You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] go1dfish 4 points 83 points (+87|-4) ago 

Glad to see an official statement on this. Strict moderation is fine on subverses specifically created for that purpose.

But when highly generic subs become heavily curated it is a detriment to the entire site.

Keep up the good work based admins.


[–] peacegnome 4 points 28 points (+32|-4) ago 

I would say that in the @system subs it should be user curated, and not moderator curated. The trick though is to make sure people are informed when they up/down-vote something, and that they aren't just voting for the headline. It is very tricky, but after what happened at reddit i want as little centralized power as possible.

Perhaps this new mod voting thing will be the answer though, on reddit that was the biggest problem; mods hated by the community they ruled got to stay.


[–] PotatoFarm 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Strict moderation is fine when it's done following, to the point, the established rules by the community. No exceptions allowed.

This case and the usual moderation problems we have come to know and despise from several places are the polar opposite of strict moderation: moderators abusing and forcing their own agendas by applying the rules when they follow their intentions, stretching them when necessary and ignoring them when they don't. In some places where the "cancer" has become terminal, the moderators do as they want without care and basically "own" the place.

Once again Voat's admins have proven their commitment to the community. Thank you guys!