You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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.