0
45

[–] 1498784? 0 points 45 points (+45|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This is just getting off-putting. I do not want to participate in the sub I would like to take over because I do not want to give the squatter the opportunity to contribute, because if the squatter participates in the sub, the sub will be ineligible for transfer, no?

I've already created a theme with custom artwork, developed the sidebar and everything and I'm just waiting to have a shot at taking over. That should show significantly more interest in the sub rather than two posts and two comments.

0
21

[–] ChillyHellion 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

Rule 5 is the only rule that I don't really agree with on this list. You bring up a good point about poking a dead subverse and in doing so waking up the mod. I also wonder what happens if there's a sub for lions (the sports team) that's completely dead and abandoned, but you want to use it for actual animal lions. Do you have to post sports related content to qualify? What about after the transfer?

All in all it looks like a good list of requirements that will probably be refined as time goes on. There are lots of scenarios that can't be anticipated in advance.

0
7

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

This is a carbon-copy of a website that has existed for the better part of a decade. Pretty much every scenario can be anticipated.

0
9

[–] moe [S] 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Could you message me the subverse in question so that it can be taken into consideration when re-evaluating these rules?

0
3

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

@moe, I've been trying to message you for a good half hour regarding a vaguely similar issue, and the mail will Just. Not. Send. Would you mind messaging me so I can send it as a reply and hope that works?

0
1

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

Seconding this. I wanted to take over a dead sub, but not feed absent/squatter mods power first.

This rule is stupid. Good administrators make a good website, not good rules.

0
0

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

They don't care.

7
14

[–] TheRealRipster 7 points 14 points (+21|-7) ago  (edited ago)

Well, that is annoying - changing rules just as I meet 30 day requirement.

Not going over well at Reddit either!

https://www.reddit.com/r/MechanicalKeyboards/comments/3fr41v/voat_has_modzis_too/

1
9

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

4
5

[–] TheRealRipster 4 points 5 points (+9|-4) ago 

0
14

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

I am glad you have changed the rules and I think that this is a very good way of making sure subs are moderated by users who care about the content that is being posted. However, I do think that requiring 300 ccp in the requested subverse is too much, I think this will lead to subs going unmoderated/undeveloped.

0
17

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

We can and will adjust accordingly if this proves to be a bad rule. All we know for certain is #99 is a sure thing.

0
10

[–] AmyAcker 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I think it could block some requests, at least. The 1000 subscriber requirement mitigates it to a degree, but there are likely some fairly dead subs out there with over 1k subscribers (or eventually will be).

Take /v/gadgets or /v/buildapc, for example. There are 3971 and 2570 subscribers, respectively, but they are quite dead; getting 300 CCP there would be near-impossible, or take a very long time, as of now. They are my subs now, and I'm going to do my best to make them active; just saying, had this been in-place at the time of my requests, there is certainly no way I would have received the subs.

It's definitely something to consider, even if it won't affect a large number of requests.

Anyway, thanks! Keep up the great work! :)

0
5

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

I'm happy to hear that you are open to changing it and I think you guys do a great job with listening to feedback from users.

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

[Deleted]

0
9

[–] PuttItOut 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

We will review. Sounds like there is some valid concern. We are just attempting to be as objective as possible, hence the expanded rules.

0
7

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

What about empty subs? The subverse I requested is deserted and the moderator inactive for 5 months. The participation rule makes no sense for this, since there's no one to participate with and nothing to participate in, in a sub with an AWOL moderator.

0
7

[–] moe [S] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Anonymous subverses are rather tricky to deal with.

Regarding the "2 posts / comments" rule, perhaps we could append "if the subverse has had any activity in the past month" so that 'dead' subverses such as that aren't subject to the requirement.

By the way, your subverse request was created before these new requirements were rolled out and thus is not subject to them. I'll approve it when I get that far in the queue.

0
5

[–] 1549616? 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Regarding the "2 posts / comments" rule, perhaps we could append "if the subverse has had any activity in the past month" so that 'dead' subverses such as that aren't subject to the requirement.

If this is the case, then can we start implementing that right now? In 5 10 days I'm going to request a sub I'm after. It's only had one post, which the squatter put up in order to avoid the 30 day inactivity rule. I've already developed a theme for it (it's currently theme-less), already populated the sidebar (it currently doesn't have anything in the sidebar), and have a strong desire to develop it (it's the only reason I'm here and contributing to voat in general). But I'm not going to post or comment in the subverse until it's out of the current squatter's hands.

0
3

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

Ah, thank you, I really appreciate it. That also sounds like a good appendage.

0
0

[–] Clarkey7163 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Well this is ridiculous, my request was made well before all of these requirements yet the rules were retroactively applied to my request? This is a double standard, and the subverse I asked for is still unused yet I don't meet the new criteria.

https://voat.co/v/subverserequest/comments/200924

Here is the link to my request, check the time stamps and please reconsider. I would love to get into Voat but this is the only thing I'm interested in participating in at the moment.

I honestly do like the site and wish to make the transition if possible

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

[Deleted]

0
5

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

6, while well intentioned, is going to need revising. For instance, some subs (like adult subs) have very little commenting. Also, some subs have many subscribers but very little activity. It would take forever and might even be impossible to get 300 CCP in either case.

I agree.

Another thing is that many moderators are not the chatty type. They might submit to get stuff going but they generally are not the center of attention in comments. And that's ok.

This would be me, haha. I mainly comment to say hello or to try and help (if it is needed). However, I do like participating, and if I want to share something or have my say, I'll comment; sometimes it just isn't needed though. Maybe someone has already said what I would or I don't feel particularity chatty at the time, etc., so I lurk :) I don't think it takes anything away from my ability to be a good mod.

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

[Deleted]

0
1

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

That requirement is waived if posting is disabled or the Moderators are consistently deleting all new submissions.

0
4

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

"(3) Only one pending subverse transfer per user at a time"

It takes literally a month to get an answer back on a request and there are so many subs with popular names just being sat on by people who dont even log on anymore

load more comments ▼ (31 remaining)