threatened by keyboard warriors who wish to enact policies that they REFUSE to put under public scrutiny. Imagine if we were live debating all these issues. It would be simple to come to a conclusion because we could hear from both sides at once. And that's the entire point of live debate--to challenge each other's views to test their trustworthiness.

If one side gives a separate speech and the other side gives a separate speech, nothing is ever accomplished because there is no challenge to each other's ideas. The only way to get to the truth is to pit ideas AGAINST each other like battle bots. We want to see which ideas sink and which ideas swim. But that can't be accomplished in the vacuum of a delusional keyboard warrior's childish mind. It can only be accomplished when all ideas are judged as harshly as possible in a PUBLIC setting. We've already seen how easily mods can censor and remove ideas behind the keyboard, but this is impossible during a live debate. You must show cause during a live debate otherwise your ideas die on the examination floor. They are no longer protected by your feelings alone as they can be while hiding behind the keyboard.

Voat is suffering from a lack of public scrutiny even though every conclusion is pointing towards MORE scrutiny. The only way mod abuse can occur is if we allow these cowardly faggots to hide their policies behind their keyboards instead of bringing them out in the open and having them challenged and examined for deficiencies. When ideas compete, the good ones become apparent very quickly. When ideas are separated and rely on propaganda and demonizing the opposition to survive, such ideas can never really be trusted.

10
-7

[–] JJEivl 10 points -7 points (+3|-10) ago 

[–] [deleted] 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

11
-8

[–] JJEivl 11 points -8 points (+3|-11) ago 

Let me explain this another way. This thread was recently on the frontpage:

A man representing 2,350+ professionals appeared on C-SPAN 1 year ago to discuss the science behind all 3 tower collapses on 9/11--it's now the Most Popular video on the C-SPAN site with 400,000 views

Researching the claims produced this popular sentiment though:

Many mainstream scientists choose not to debate proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, saying they do not want to lend them unwarranted credibility.

The problem is this is the most common sentiment used today: demonize the messenger so you don't have the be held accountable to the message. Refuse to debate your critics. This implies that ignoring criticism undermines its credibility. But just the opposite is true. Ignoring criticism bolsters the critics.

This is an important principle of debate. The truth is not threatened by public scrutiny, but cowardly keyboard warriors today seem to think that the truth is some fragile princess that needs to be placed in an ivory tower to be protected. What these cowards are really admitting is that their fragile self-esteem needs to be protected. The truth laughs at their insecurity. When has the truth ever been threatened by a dissenting viewpoint?

Voat is being threatened by keyboard warriors who wish to enact policies that they REFUSE to put under public scrutiny. Imagine if we were live debating all these issues. It would be simple to come to a conclusion because we could hear from both sides at once. And that's the entire point of live debate--to challenge each other's views to test their trustworthiness.

If one side gives a separate speech and the other side gives a separate speech, nothing is ever accomplished because there is no challenge to each other's ideas. The only way to get to the truth is to pit ideas AGAINST each other like battle bots. We want to see which ideas sink and which ideas swim. But that can't be accomplished in the vacuum of a delusional keyboard warrior's childish mind. It can only be accomplished when all ideas are judged as harshly as possible in a PUBLIC setting. We've already seen how easily mods can censor and remove ideas behind the keyboard, but this is impossible during a live debate. You must show cause during a live debate otherwise your ideas die on the examination floor. They are no longer protected by your feelings alone as they can be while hiding behind the keyboard.

Voat is suffering from a lack of public scrutiny even though every conclusion is pointing towards MORE scrutiny. The only way mod abuse can occur is if we allow these cowardly faggots to hide their policies behind their keyboards instead of bringing them out in the open and having them challenged and examined for deficiencies. When ideas compete, the good ones become apparent very quickly. When ideas are separated and rely on propaganda and demonizing the opposition to survive, such ideas can never really be trusted.

0
0

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

What are default subs though? I like the fact that voat doesnt choose defaults for you so your front page is totally controlled by what you're distinctly in to

11
-9

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

Let me explain this another way. This thread was recently on the frontpage:

A man representing 2,350+ professionals appeared on C-SPAN 1 year ago to discuss the science behind all 3 tower collapses on 9/11--it's now the Most Popular video on the C-SPAN site with 400,000 views

Researching the claims produced this popular sentiment though:

Many mainstream scientists choose not to debate proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, saying they do not want to lend them unwarranted credibility.

The problem is this is the most common sentiment used today: demonize the messenger so you don't have the be held accountable to the message. Refuse to debate your critics. This implies that ignoring criticism undermines its credibility. But just the opposite is true. Ignoring criticism bolsters the critics.

This is an important principle of debate. The truth is not threatened by public scrutiny, but cowardly keyboard warriors today seem to think that the truth is some fragile princess that needs to be placed in an ivory tower to be protected. What these cowards are really admitting is that their fragile self-esteem needs to be protected. The truth laughs at their insecurity. When has the truth ever been threatened by a dissenting viewpoint?

Voat is being threatened by keyboard warriors who wish to enact policies that they REFUSE to put under public scrutiny. Imagine if we were live debating all these issues. It would be simple to come to a conclusion because we could hear from both sides at once. And that's the entire point of live debate--to challenge each other's views to test their trustworthiness.

If one side gives a separate speech and the other side gives a separate speech, nothing is ever accomplished because there is no challenge to each other's ideas. The only way to get to the truth is to pit ideas AGAINST each other like battle bots. We want to see which ideas sink and which ideas swim. But that can't be accomplished in the vacuum of a delusional keyboard warrior's childish mind. It can only be accomplished when all ideas are judged as harshly as possible in a PUBLIC setting. We've already seen how easily mods can censor and remove ideas behind the keyboard, but this is impossible during a live debate. You must show cause during a live debate otherwise your ideas die on the examination floor. They are no longer protected by your feelings alone as they can be while hiding behind the keyboard.

Voat is suffering from a lack of public scrutiny even though every conclusion is pointing towards MORE scrutiny. The only way mod abuse can occur is if we allow these cowardly faggots to hide their policies behind their keyboards instead of bringing them out in the open and having them challenged and examined for deficiencies. When ideas compete, the good ones become apparent very quickly. When ideas are separated and rely on propaganda and demonizing the opposition to survive, such ideas can never really be trusted.