0
5

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

Nice idea in theory, but what is to stop this judiciary becoming corrupt and siding with particular subverses, or groups of Mods, or Users?

0
1

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

I think it could like the early roman system where random users are invited to participate at a time for judicial discussion. Then they can choose to participate or not.

0
1

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

Well, I suppose the random nature of it would keep it fair, though highly unpredictable... I presume you would build in some sort of CCP limit for being eligible for the selection process?

Otherwise you could end up with Amaleks.

0
2

[–] X7715491 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I'm against it.

A similar idea was brought up awhile back by someone else already, /u/MarkW (who has apparently deleted his account and left). He wanted a system where each subverse was a republic of sorts, with users voting on who the moderators are. I argued with him extensively about it.

Let me ask you this:

What incentive will there be for anyone to put their effort into their sub if they cannot retain control over it?

Imagine being the person who creates the sub, spending a ton of time curating it and growing it, then one day, being stripped of your power and control and having it taken away from you. With that possibility in mind, no one is going to devote too much effort into it. No one is going to have the will to implement unpopular measures (that may be ultimately beneficial despite being unpopular) because then they might get a petition against them.


Because it's all too easy for someone to criticize someone elses idea for its flaws, let me give you an alternative idea that does not require human intervention.

Get rid of the current "default" system where there is only one /v/politics (using /v/politics as an example).

Let there be several (or even numerous) /v/politics and let users choose between them. In other words, now the /v/politics compete with each other for users. They will ranked according to user activity and users would be able to readily see what they are in a public listing.

Each /v/politics can function like its own mini-dictatorship, although it doesn't have to (a group of people can create their own subverse where they can vote on their moderators if they want to.)

Because people want their subs to be popular, even if it is a dictatorship, they aren't going to implement any bad policies or do anything to ruin that. If they do, there will be a migration away from it.

It's essentially a "market solution" where people vote with their feet and chose to patronize the sub that they think is best. This may change from time to time, as the subs are ranked. Subs may fall out of favor and/or new subs can rise to power.

You would expect to see a wide variety of subs for a given topic. Some may choose to implement the republic/petition type of system (and it might work for them), but it may not work elsewhere if it is inefficient compared to another system. Voat, the site itself need not decide and pick any one. It will just allow for all possible configurations to exist, and whatever works will come forth.

0
3

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

What incentive will there be for anyone to put their effort into their sub if they cannot retain control over it?

/v/OffMyChest/comments/44698

0
2

[–] X7715491 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Thanks, I didn't see that. Looks like someone else also realizes that.

I can't comment on everything else in his/her rant about SJWs taking over and admins having favoritism, but Voat should go with the assumption that the mods know best.

Everyone has their own vision of what is good, and should be allowed to express it and try it. It doesn't even have to be political like this guy is making it out to be. Someone might just not think that something as mundane as a simple site feature (say, whether one should be allowed to downvote or not- which is something that has been debated before) is good for their sub.

They should be allowed to implement their policies without the mob seizing control just because they disagree with it. If it is truly bad, then the sub will just wind up dying. But in order for that to happen, you do need to get rid of the name monopoly. No one should be able to control the flow of information just because they got there first (registered it first.) That isn't a system based on merit.

Still, /u/WilliamT made it clear that this is less about overthrowing mods and more about protecting the individual, and I can't argue against that.

Perhaps the solution is some sort of meditation through community manager(s) (who would be admins). Given that moderation logs are being rolled out, it'd be diffficult for an asshole mod to defend him/herself in a situation where they ban someone just because they don't like them (and even if there weren't logs, I would assume that any community manager would have access to non-public info so they would be able to verify whether there was any wrong-doing.) These community managers would be allowed to overrule certain, specific decisions like the banning of a member.

Also that makes you wonder, if someone gets banned for a dumb reason, but can somehow get together a petition that got a lot of popular support, you'd think there'd be enough impetus for a migration away. This isn't even mentioning that the user who got banned probably isn't going to want to continue using the sub even if the decision was overruled.

0
1

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

I wouldn't want a republic in the subverses, just a way for wronged Voaters to be righted. What if somebody actually was banned for subscribing to a subverse that the moderator didn't approve of - there needs to be a way to deal with cases like that.

0
1

[–] X7715491 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I'm tempted to say that they could just go to another subverse, but I see what you are saying. There may not be a good alternative, or the sub might've been otherwise good. The banning of one individual wouldn't necessarily motivate everyone else to start moving away from the sub either. In that case, the individual would be left with little recourse.

It's a legit concern. Good thing you brought that up- there does need to be a way to deal with that.

0
1

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

I think it would be a good idea in theory, SJWs have the numbers.

0
0

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

What exactly do you mean?

0
1

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

Well SJWs tend to exist in greater numbers on the internet than regular users. A random jury pool would like to have more SJWs just because they occur in larger numbers.

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

[Deleted]

0
0

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

I totally respect your opinion, but I don't see how my definition of "free speech" is speech you have to agree with. In fact, I would argue that my idea for a way to challenge Mod bans allows more people to speak freely and contentiously within a subverse. There should be a way to enforce that people aren't banned for the wrong reasons.