0
41

[–] Nurdoidz 0 points 41 points (+41|-0) ago 

For a long time, we've been discussing transparent sub moderation, meaning that everyone would be able to see what each moderator did to keep them in check. Voat is still in early development, so the dev team is still adding features to the site, so our ideal voat will come eventually. For now, the system works, especially with how small our userbase is. We just have to give it time. :-)

Welcome to voat!

0
8

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

Transparent sub moderation would be cool.. Not sure it would work out, though. Say, for instance, someone posted something inflammatory in my sub, which I do not allow, and I remove it... At that point, everyone still sees the inflammatory post that was removed, negating the moderation. The question is one of 'Who Watches the Watchmen'.

0
14

[–] Property_Is_Theft [S] 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago  (edited ago)

If you don't have transparent moderation, however, then it becomes impossible to discuss ousting a censorious mod. On Reddit, such mods always censor comments that criticize the censorship, so eventually the illusion is created that nobody has a problem with the censorship. (EDIT: In fact, the casual observer can't even tell that censorship is taking place.) Perhaps the most a mod should be able to do is reduce a comment's visibility (sort of like what happens when a comment's score reaches -5-- its visibility is minimized, but you can still reach the content if you're curious). Also, if a minimized comment or submission gets enough upvotes, the moderator's action should be negated completely.

0
7

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

Why couldn't we have a system to where if a mod deletes a post or comment the deleted item would show, deleted, but then you could press a button and expand the deleted content and view it. Then you could have a separate up and down vote and if a threshold is met for upvotes then the post could be undeleted. So this would basically have the same effect as jury nullification or how real democracy should work. If a law is made that a certain threshold of people don't like, then theoretically it should be overturned.

0
2

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

Hm... you bring up a really good point. Sorry to say that I can't continue, here, since I don't know that much about these types of concepts.

0
1

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

Maybe a separate meta-sub for reporting mods?

As long as there are decent admins, they could be the ones to see whether or not a moderator is being fair and remove them from a sub if needed.

0
3

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

I'm a developer by trade - how can I contribute to Voat? Either on the front end or the back end?

0
3

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

If you're familiar with Git, you can come on over to the GitHub repository. You can also give @Atko a shout. He'll appreciate the help.

0
2

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

I just want to thank you and everyone working on this. If you guys got an app running that would definitely help people make the switch.

0
0

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

A mobile app is currently being planned, but we still need iOS and Android developers to do it.

0
2

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

You should let users opt-into and opt-out of moderation. A "protected" experience shows a subverse how the moderators intend. A "uncensored" subverse shows all comments just like how undelete reddit used to work. Moderators should not be able to over-ride user preferences for their experience.

0
17

[–] SnowWombat 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

There are a few quick n dirty ways to limit the bullshit.

  1. Limitations on how many subs an account can manage
  2. limitations on sock puppet bullshit.

The best defense though is actually broadly aand fairly enforcing the rules for everyone.The SRS cancer has only got this bad due to the fact that the reddit admins have not just been turning a blind eye, but actively encouraging it and giving the SRS crowd special treatment.

If reddit admins actually enforced their rules, SRS would be gone over night because they are the worse of the worst. They are the spoiled kids who's parents never discipline them.

This is a "top down" cultural problem with reddit management, which allowed it to get this bad.

0
7

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

I wish people would question more why the admins allow SRS to do the things they do. Why would the admins of one of the most popular social forums let this shit go on sitewide? Because they're all buddy-buddy? It doesn't add up. There is more going on here than meets the eye, I simply can't believe this begins and ends with a clique of neckbearded internet allstars. They allow it because it serves a specific purpose. Dilution, distraction, diversion of attention from real issues. Classic, proven propaganda techniques.

Did we all forget that in 2013, the "most addicted to Reddit" city was Elgin Air Force Base?

0
6

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

Because the admins are SJWs themselves. They pretend to not pick sides, but they do. Look at the whole GamerGate drama. Shaddowbans allllllllll around. Ok, so people were cross posting between reddit and 4chan. There was no brigade going on. I was was browsing both sites at the same time.

The mods of r/gaming and the admin of reddit are the reason GamerGate blew up to such epic proportions. Really, I didn't give a shit about gaming journalism.... until I found out how corrupt the system was. I'd Google search a game to check it's reviews before I purchased it... These reviews have led to some pretty shitty purchases before. That's when I really quit paying attention to reviews and stuff like that.

Then the whole GG shit, and I finally understood why when I listened to reviews I'd end up purchasing a game that would be better off as a beer coaster than in my gaming console.

0
4

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

The only thing about the limit of how many subs an account can manage is that one user can create several accounts and just moderate from all of those. I suppose an admin could check IPs for modss to prevent that from happening, but that could still be worked around with proxys/VPNs.

0
4

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

yeah. The best defense is not a technical one as it is a management one.

Again, if the rules aren't enforced selectively then we won't have the SRS issue.

SRS is so powerful now because they KNOW they will never be even slapped on the wrist.

0
1

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

limit of how many subs an account can manage

I think this can only be good, though I would wager the fair limit for this would be higher than a lot of people would think.

0
1

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

I would agree with the limitation on how many subs an account can manage even if it would be relatively easy to workaround. Personally I do not want to create or moderate a bunch of subverses I wouldn't pay attention to but not everyone will think the same way. If there's a limit, they'll have to think twice before moderating a sub, even if they have to pick a specific account. Just my two cents.

0
1

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

Limitations on how many subs an account can manage

I agree with this. There are people on reddit who mod over 300 subs. They have too much power. IMO here anyone should not be allowed to mod more than 20 (or some specific number) of subs.

0
0

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

Voat currently has a limit in how many subverses you can moderate to prevent this from happening. If I remember correctly, it's either ten or fifteen.

0
8

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

Disallow mod deletion of any content, allow users to crowd-moderate content as either spam, against voat TOS and/or subverse rules. When it reaches a threshold number of flags as spam or rules violation, the flag is authenticated for the sake of user filtering. Empower subverse mods to reverse false reports if they'd like (but never to outright delete any content), at least until the site admins are confident the authentication algorithm is working as intended.

Try to prevent flagging abuse with algorithms that identify false-flagging patterns used by cabals & sockpuppets, but that can be tricky. Therefore, you should add filters that each user can enable/disable for each subverse so those who want to see everything can. This prevents cabals from hijacking a subverse (aka reddit's downfall) while allowing thin-skinned users to hide whatever posts violate the subverse's rules. Only site admins can delete content and for the sole reason of it being against voat TOS; any other content isn't so serious that it can't wait to get filtered by the aforementioned user flagging.

Banning users is only done by site admins and according to a published set of rules. Suggest not banning anyone other than spammers and illegal content, and post proof of banworthiness in a subverse explaining the reason for all admin-banned users.

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

[Deleted]

0
1

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

Yeah but every user still has the option to show *all *content in a sub, so when users start to recognize brigading it's a simple matter of flipping a switch to show all content.

The point is it prevents mods absolutely from deleting content, and if they conspire to bury content and it becomes apparent, you can simply flip a switch to show all content for that sub regardless of whether it was flagged or not.

0
1

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

This right here. I would also like to see slashdot or stackexchange like comment ranking instead of raw numbers that beg for pandering. For reference slashdot rates posts 1-5 on different scales (funny, insightful etc), stackexchange uses upvotes but accounts track medals visibly.

0
1

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

Reddit caught major shit for obfuscating vote counts, and I don't see much harm in people pandering or circlejerking for upvoats since they are essentially meaningless. Staying transparent about how many liked/diskliked your comment does however make it easier to tell when you're being brigaded.

Perhaps to help pay the bills, they could even have a feature for subscription users that lets them see the individual usernames of those who up or downvoated them?

0
3

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

I say we should just get rid of mods, and let the voters moderate. If a comment reaches -20 or -100, it is deleted automatically. No one has mod rights.

0
3

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

I have some thoughts on this.

  1. Mod & Admin logs. No exceptions. Basically, every action taken needs to be ascribed to a moderator or an admin making that action, and it needs to be easy to find & read. Reasons should be stated, if at all possible. That way you can look in the mod log, see the post, etc.

  2. As a corollary, could we make it so that deleted posts aren't deleted, but hidden and archived via the mod log? Reddit does this with submissions, but not comments. That way, we wouldn't see the post, but it can still be accessed via the mod log. You can't totally censor it, but you can make it so that you have to go looking for it or link it directly.

  3. Allowing mods to always be ousted can easily allow for trolling attempts. What I would recommend is site-wide rules for how many major subs you can mod for. Perhaps it can work by percentage or something, but preventing someone from moderating multiple major subreddits, and attaining power, would be a plus.

  4. Part of the problem is also groups of "friends" or collections of subs that work together and are run by the same people. Same problem. These sorts of relationships need to be exposed. Using throwaways for this stuff needs to be investigated. Admins have access to IP logs, no? At least make someone who wants to own a ton of subs take the time to have multiple VPNs to manage them, and make throwaways used to amass power a bannable offense.

  5. Shadowbans need to be for spammers, only. Or just done away with.

  6. Raids probably can't be stopped, but the defense needs to be algorithmic, not bans. Sitewide bans haven't stopped brigades, but they are used as an excuse to ban people, often for subversive content, and usually with a shadowban. Linking to posts needs to not be illegal.

There probably should be a system to remove moderators, but it needs to be something that can't be gamed, and thus probably not automated.

0
2

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

>Allowing mods to always be ousted can easily allow for trolling attempts.

You absolutely cannot stop Reddit cancer without being able to get rid of censorious mods. Once they get a hold of a subverse, they never let go. As a result, the number of subs controlled by censors only increases and never decreases over time. Your other proposals can slow the spread of the cancer, but without being able to decrease the number of subs that are subject to censorship, without being able to retake subs that have been taken over by SRS, you cannot reverse the problem.

0
2

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

Totally agree with points 1 and 2. I think that not being able to delete, only move to a well defined area (ie. have "deleted" next to "hot", "new", etc.) would make it easier for people to see when a sub is heavily censored and therefore move to a spinoff. As it is now, many of the reddit major subs are censored, but many users are unaware.

I have no problem giving mods near-free reign within their domain, but without transparency it's a license for abuse. I'll check out voat here and there, but until I see steps to prevent what's happening at reddit, it's not worth a huge investment of time.

1
1

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

Mod & Admin logs. No exceptions. Basically, every action taken needs to be ascribed to a moderator or an admin making that action, and it needs to be easy to find & read. Reasons should be stated, if at all possible. That way you can look in the mod log, see the post, etc.

This is a fantastic idea

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

[Deleted]

0
1

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

There is no point to building a subverse if some butt-hurt brigade can manipulate votes and take it over.

I would also like to point out that moderators do not build subverses. Subscribers do. Moderators are only there because spam filters aren't smart enough to operate on their own, yet.

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

[Deleted]

0
1

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

>Both sites have a system where you can make and build a competing sub to counter ones you don't like for any reason. I support this as ownership encourages people to build things instead of just run them into the ground.

The problem with Reddit is that once SRS gains moderation authority of a sub, it's Game Over for that topic on Reddit.

Creating a competing sub usually doesn't work. For example, there have been multiple attempts to get around the censorship that takes place in /r/Politics by creating competing subs, but most people don't even know that those subs exist or that /r/Politics is heavily censored to eliminate political views outside of an extremely narrow range.

The only competing-sub success story that I know about is /r/ainbow.

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

[Deleted]

0
3

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

I agree with you, and I think that Voat is in a unique position to make these changes before the site has too much momentum to change (Reddit). Check out /v/IdeasForVoat. In particular, I posted some ideas on this very topic today: https://voat.co/v/ideasforvoat/comments/42563

0
2

[–] whiteguy88 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The problem is when a subreddit gets like 20 moderators. They start to make all sorts of rules to determine if something can be posted on their subreddit. If they see something they don't agree with, they will just delete the post and ban the user citing one of their rules. The problem becomes even worse when these "moderators" start to ban based on the comment history of the user.

0
2

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

That can happen even with only one moderator. Do you think Laurelai wouldn't ban based on comment histories if he was the only moderator of a sub? The problem is that once such a moderator gets into position, there's no way to get rid of him (or her, as is more often the case).

0
0

[–] whiteguy88 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yeah, of course a single moderator can be a problem if he/she deletes content just for disagreeing with someone. However, it seems that smaller subreddits still use common sense. However, the bigger subreddits get like 20 mods, so since they don't have much to do, they just come up with all those nonsense rules.

A subreddit/subverse moderator should only delete content which is illegal (for example, child porn), spam, and content which has nothing to do with the subreddit/subverse (and in this case, maybe it would be better if the mod could just move the post to the correct subreddit/subverse).

load more comments ▼ (9 remaining)