Can I be both an atheist and an atkoist?

Voat's new censorship

Downvoating is what reddit uses to silence dissenting views.

People don't typically upvoat, even if they like something. They will just look at it.

But when people get butthurt or see things they don't like they DO DOWNVOAT. You're assuming that people use both buttons the same way.

Voating is a censorship tool because it doesn't depend on rational argumentation. It only depends on CONSENSUS. That's why SRS use downvoat brigades because they know it's only purpose is to censor content they don't want seen by others.

Look, our entire political system should make it more practical. We don't let everyone vote in elections for a good reason: we know that retards are the majority of people. You want Bill Gate's educated vote negated by some homeless retard on the street? That's EXACTLY what democratic voting does. That's exactly what the movie Idiocracy was about. When you give everyone an equal say, you negate the point of education. You negate the point of rational argumentation. If a baby can negate the vote of an adult, then you don't really need to learn how to think. All you need to do is make people agree with you. And bribery is the fastest way to agreement.

Since people tend to downvoat when they're butthurt and engaged in censorship, the best way to combat censorship would be to only allow UPVOATING since people will actively have to champion what they believe rather than focus on what they want to complain about and censor. You can look at upvoating as positive censorship since it at least puts the burden on the upvoater to be accountable to their views and say what they prefer instead of simply complaining about what they don't want.

Stating what you want to happen takes EDUCATION AND EFFORT. Complaining about what you don't want just requires the ability to be butthurt.

I'd rather err on the side of positive censorship if we have to censor at all. We already know how negative censorship turns out: it becomes reddit.

At least positive censorship requires EFFORT that keyboard warriors aren't willing to invest. So if we want to make this place different from reddit, we should ONLY have an upvoat button.

Voat's new censorship

Downvoating is what reddit uses to silence dissenting views.

People don't typically upvoat, even if they like something. They will just look at it.

But when people get butthurt or see things they don't like they DO DOWNVOAT. You're assuming that people use both buttons the same way.

Voating is a censorship tool because it doesn't depend on rational argumentation. It only depends on CONSENSUS. That's why SRS use downvoat brigades because they know it's only purpose is to censor content they don't want seen by others.

Look, our entire political system should make it more practical. We don't let everyone vote in elections for a good reason: we know that retards are the majority of people. You want Bill Gate's educated vote negated by some homeless retard on the street? That's EXACTLY what democratic voting does. That's exactly what the movie Idiocracy was about. When you give everyone an equal say, you negate the point of education. You negate the point of rational argumentation. If a baby can negate the vote of an adult, then you don't really need to learn how to think. All you need to do is make people agree with you. And bribery is the fastest way to agreement.

Since people tend to downvoat when they're butthurt and engaged in censorship, the best way to combat censorship would be to only allow UPVOATING since people will actively have to champion what they believe rather than focus on what they want to complain about and censor. You can look at upvoating as positive censorship since it at least puts the burden on the upvoater to be accountable to their views and say what they prefer instead of simply complaining about what they don't want.

Stating what you want to happen takes EDUCATION AND EFFORT. Complaining about what you don't want just requires the ability to be butthurt.

I'd rather err on the side of positive censorship if we have to censor at all. We already know how negative censorship turns out: it becomes reddit.

At least positive censorship requires EFFORT that keyboard warriors aren't willing to invest. So if we want to make this place different from reddit, we should ONLY have an upvoat button.

He'd end up like Edward Snowden and have to leave again without the passport this time.

i know this is just a bot spamming copypasta, but there are sites without voting systems. i visit many, 8chan, facepunch, various other forums, voat/reddit type vote sites are what they are. i dont know what you expect, it's like one of the main features of the site.

Exactly this. Upon being deleted if the content is illegal there ought to be a record of the url on Voat's servers for proof/reporting purposes, but I imagine any actual access would be removed to prevent any issues.

My idea is to implement a special kind of report called "contains illegal content", for when content is illegal by Swiss law. Then the submission title will still be visible, but the text from self posts will be hidden and people can't see where it's linking to anymore. Also, when marking something as "contains illegal content" it will auto-send a message to the admins, like you said, that can judge whether it's appropriate or not.

By the way, aren't posts already permanently deleted when the author/submitter deletes it? For example, the at the top of AskVoat's modlog, there's a post deleted by a user, where you can't see his question

Or have the mods be able to remove instead of deleted such submissions, and they are then reviewed by admins before going to the modlog.

I imagine that there will need to be a function to remove urls from the public log if the removal was due to something being legitimately deleted due to being illegal such as CP or other such usually banned content.

I suppose the real issue is balancing the need to remove the offending content and the need for transparency. It would be possible to blackout the URL while maintaining a record on Voat's servers.

if the site falls apart because we put too much control in the hands of the users then it was doomed from the start I'd prefer anarchy to dictatorship we need the goats to be able to make voat the site they want to use I'm willing to risk that much

I would like to see two types of verses. Reddit had 'republics' for awhile that tried to be a more democratic form of governing. Perhaps you could institute something similar into the code for those verses that wanted it. Once you make it that way, you can't revert it. Those who wanted to be dictators could certainly keep it that way too.

good idea take it to /v/ideasforvoat

well I'd keep at it we're at the bottom level of a website that stands to gain quite a bit of popularity soon so if you can establish and drum up support for the idea now it might bear fruit by the time the site leaves alpha

These are weirder: https://voat.co/v/shitvoaterssay/modlog/bannedusers

Mad respect for the FPH mods for removing content where people posted identifying information of other people's social media accounts though. Although this new public modlog thing kinda makes it pointless...I mean...now I can see identifying information that was meant to be banned/removed to prevent other-site harassment. Example of thread deleted by mod that I can now see

Edit: I do like this feature for the transparency though. But of course there are some cons to the pros, to think about...

Some consistency.