32
809

[–] thoughtpolice 32 points 809 points (+841|-32) ago  (edited ago)

No, you can have default subs, and the rest of the subs.

Voat should have control over the default subs, but must first define the default subs.

Edit:

Since this comment somehow ended up at the top, please read the post linked at the bottom.

This comment is just a quick and dirty TL:DR of it:

https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/comments/427157

10
298

[–] Aradiel 10 points 298 points (+308|-10) ago 

That sounds like a good idea - when a sub becomes a default, then it's as if the administration team are taking extra responsibility for it, so it will be held to a higher standard than non defaults.

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.

1
155

[–] tribblepuncher 1 points 155 points (+156|-1) ago  (edited ago)

This should only be done if the sub itself has some say over becoming a default sub.

Just swooping in and saying, "Hi, folks, you're a default now, so spruce up or we're kicking you current mods out!" is ultimately pretty rude to say the least.

0
7

[–] Nogrim 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

simple approach is don't change the defaults and keep things that might have issues with censorship OFF of the default list.

i am okay with pointless crap like v/catpics being a default, the problem comes when you have political subs added to the defaults. imho these "contentious" we will say, subs should remain off of the defaults if they are going to be heavily moderated.

0
5

[–] 2good4hisowngood 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

The problem becomes the ambiguous nature of morals. While one sub may have no problem with name calling, if it became a default then lost it because of people complaining it becomes an issue where the hate mob can find any reason to take a sub's default status that they earned.

3
186

[–] HarpoonTheFatty 3 points 186 points (+189|-3) ago 

Hijacking this. Clearly a FPH subber but I'm not under any illusions that my view is shared by all and understand the sub probably does offend and piss a lot of people off. But the way we run our sub suits our users and we like it that way. We don't want to be a default and I think we're fine keeping to our corner. I agree maintain a high standard for default leave it be for the others. FPH might be large but also quite secular.

1
180

[–] TheBuddha 1 points 180 points (+181|-1) ago 

What is more awesome is that you FPH people do a VERY good job at keeping your content in your little corner. I like that and commend you. You do not 'spill' out into the rest of the subs, usually, and fill them up with rants about your opinions. I'm a natural skinny guy so I checked out your corner and did not find it appealing but it is not like I care what you do with your space. I like that you are open about it and keep your content there on your side of the playground.

I appreciate that. I think others would be well suited to examine how you accomplish it and consider trying to encourage the same.

6
26

[–] President-Sanders 6 points 26 points (+32|-6) ago  (edited ago)

I read fat people hate and love it, but I've never liked the "no fat tears" rule - I realize you'd get a lot of "this is bad blah blah" crap, but isn't a downvote enough?

Never sat right with me, I figured it was just a joke rule.

We all like to see people agreeing with us, and hate having to deal with the same bullshit ignorant fucks, but there must be a better way.

People being pointlessly wrong, and not constructive, it's annoying and an ugly thing to have to see each day - but what's better?

I agree with the idea of no moderators, and let people vote how they want and say what they want.

I am sure there'll still be good fat people hate content

0
7

[–] makingreen 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Agreed. I came to Voat with "The fattening". I love having a place where I can speak freely and not be doxxed or harassed simply for having an opinion contrary to the current PC mindset.

At the same time, I think a lot of us FPH do not want to see it as a default verse. We're not trying to be "all up in your face" or force our rhetoric down your throat. It is exclusionary, true, but I doubt the people being excluded would even want to be part of the community if they could

0
4

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

I totally agree, I'm fat, and I left reddit because they banned y'all and other subs, I've never gone on the sub, and don't plan on it, but y'all have a good time in your sub.I think @atko was just using your sub as an example of the slippery slope that asking the admins to intervene in the drama of a sub can lead to.

4
9

[–] ShineShooter 4 points 9 points (+13|-4) ago 

Sub selection upon user registration would be a good start on this.

0
7

[–] leixiaotie 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Won't it'll be inconvenient?

0
4

[–] 6double5321 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

What do you mean by this?

0
3

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

New users are not subscribed to anything by default.

1
0

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

As the number of available subs increases from tens, to hundreds (this is where Voat is right now), to thousands, to tens of thousands, to hundreds of thousands (this is where reddit is right now), this becomes impossible.

0
6

[–] Disappointed 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Generally agree with this and whats in the link. It's also a good short term solution and test if you decide to implement non moderation later.

Edit: besides the 'supreme court' stuff, that sounds like clique waiting to happen.

8
315

[–] Pahyum 8 points 315 points (+323|-8) ago 

My two cents:

Default subs should play by different rules. I don't see an issue with FPH because they aren't a default. AskVoat was a default so that, to me, was the biggest issue. Due to this, either AskVoat needs to be taken over and restored to default or a new sub needs to be defaulted to take its place.

3
56

[–] codyave 3 points 56 points (+59|-3) ago  (edited ago)

I'm okay with neither AskVoat nor an alternative from being promoted to default.

For now, at least.

0
46

[–] AtheistComic 0 points 46 points (+46|-0) ago 

If you have a question just ask /v/whatever

Unmoderated and no problem.

2
0

[–] cdoyave 2 points 0 points (+2|-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.

19
-8

7
19

[–] L0w_Key_Lyesmith 7 points 19 points (+26|-7) ago 

Currently there are no defaults. I just registered and was subscribed to nothing (and offered to browse most popular subverses).

3
39

[–] 6double5321 3 points 39 points (+42|-3) ago  (edited ago)

https://veuwer.com/i/329c.png See those words in grey? Those are the "defaults." You don't have to subscribe. They are there, unless you overwrite them in custom options.

EDIT: nice, 32 minute old account. :o)

4
15

[–] aboutillegals 4 points 15 points (+19|-4) ago 

And it should stay that way, default subs are pointless and just direct traffic towards already large subs, and are a barrier for organically growing subs to get attention and traction.

0
2

[–] blackblarneystone 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

why?

0
1

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

Or the community itself should have more control over the default subs instead of a single person or few people. Even if it's just being able to topple a moderator out of their position.

[–] [deleted] 18 points 299 points (+317|-18) ago 

[Deleted]

0
139

[–] Bahb 0 points 139 points (+139|-0) ago 

not familiar with Slashdot but this idea appeals to me in a big way. It could have made Reddit absolutely perfect. That way i could go into the comments, sort them by Funny to see the best joke or dankest meme, then sort by Informative to get the actual scoop on the article or whatever (or, more likely, have the article debunked for me).

1
18

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

Slashdot also limited the number of mod points available. Maybe folks only get 10 points per day to spread around as they see fit? But then you also have their meta moderation system that would determine if you are doing a good job at moderation.

0
9

[–] AlphaTaco 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This is exactly what I would want. It would foster more conversations . post won't be pulled down or up from brigades or stupid people.

Just like you said I could go and sort a post based on what users voated as

1
83

[–] HowAboutShutUp 1 points 83 points (+84|-1) ago 

This seems like a forehead slapper of an idea. One of the biggest problems with the up/down system is that it's arbitrary and lacks nuance. That's obviously not going to solve the other issues, but frankly I think its a pretty clever way to make votes both not count as much in the way they do now as well as making them count more as a way of actually responding to the comment vs responding to the tone or the idea or the person who posted it. Figuring out how that would affect scp and ccp is a challenge, but I think it's a worthy one to consider and I hope @Atko and the rest of the community gives your idea some thought.

0
31

[–] TheRedditExodus 0 points 31 points (+31|-0) ago 

And then you could sort by type of voat. So if you wanted funny comments, sort by them etc. Seems like the best idea here to me.

0
13

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

Figuring out how that would affect scp and ccp is a challenge

Maybe just getting a vote counts towards it?

0
1

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

Definitely this.

0
1

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

SCP and CCP remain as trophies for early users and we switch to a different system? Just as an idea.

0
11

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

@Atko wrote:

So, what do you think? Should we do away with moderators site-wide? I for one am happy to experiment and try something new. I don't recall seeing a site with a voting system like this (4chan with voting?) and who knows, maybe that's exactly what we need?

Moliver replied:

What if the Slashdot voting system were to be incorporated into Voat? Instead of a single polarizing up/down vote, how about 5 or 6 parallel switch votes. Informative, Insightful, Funny, Off-topic, etc.

FWIW, I registered at Slashdot.org in August, 1998, just a few months after it went online (in late 1997). Furthermore, my Slashdot userID number is 9907. That's right, under 10,000. I was one of the first Slashdot users. I am very familiar with Slashdot.

The software that runs Slashdot is called "Slash," which had a feature that no other, social news software has chosen to implement: META-moderation. This feature acted as a significant check on a moderator's use of his privileges. During meta-moderation, a user reviewed the moderations of Slash comments and made a judgement as to whether the moderation was fair and reasonable. If the meta-moderator (and user) determined that the moderation was unreasonable, the moderator suffered a punishment. I cannot recall exactly the nature of the punishment, but, IIRC, it may have involved the loss of "karma," which is the counterpart to Voat's community points (CP). For more information on this matter, consult the O'Reilly book, "Building Web logs with Slash" (probably no longer in print, but available used on Half.com).

IMO, Voat (& Reddit, for that matter) desperately need some form of META-moderation in order to check moderators' abuse of their privileges. Without meta-moderation, there is no check on moderators' abuse of their privileges.

0
3

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

That only works on /. because their moderator points are few and far between. You only ever awarded 5 moderator points, they are only available for a limited time, and you can go weeks in between awards. It would not be possible to meta moderate a site like Voat with near infinite moderation just due to volume unless you had an army of people that never actually participated in the site other than to meta-moderate. Also to be able to meta moderate correctly you would need to have some knowledge of the subject matter which again played to /.'s strengths but would be very difficult on such a diverse site as Voat.

2
10

[–] thuvia_1 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago  (edited ago)

i do not like this idea. it makes for lazy subscribers. why should people bother to comment on anything when there are several little emoji faces at the bottom of the article that may or may not quite totally represent how a user 'feels' about what's said in the OP? oooh this is an insightful post, let's just click that little icon under "Insightful" so it can seem as though i have something to contribute. next thread, please!

i feel as though i'm being patronized any time i go to a website that has a voting system like that. like i'm incapable of determining myself what to think about a submission, here are some handy little ways to feel so i don't have to bother with it.

*edit-forgot a word.

1
2

[–] bilog78 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

i do not like this idea. it makes for lazy subscribers. why should people bother to comment on anything when there are several little emoji faces at the bottom of the article that may or may not quite totally represent how a user 'feels' about what's said in the OP? oooh this is an insightful post, let's just click that little icon under "Insightful" so it can seem as though i have something to contribute. next thread, please!

I absolutely agree. And on top of that, there is also the issue of possible discrepancy between the judgment value and judgment score. For example, while most of the time trolling is likely to get a -1 Troll, there are a few (as rare as they might be) circumstances where the quality of the trolling is such that a +1 Troll. Comments (combined with up/downvoats) are much better at conveying this kind of information and should be encouraged in this sense.

2
2

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

This is how I feel about it too. Plus, in having more voting options you're actually limited more in your expression. I realize you could still comment to express yourself more clearly, but like you said, this would encourage lazy consumption. This would encourage people to only feel one of x amount of ways about something.

I also don't like the idea of completing a micro survey on every post and comment in order to have influence. Not every post requires such consideration. Sometimes it's just a shit post and needs a downvote.

0
1

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

What about if they had the regular upvote/downvote as an option too along side of the others. Would you still feel the same way?

0
1

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

People who don't have anything worth saying shouldn't comment anyways. Passive participation is important too, as lurkers make up a majority of any community.

5
170

[–] 1916421? 5 points 170 points (+175|-5) ago 

Thank you for your thoughtful and reflective post asking for the community's input. It is quite the dilemma, but it really depends on what your goal is. No one site can be all things to all people, and Reddit actually worked fairly well until the Admins started to take action which is ironically what the Voat users who were escaping tyranny of the Admin are asking you to do now.

I like the idea of experimenting, but the short-term results of an experiment may be markedly different than what may emerge in the long term, so if you do experiment, please let it run long enough to get over the initial few months burst of activity, good or bad, and see where it's evolving.

It seems like the whole reason you're being appealed to for action, is that once you touch something, you sorta own it. Once you start deciding to hand out subverses against the wishes of the community, you own that, even though that wasn't the reasoning behind the decision, that was the situation.

Certain subverses that are "core" to a reddit-like system could be held to a different standard than the typical special-interest ones. AskVoat has Voat's name in it, for one thing, and run well, it should be a hallmark of the site, not "just another subverse", so if you do decide to create expectations for certain types of subverses, what would that be?

0
95

[–] jammi 0 points 95 points (+95|-0) ago 

AskVoat has Voat's name in it

That's actually a good point for special treatment. For instance, if someone had a popular subverse like /v/VoatHatesFagsAndNiggersAndWomen it'd be treated similarly, because it has the Voat "brand" in its name.

0
55

[–] CVSLivesMatter 0 points 55 points (+55|-0) ago 

I think it would be a good idea for branding's sake to have a rule that no one besides a site admin can create a sub with Voat in the sub name.

11
12

[–] WorldWideSpiderWeb 11 points 12 points (+23|-11) ago 

Whew! I actually clicked on that and I'm so glad it isn't a real sub. Awesome, great title, but I don't really want to live in a world alongside such haters. They'd probably hate puppies too, the bastards.

1
59

[–] pilgrimboy14 1 points 59 points (+60|-1) ago 

I would like it to be known that many of us came here from Reddit prior to the admin abuse due to moderator abuse. The default political/news subs over there are sterilized by the moderators.

1
11

[–] 1918137? 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

thanks for the reality check

12
6

[–] Coroner 12 points 6 points (+18|-12) ago 

Who cares? A sub creator should have complete control over the sub, they should be able to decide what who how the sub gets moderated. You don't like what the mods are doing, you're free to start your own sub or read and contribute to other subs. The only real issue I see is admin abuse, company employees censoring or influencing moderation, content and comments.

0
10

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

. No one site can be all things to all people, and Reddit actually worked fairly well until the Admins started to take action which is ironically what the Voat users who were escaping tyranny of the Admin are asking you to do now.

That's a huge straw man. Nobody had any problem with admin's ban-hammering mods who act like dicks. We had problems with admins UNFAIRLY and HYPOCRITICALLY only targeting people who weren't allied with their hardcore feminist views. "Teh poor wymens" subreddits like SRS dare not be touched.

Hypocrisy is what drove us here, not some stupid 4chan "say literally anything and never have repercussions" bullshit that you're trying to make this about.

I, and many of us adults, have no magical fear of moderation and adminship done with a conservative, fair, hand because it cuts down on the bullshit without hitting people who have unpopular ideas.

I used to play a lot of Space Station 13. SS13 servers are typically run by 13-14 year olds. Many server admins had rules of conduct, tribunals, and so on for their server staff. They took complaints seriously, so even when shit happened, people kept coming back. If 14-year olds can manage to be civil, why the fuck can't Voat admins and moderators?

0
1

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

You make a good point, the admins there rule with an iron fist. And everyone accepts that and plays by the rules. If someone doesn't, everyone can rest assured that sooner or later the ban hammer will catch up to them.

1
7

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

The problems at reddit predate the past year's admin overreach by several years. They started three or four years ago with /r/ShitRedditSays' expansion campaign. They infiltrated the moderator ranks of most default and major subs and banned so many anti-SJW users and deleted so many anti-SJW submissions that the site turned into a SJW megaphone. /u/she and her cabal wants to start the same system on Voat, and this cannot be allowed.

[–] [deleted] 4 points 143 points (+147|-4) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

2
51

[–] Pissed-Off-Panda 2 points 51 points (+53|-2) ago 

You are exactly the type of person who can be trusted with the responsibility and power a mod has. This community needs more like you!

0
20

[–] HowAboutShutUp 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

See, this guy here, fire up the cloning tubes.

I believe we should have mods, but I think that defaults need to be held to a higher standard or something along those lines.

0
7

[–] Aubryn 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

If I lost the sub here, I would be crushed. It's my baby.

I just don't understand why someone like you, a total non-asshole, would be concerned about this just because it's something that can happen to someone who is an asshole. I don't think you have anything to worry about.

0
7

[–] DanikaCutter 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Perhaps because the sword can swing both ways? I would imagine that, even if you are confident in being a conscientious moderator, the possibility that someone 'above' could make a unilateral decision to take that away (on a whim) might be disconcerting. I mean it's fine while they're after the twats but there'd be no real guarantee of not expanding the scope.

I'm not saying that's how it is, but that's what ocurred to me.

0
4

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

Reddit is only taking action against who they believe are assholes as well. With a system like that, you have to worry about who the axe is pointed at. The beauty of Voat is that you don't have to worry because there is no axe.

1
0

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

Because there's a lot of vocal outcry about removing mods, or at least cutting their claws off and making them into kittens.

0
6

[–] EIMR 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I agree, sometimes we need mods. I like the idea of modless subs, but those should be separate, we shouldn't remove any mod so we can experiment.
The solution to mod abuse isn't getting rid of all mods, but holding them accountable to their abuse.

[–] [deleted] 6 points 89 points (+95|-6) ago 

[Deleted]

4
42

[–] heili 4 points 42 points (+46|-4) ago 

If either you or /u/PuttItOut had specifically warned /u/she that she was on thin ice

Unfortunately /u/PuttItOut inflamed things even more by calling everyone who disagreed with /u/she being made the head-mod-in-charge as vicious and imply things about them based upon specific language (bitch, whore, etc) which he should've had the foresight to see was going to make people think 'Reddit all over again'.

[–] [deleted] 10 points 12 points (+22|-10) ago 

[Deleted]

4
9

[–] frankenmine 4 points 9 points (+13|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Admins just don't have the time to do what you're proposing, especially as the number of subs grows from tens, to hundreds (where Voat currently is), to thousands, to tens of thousands, to hundreds of thousands (where reddit currently is), and beyond.

I think it's a better idea to delegate that responsibility to active users.

See more here:

https://voat.co/v/ideasforvoat/comments/425476/1894965

[–] [deleted] 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

[Deleted]

1
7

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

Hey I am a mod on /v/news. Whenever I see people start to complain about old articles, I go through the whole front page and all the articles are recent. Can you show me some recent examples?

0
6

[–] Weebo 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I see it quite frequently too. https://voat.co/v/news/comments/424119/1885597

0
5

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

Hey, a mod from news, quick question, why all the politics in your sub? Where is all the actual news, all I keep reading is punditry.

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

[Deleted]

0
4

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

Holy shit, thank you for your kind words! @ShagginTurtles @chubnubbin @CaptainSweater @LegoMyEgo @BomTrady and I really appreciate it! :)

Okay, @ShagginTurtles the canadian is not so thankful

0
3

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

You don't speak for me!

Fuck voat, fuck NFL, fuck the man, fuck the system & remember the alamo!

0
1

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

I do a shit job and I like it that way!

9
74

[–] AnTi90d 9 points 74 points (+83|-9) ago 

I'm OK with v/askgoat becoming a default. The site kinda does need a default, laid-back Q/A sub.

I think you guys seriously fucked up by handing v/askvoat over to u/she despite the community's widespread protest. This was a major mistake. I can not stress enough how colossally shitty this decision was. Learn from it and move forward, but I wouldn't advocate having the sub ripped out of her hands, as that does set a bad precedent.

Just.. for the love of goat, don't ever again hand a subverse over to someone that the community openly despises.

9
15

[–] reeperpill 9 points 15 points (+24|-9) ago 

Who says they can't fix their mistake? Remove @she and bring back v/askvoat as a default subverse.

1
19

[–] 1923124? 1 points 19 points (+20|-1) ago 

The problem is that the rest of the active moderation team on v/askvoat doesn't have a problem with @she, and they are doing what they can to turn parts of Voat into a "safe space" through the use of subs like v/disagreebutton or by arbitrarily limiting the number of people who can downvoat. Right now, if @she was forcibly removed from her position as head mod, the most likely outcome would be "one of the other active mods would become head mod, wait for the controversy to die down, and bring @she back on as a new low-ranking moderator.

[–] [deleted] 5 points 8 points (+13|-5) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

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

I think that given the "style" of site Voat is designed to be, a default Q&A style subverse is a necessity. I also don't think it can be AskVoat right now, given the issues. Of the alternatives, AskGoat is probably the better choice simply because I can imagine AskVoat2 being defaulted and then having hundreds of "What happened to AskVoat 1?" threads posted.

0
2

[–] AnTi90d 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Also, I think AskVoat2 looks aesthetically unpleasing.

..and thinking about questioning a goat amuses me.

0
0

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

Why do we need defaults at all? If askgoat takes off (which it seems to be doing) it'll quickly float to the top and askvoat will stagnate.

7
61

[–] Agitprop 7 points 61 points (+68|-7) ago 

We should keep our moderation system as it is for now, except maybe a more democratic process should be available for larger subverses. A lot of subs would be totally inactive if it wasn't for dedicated moderators growing their communities.

0
28

[–] endlessly_wandering 0 points 28 points (+28|-0) ago 

Voting would allow SRS to gentrify a sub and replace it's mods. It's a terrible idea.

1
5

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

Not if voting was restricted to sub users who have both age in the sub and high CCP.

0
2

[–] qzxq 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

somebody mentioned a lottery system was used by the ancient greeks someplace.

that might do the job

1
8

[–] Joshme 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

As the mod of a small sub, I agree. My posts are 90% of what is actually posted.

But if it ever got big and I went rogue I like the idea that the community could vote me out of position. I would think it should be based on the number of people to keep from getting fake votes. Like 51% of the community has to vote you out or something. If someone creates an account just to vote in that poll then (technically) the number of required votes goes up.

0
1

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

But if it ever got big and I went rogue I like the idea that the community could vote me out of position.

The trouble isn't getting voted out by the community, it's getting voted out by a brigade. Whatever you set the threshold to for genuine participation, they'll just circlejerk each other until they meet it then vote.

0
0

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

Like 51% of the community has to vote you out or something.

The problem with such premises is that in almost every community i went to i see thousands of people subbed but only a handful actually participating. Id be surprised if there is a subverse where even 10% of subs participate at least once a week. so requiring 51% means that it is basically impossible.

2
6

[–] AConsolePeasant 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago  (edited ago)

So like a poll? Active members? are allowed to vote on what happens, it should show up on the sidebar, allowing each user to see it, and see where each user stands (Just might want to make a rule to say you can't punish people/reward/take action for people who vote on a certain one, it might also help reduce fake/spam votes)

EDIT: Maybe this just for the defaults, they still could have a few mods to create polls, and edit CSS, but less of a moderator and more of the organizer) while the normal, smaller subverses could have a normal moderation system (in the case of a community, like funhaus)

0
28

[–] leixiaotie 0 points 28 points (+28|-0) ago 

Poll won't work. It'll work until someone abused the system by brigading.

2
3

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

Something like that, that have to be a lot of tweaking and balancing with CCP quotas and user activity, but for a sub with a large base it doesn't make sense to be using our medieval moderation system.

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

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]
load more comments ▼ (681 remaining)