You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] Teh_Sauce_Guy [S] 40 points -19 points (+21|-40) ago 

Look, there's a difference between a radical claim pseudoscience. If someone posts a link to a theory like, I don't know... the earth is flat, and the theory actually follows the proper scientific method, then it's fine to stay. On the other hand, if it's merely pretending to do so, then it isn't. I don't know if I explained this well or not, but there you go.


[–] geovoat 9 points 34 points (+43|-9) ago 

But eventually mods will get tired of evaluating by reading the link and they will just pull what they dont like. Or require journal links like deaddit did which ruined r science.


[–] Teh_Sauce_Guy [S] 37 points -26 points (+11|-37) ago 

Mods are users too. We'll only investigate a link if it has enough reports about pseudoscience (otherwise someone could go on a trolling spree and report everything) or if it has an extraordinary claim in the title (extraordinary claims will require evaluation). We will also be appointing more moderators if we deem the workflow to be excessive.


[–] pandabill 5 points 20 points (+25|-5) ago 

Can I ask you a question: Who is paying you? I refuse to admit that a person would voluntarily choose to be such a Nazi.


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

Nobody is paying me a cent. I wish someone would pay me to be a moderator.

[–] [deleted] 29 points -23 points (+6|-29) ago 



[–] kevdude 5 points 22 points (+27|-5) ago  (edited ago)

I know right? We should just shut up and let some spam janitors in a system-owned sub make a couple of vague rules that will eventually be abused to create a reddit safe space out of Voat. /s

Not going to happen. This is a public-owned sub and they will not delete nonspam comments. If they are going to expand the defintion of "spam" then they had better provide a clear and definitive description that doesn't rely on a mod's subjective "judgement".