3
34

[–] TheKobold 3 points 34 points (+37|-3) ago 

Please Be Civil: Arguing is fine as we all have differing opinions, but please respect each other.

Free speech. Fuck this bullshit.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

4
19

[–] kevdude 4 points 19 points (+23|-4) ago 

Used to be a rule. We had to fight a bunch of battles to get it removed.

1
12

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

Still doesn't really belong here in our free speech paradise.

2
10

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

Agree - "Be Civil" suggestion needs to go; this isn't kindergarten.

0
4

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

"Be Sybil"

For those of us with numerous voices in our head, this is a given:~)

0
4

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

I was just pointing this out to my girlfriend the other night - the Internet was better when NO ONE was protected on being called out on their bullshit.

I'd rather have the ability to be a dick when it's necessary and be called out and reviled when it's not than to simply not have the choice.

0
3

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

plus fucking 1

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

[Deleted]

21
-20

2
19

[–] 6599769 2 points 19 points (+21|-2) ago 

For rule one posts older than thirty days should be allowed but include the article date in the title.

3
4

[–] Dumb_Comment_Bot 3 points 4 points (+7|-3) ago 

That's a good idea, but the date should be year-day-month which is the best date notation.

0
4

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

YYYY-MM-DD is the only notation that should ever be used.

2
17

[–] kevdude 2 points 17 points (+19|-2) ago 

Why is @forksandguys still a mod? He has not made a comment in months and his last submission to Voat was a year ago.

Why is @AmyAcker still a mod? Her last comment was a month ago and her last submission was 4 months ago.

These aren't v/news comments/submissions, these are postings to Voat in general. Why are people who aren't active users modding one of the largest subs on Voat? @Atko @PuttItOut

1
7

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

Kev, forksandguys appears on quite a few subs and should have been scrubbed from several subs a long while ago: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/1334560

0
5

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

Possible compromise - demote them to L3 Janitor status.

2
8

[–] kevdude 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

Amy does engage in mod activites, so that might be an option for her. Forks should be removed because he isn't on Voat any more.

0
17

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

Just my 2 cents: doesn't matters what are the rules if their implementation is robot-like senseless. IMO, the no image served to avoid fakery. If the image was a way to avoid censorship, if it was a copy of a tweet from the same day, there was no need to complain about it. I asked the complaining user how he would feel with an archive.is, he said it was the same, because it would be an archive of social network. Isn't it obvious that that tweets were news? This is the point. I don't see how a blind following of the rules (any rules) can work.

2
17

[–] Sakusha 2 points 17 points (+19|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Rule 1 is unnecessary. "If it's relevant, it's okay" is so easy to abuse as an excuse for deleting legitimate content. If it's old news it'll get downvoated. Rule 2 has seen abuse on that site and is unnecessary. People will downvoat clickbait. Rule 3 is also unnecessary. Archives are screenshots of websites. Images can be newsworthy content. Users will decide with voats. Rule 4 is nice but unnecessary. Downvoats prevent paywalls from reaching the top. Rule 5 is fine. Users may not pick up on it and it is exploitable. Rule 6 is nice but unnecessary. People will downvoat content in a language they don't understand, or if they care enough about it they'll translate it themselves.

Literally every rule here is unnecessary or just nice to have. Make the rules "no spam, no ads, and no paywalls" and that's all you need. Users do the rest and you have less crap to delete.

2
8

[–] wellfuckyoutoo 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

so easy to abuse as an excuse for deleting legitimate content.

I agree.

If it's old news it'll get downvoated.

I disagree. I have the impression that a lot of old stuff is upvoated because they're relevant, not because they're current.

Rule 3 is also unnecessary. Archives are screenshots of websites. Images can be newsworthy content. Users will decide with voats.

If one could archive screenshots directly through a trusted third party (like how archive sites downloads the site directly from the source, you don't upload the site to the archive) your argument would make sense.

Screenshots (of today) have no accountability, there's no way to verify that what you're seeing even comes from the page it looks like. Screenshots are worthless as reliable news providers.

3
7

[–] Ah_Pook 3 points 7 points (+10|-3) ago 

Rule 2 has seen abuse on that site and is unnecessary. People will downvoat clickbait.

They mostly don't though, not around here.

Rule 3 is also unnecessary. Archives are screenshots of websites.

They're certainly not. Source is a fuck of a lot different than images.

7
13

[–] kevdude 7 points 13 points (+20|-7) ago 

Rule 1 should add a caveat to prevent subjectivity (maybe a requirement for >30 days to be submitted as a discussion post with the link in discussion box accompanied by an explanation of how it is relevant?)

Rule 2 should be user enforced.

Rule 3 should be user enforced

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

[Deleted]

5
9

[–] kevdude 5 points 9 points (+14|-5) ago 

Which is why I suggested "user enforced" - make these rules "guidelines" - no mod subjectivity

4
7

[–] 0fsgivin 4 points 7 points (+11|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Yah, Rule 2 especially seems ripe for abuse. Who is going to be the fact checker? What sources are deemed worthy of vetting said facts?

0
12

[–] ShinyVoater 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Rule 2 might be a judgement call in some cases, but if the submission alters the title, things like "JEW MEDIA SILENT!" are obvious editorialization. I think most people would be fine with some variant of "don't invent hysterical titles".

2
0

[–] Titus-of-Voat 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

Rule 3 should be mod enforced. People may see an image post they like and upvote it without seeing what sub it is in. You run the risk of too many meme/shitposts taking over the sub.

2
1

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

People may see an image post they like and upvote it

Then make a "no memes" rule. By this rule, if Tienanmen Square were to happen today you would not be allowed to post the tank image to v/news "cuz no images".

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

[Deleted]

1
9

[–] Disappointed 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I've bought this up before and @Typo agreed it was harsh if the site title was all in caps and said they wouldn't enforce it if that was the case. I'm not sure whether they forgot to change the rule and have been leaving titles where this is the case or forgot about that caveat and conversation. It was a while ago.

Edit: I should have done more than skim the notes on the OP.

caps are left up if the article is in caps since the "suggest title" function doesn't alter case,

The wording of rule 3 should be changed to reflect that though if the users decide to keep it at all.

load more comments ▼ (22 remaining)