[–] 1ew 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Thumbs up. One thing might be taken in consideration: sometimes posts that are eligible for deletion, have gotten 50 or 60 or even more upvoats before a moderator walks by - I always find it a bit uneasy to see a post with many upvoates, and often a lot of discussion, being deleted. Could there perhaps be an additional Rule that states that submissions with over, say, 40 upvoats cannot be deleted? Would seem fair to me.

Edit: see for instance this one https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1626430 (don't know what it is about, I just looked at the numbers): 53 (+59/-6) upvoats and 123 comments, and yet deleted. Especially the comments c.q. discussion section is silenced abruptly, while there was evidently a want for talking the subject. I hope you see my point.

[–] wecanhelp [S, M] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

The problem with that is that planned disinformation attacks almost always come with a rapid upvoting to the front page. Also, this would be a loophole for otherwise legit posts as well, opening the door for vote manipulation.

[–] 1ew 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Disinformations attacks should be easily discernible - and I must say I have never seen such massive planned upvoating ever - and I don't see how it could be a loophole for legit posts (since they are legit anyway, right?), but I won't push my point.

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

I will be keeping this bit from the rules when I update the set based on this. It will be #4.


(4) Mods Will Not Delete Posts Based on Source "Quality". If a Submission meets the guidelines then the determination of "Quality" will be left to the Users and their Votes.

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

why waws abortonfagger made mod we want answers hes a shillbag

[–] VieBleu 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I don't agree with this idea at all (1ew's suggestion above about allowing posts with 40 upvoats). There is a contingent here that upvotes in a pack and uses multiple identities to do so as well, and almost always posts spam submissions with innacurate suppositions, confirmation bias (every mystical symbol = Satanism + child trafficking) no helpful content and absent of facts, which slides the forum towards abstract woo. As it is these types of posts stay up far too long.

[–] 1ew 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Like I said in another reply I do see the difficulties too, and in the end you are right,

[–] Blacksmith21 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

That would be my OP. The title was "Pizzagate Day +1 / Preparing for What's Next". I wanted to explore day one issues and preparations for the next phase of battle. This isn't going to end with cigars and Nuremberg trials. We may get a taste of it. We may win this battle - and a decisive battle - but we have not won the war.

[–] 1ew 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

It defies the rules, strictly speaking, but I suggested posts like that, that got many upvoats and a lot of discussion, not to be deleted at such stage, because it's like a slap in the face of all people discussing.

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

I think I deleted that one - sorry! It was a good/interesting post but I think the idea is that need to keep the sub focused more on investigation and sharing information and leads backed up with evidence, than try and have it be all things at once, such as a place to discuss the investigation in general terms, plus PR/memes/ways to spread info and reach. more people plus the actual work of investigation If it tries to be all those things, it will fail to do any of them well if that makes sense.

It would be good if more people subscribed to the other PG subs, but perhaps if you make a post there you can draw attention to it in comments here or at the bottom of a submission here that is within the rules?

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

Very nice job here. Everything seem reasonable and common sense

Thank you to all mods for the work you are doing

[–] wecanhelp [S, M] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Thank you for the support.

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

Accordingly, new Moderator Rules are as follows, effective immediately.

Doesn't really look like these rules are being followed as of yet...


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

How about Moderators that add new mods to tell us the reasons they chose the mods they did. And before full out deletion of a thread give the poster a chance to add what needs to be added...ie find the link to back up what they are saying.

[–] wecanhelp [S, M] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

How about you get Moderators that add new mods to tell us the reasons they chose the mods they did.

This is a reasonable request, we could submit a post to /v/pizzagatemods whenever we add a new mod, with a reasoning.

And before full out deletion of a thread give the poster a chance to add what needs to be added

We've played the waiting game before, this one's not gonna work. Most of the time we ask for a change, the change never comes, and in the meantime the post is being upvoted to the front page. It's not like submitters lose the content that they had posted, they can easily copypaste the source of the deleted submission, and make the necessary improvements.

[–] wecanhelp [S, M] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

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

Let's make a monthly or biweekly post of fringe deletes, that did get deleted, please. I have seen some good stuff get deleted, and a lot of bad stuff as well.

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

That's a good idea! I'd be happy to compile that if we can decide on criteria for which posts get included. @wecanhelp

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

This is a very good Idea...thats why it will never fly around here.

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

This all looks above board and useful (thumbsup.gif)

I like that mods still have the discretion to explain deletions if they choose

Section 3 is solid, clear and should not be an issue for those genuinely wanting to participate in an active community.
This comment doesn't actually specify any IRL entities so it should not be deleted.
That and it's hilarious that someone is that salty.
Threatening mods by user name alone isn't enough, it would require 'doxxing' to trigger the IRL entities section.
If the same comment contained the name of IRL entity in the same sentence as the advocacy for violence - it would qualify for removal.
Example: Hillary Clinton should be 'x'ed blah blah violent thing <-- this qualifies for deletion but VictorSteinerDavion should be 'x'ed blah blah violent thing <-- doesn't because that identifies a bot, not a real person

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

"Hillary Clinton should be executed for treason" is fine.

"Hillary Clinton should be fed to wild dogs" is ok too.

"I am going to personally do XYZ to Hillary Clinton " is NOT ok b/c it is a direct threat.

[–] wecanhelp [S, M] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I would actually argue that "Hillary Clinton should be murdered" is not in violation of rules, "I will murder Hillary Clinton" is. The former is an opinion, the latter is a threat. That is certainly how we've been handling these in the past.

[–] Blacksmith21 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

This is good stuff. Very well thought out, with a defined path of redress. Kudos to those who came up with this.

[–] wecanhelp [S, M] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

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

I have posteriorly added a fifth rule:

(5) Flairs will always be provided a reason for in a comment by the moderator. The comment will state which flair has been applied, and why.

We've been requiring moderators to explain their flairs for a long time now, but never actually added that to the rules.

Since this change only affects transparency positively, I will not re-sticky the post just for this, but I'm pinging @kevdude for some transparency into the change anyway.

load more comments ▼ (11 remaining)