3
125

[–] Atko 3 points 125 points (+128|-3) ago 

Sounds interesting. This would have to be discussed down to tiniest details though. Who gets to vote a new mod in? Who gets to be a candidate? Minimum CCP/SCP requirement to vote/become a candidate? When should elections take place?

If you ask me, only active participants of a subverse with minimum of X CCP and Y SCP in said subverse + minimum account age should be able to vote on moderator elections.

Same goes for moderator candidacy - only user accounts which have a minimum age of X days + minimum of X CCP and Y SCP in said subverse should be considered for candidacy.

Once these parameters are established, a yearly election could be forced by Voat administration if a subverse has a minimum of X active subscribers with median account age of X days. A nightmare to organize and do, but I guess we could write some code to automate this process. Before writing any code though, I would like to see major support for this change from Voat users and not just a few random requests here and there. I could definitely see this happening but only if enough people want this since implementing this takes time (which we really don't have right now) and we have plenty of other issues to deal with.

2
46

[–] PuttItOut 2 points 46 points (+48|-2) ago 

Oh there you are! ;)

Rolling SCP/CCP would be my thinking, say over the year or 6 months to qualify as candidate/voter in elections.

[–] [deleted] 32 points 27 points (+59|-32) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

2
10

[–] gatordontplaythatsht [S] 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago 

Hey @puttitout awesome to see you both at least checking this out.

0
0

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

@Putitout @Atko : Please don't implement this. It would be a disaster. Subs where mods can be voted out would be horrifically vulnerable to brigading.

2
0

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

Went back to reddit, voat is no different.

5
18

[–] gatordontplaythatsht [S] 5 points 18 points (+23|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Firstly @atko thanks for the response dude, love this site and love you so far! (*Forever now that you un-defaulted askvoat you rascal!)

Now let me respond to your points:

Sounds interesting. This would have to be discussed down to tiniest details though. Who gets to vote a new mod in?

Users could nominate other subbed users over time, with 5 nominations allowed per user. When voting time arrived the list of possibles would be those with the most nominations or over a certain amount of said nominations, maybe 10 or more?

Who gets to be a candidate? Minimum CCP/SCP requirement to vote/become a candidate? When should elections take place?

I'd say anyone in the positives should be considerable, and I'm no developer or techy but I think the votes should happen on a stickied visible thread on said sub.

If you ask me, only active participants of a subverse with minimum of X CCP and Y SCP in said subverse + minimum account age should be able to vote on moderator elections.

I agree.

Same goes for moderator candidacy - only user accounts which have a minimum age of X days + minimum of X CCP and Y SCP in said subverse should be considered for candidacy.

I agree.

Once these parameters are established, a yearly election could be forced by Voat administration if a subverse has a minimum of X active subscribers with median account age of X days. A nightmare to organize and do, but I guess we could write some code to automate this process. Before writing any code though, I would like to see major support for this change from Voat users and not just a few random requests here and there. I could definitely see this happening but only if enough people want this since implementing this takes time (which we really don't have right now) and we have plenty of other issues to deal with.

Thank you for even considering, I think this could be a useful tool for protecting original content and avoiding moderator corruptions.

1
14

[–] Jalua 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago 

I love this idea. The reason I left reddit was abuse from moderators. If things don't change, eventually we will get to the same point here where they delete posts and comments they don't agree with. It's only human nature. This is the first idea I've seen to put checks and balances on moderation and I really like it.

2
12

[–] bombdiggity 2 points 12 points (+14|-2) ago 

I think this all great except for the automatic elections part. An election should only be held if the users of the sub feel that it is not being moderated properly.

Perhaps a permanent poll on the sidebar of each large sub that would refresh every month to keep the votes from getting stale and automatically accumulating over time. If a certain number of the qualified users of the sub (as suggested by Atko above) vote for an election then it should be implemented. This way the voting for an election would only take place when a mod has majorly fucked up and the users take note. If a user works hard to create a sub he should be allowed every opportunity to not be ousted by politician voaters. An automatic election cycle would allow the sub creator to be ousted even when he hasn't done wrong.

3
10

[–] Teh_Sauce_Guy 3 points 10 points (+13|-3) ago 

I am against this idea. It would turn moderation into a popularity contest. Moderation isn't about being popular, it's about enforcing the rules and such - even if those rules aren't popular.

With this kind of nodding system, what you're left with is just pandering to the lowest common denominator.

1
3

[–] 12_Years_A_Toucan 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Everyone is just on a hate hype train over this witch hunt. I hope @atko isnt susceptible to such waves in the community that try to push things with no reason or rationale.

0
5

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

I don't like this idea because it would make voat susceptible to tyranny of the majority. If a sub can be taken over, then any sub could potentially be taken over by SJW's or any other undesirable group that can effectively organize a rebellion. They'd initially play along with the original spirit of the subversive, but as soon as one of their own has subverted control of the subverse, they could change the rules by mandate of the majority, and then start banning dissenters in order to cement their control.

3
29

[–] big_fat_dangus 3 points 29 points (+32|-3) ago 

I think this is a good idea, but it comes with the significant downside of becoming a popularity contest.

4
18

[–] gatordontplaythatsht [S] 4 points 18 points (+22|-4) ago 

Sure, but I'll bite that bullet over having the same group of power mods as reddit, wouldn't you?

4
25

[–] 12_Years_A_Toucan 4 points 25 points (+29|-4) ago 

The limit on the number of subverses you're allowed to moderate is to help with that

4
8

[–] Teh_Sauce_Guy 4 points 8 points (+12|-4) ago 

So now it's the same group of power users instead. So instead of having potential for moderators that actually... mod, you're left with internet politicians.

0
6

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

Nope. I would much rather disagree with the leadership than have leaders who are unwilling to make decisions because they might get removed for it.

0
0

[–] johnlocke90 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I will note the admins themselves have a fair amount of power when it comes to controlling power mods through subverse promotion and front page subs.

The problem with Reddit is that the head admins actually like the idea of a handful of moderators controlling most of the major subs and promote those subs through the front page.

3
11

[–] umpaloompa 3 points 11 points (+14|-3) ago 

It shouldn't be a popularity contest. Mods make the rules. If the majority doesn't like the rules (and being enforced) the users should be able to take away those mods rights.

8
4

[–] Zkv 8 points 4 points (+12|-8) ago 

No, they shouldn't. They should leave and create their own sub.

0
1

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

Mods make the rules. If the majority doesn't like the rules (and being enforced) the users should be able to take away those mods rights.

Sorry but I disagree. If you look at the user agreement it states

Subverses may create their own rules and enforce them as they see fit, providing they do not violate the terms of this agreement. You agree that voat is not responsible for the actions taken or not taken by moderators.

If you don't like the rules a subverse has, go create a new one. "But it's too hard" Well no shit its hard, if the moderator really is acting corrupt then everyone will migrate to the new subverse.

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

[Deleted]

0
0

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

Just kinda sounds like democracy to me...

Which is exactly the problem. Democracy means that the majority opinion rules. Everywhere. Significant dissent will not be possible. It should be possible to run a sub which pisses off the majority or users. Mod independence is a freedom of speech issue.

3
-2

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

They don't like the idea because it means them losing power. Teh-sauce-guy and space rosa are power mods from reddit, and this suggestion terrifies them.

4
28

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

I don't think this is a good idea.

It has the vulnerability that brigadiers could simply out-number the actual subscribers and shut-down verses by just voting in their own mods.

For example: There are over 73k subscribers on reddit's SRS. I don't think there's any verse on this site that could prevent being shut-down if this system were implemented and they decided to be dicks.

2
6

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

They would all need accounts here. They would all need to be subscribed contributing active members of a certain age, of that sub to vote.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

2
0

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

There are things that can be done to avoid this.

1
13

[–] ShaHadien 1 points 13 points (+14|-1) ago 

I really don't think there are. Adding hoops for the brigadiers to jump through just means it would take them a bit longer to prepare the take-over.

Want to require certain CCP for it? They'll just have upvoat parties for themselves.

Want to require a certain amount of time subscribed? They'll just subscribe and wait.

et cetera...

0
0

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

There are things that can be done to avoid this.

Sure. Like not having elections in the first place.

2
-2

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

There's criteria in order to be able to voat. They need to have a certain amount of SCP and CCP in the sub, as well as have an account of a certain age.

1
0

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

Yes....clearly there's no way to overcome those barriers for a brigade... /s

0
0

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

They need to have a certain amount of SCP and CCP in the sub, as well as have an account of a certain age.

If it's a major sub then that won't be hard.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 27 points (+28|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

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

+1! You do such a good job with /v/Recipes, and I'm sure it would be upsetting if someone were to take that away from you just because it grew to a good size and someone more "well known" on Voat came in and started posting more popular recipes or something.

I feel like mod elections may be more relevant for the more "controversial" subs, but not the subs that kind of do their own thing and don't require too much heavy moderation. :/

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

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 3 points 19 points (+22|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

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

I agree with your thoughts... who cares about the hardwork behind the scene. If such happen, i'd prefer to go back to reddit.

5
1

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

You seem very upset about this idea...

[–] [deleted] 3 points 13 points (+16|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

1
12

[–] Antimatter 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

You have to see some of the flaws in this system though. The mods that appeal to the circlejerk the most will always win.

2
-1

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

their subs

It's not "their subs". The sub belongs to the community. With no community it's you in an empty sub. Thus, mods should be replaced if the community doesn't like them.

3
19

[–] Antimatter 3 points 19 points (+22|-3) ago 

Wouldn't this deter moderators from building up their subverses then? Like lets say I moderate /v/AntiMatter and spend hours of my week in order to bring it from 0 subscribers to 5,000. Why should a moderator put in all that hard work only to be offed in an election?

3
14

[–] Teh_Sauce_Guy 3 points 14 points (+17|-3) ago 

There are a lot of reasons the suggestion is bad.

1
15

[–] Antimatter 1 points 15 points (+16|-1) ago 

Yeah. I don't really agree with it. I understand mod abuse is an issue but having elections like this will make the "good" mods unwilling to invest their time into the sub. I don't think this is the right "fix" for this issue.

3
0

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

Like you losing mod status because you're shit at it?

4
4

[–] gatordontplaythatsht [S] 4 points 4 points (+8|-4) ago 

If you're making a subverse only to get lots of subs and keep control then your motives don't serve the sub anyway. Moderators are meant to be servants of the community, not proud large sub owners.

1
11

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

Like I mentioned in a previous post, you can't really control how many subscribers your subverse gets. If the topic of your subverse suddenly gets popular, why should the moderator be punished? And how can you even know if a moderator will be corrupt? This is a case by case scenario. Not all mods go power hungry. The "good" mods shouldn't be punished due to the paranoia of corruption.

2
-2

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

It's not their subverses. When you create a sub and build it up, you're serving the community. The community owns that sub. Without the community, it's you by yourself in a sub. So yes. If you run the sub in a way that the majority disagrees with, you should be removed.

0
0

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

So yes. If you run the sub in a way that the majority disagrees with, you should be removed.

The trouble is that "the community" is an amorphous and easily infiltrated thing. In practice it won't be disgruntled users or /v/canada kicking out /u/davidreiss666 it'll be SRS installing him as head mod and banning anyone who dissents.

0
16

[–] citrion 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

Because voting is never abused to promote agendas.

2
-2

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

This sounds like something a totalitarian would say.

0
1

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

Maybe, but I make no pretense towards totalitarianism.

0
11

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

How would you propose preventing abuse of the system?

2
0

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

One thought I've had would be verified voting, by handwriting the username with a date stamped article on monitor in the background or something like that.

0
8

[–] SurvivorType 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

That could easily be abused in any environment with many computers such as an office complex or university. What is needed is a system with no potential for abuse or manipulation by the users.

0
0

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

That would require hand counting of votes, which would easily be open to abuse. It would also be ridiculously easy to fake, just change the setup of your battlestation for each of your accounts. Plus, it would now require effort to vote, which means that the people voting will probably not be regular joes who logged on to /v/football to chew the fat and will be much more likely to be activist users who want to cleanse /v/football of anything they think is transphobic, which is everything.

load more comments ▼ (36 remaining)