You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] kevdude [S] 5 points 41 points (+46|-5) ago 

You guys rock. I saw someone link to this in another thread and had flashbacks. In any event you would all be within your rights to demod his ass from v/gunsarecool.

Also, would a sub rating system work? Like if you start a sub you have to identify?

FPH would be strictly moderated (mod discretion)

v/canada would get a moderate rating (anything goes to a point, they enforce politeness)

Defaults would be minimal moderation (spam/clear off topic/etc)

Mods would have to spell this out and then spell out the rules.

That way there is a disclaimer right in the sidebar for each sub.


[–] markrod420 6 points 36 points (+42|-6) ago 

Or just stop with the moderating nonsense and just let people say shit. Instead of 10 complex layers of moderation that can be manipulated and used wrongly maybe fucking none.


[–] kevdude [S] 3 points 24 points (+27|-3) ago 

I would agree to a point. Adspam clutters up the feed and is annoying as fuck. I mod v/sports and I constantly have to delete sketchy virus-filled livestream links. Otherwise the front page would be half spam and would suck. If you check our sidebar it seems that there are a bunch of rules, but really they are all just trying to clearly define what "spam" is so that mods can't just make shit up.

If you start your own sub you should have some say in things. Also, small niche subs do need some moderation. I mod v/tolkien and I am trying to grow it. There aren't enough users yet to mod with votes (live we do in v/politicalnews).

And sometimes the community agrees on things and needs the mod team to enforce their will.

BUT if a sub is going to be moderated it should be clearly spelled out in the sidebar. Check this link and tell me your thoughts:


[–] localbum 4 points 16 points (+20|-4) ago 

Just remove moderator abilities. Don't give more power, take some away.

But no mods? Yeah, I'm down with that also.


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

I agree. In my opinion, there are only five things I can think of that anyone should ever be banned for: 1) Posting illegal content 2) Doxing 3) Spam 4) Posting malicious links 5) Posting untagged spoilers

I also believe that mods can't be trusted to do this. That's why I think they should not have the power to ban. If they believe someone has done one of those five things, they should have the option to send a ban request to the admins. The admins will review the comments that were linked, along with any notes, and ban the user if the user violated any of those rules. However, the admins could have some sort of punishment/deterrent to prevent mods from sending ban requests for unbannable comments and submissions. Maybe if a mod's requests are too often denied, they could lose mod privileges.

Without the ability to ban users, a mod's job would be limited mostly to removing off-topic posts and top level comments.


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

There are 10 complex layers? Wow.

If not for spam I would agree with you. Try thinking of a verse as a storefront or someone's house. That might help.


[–] HenryCorpIncLLC 4 points 6 points (+10|-4) ago  (edited ago)

In any event you would all be within your rights to demod his ass from v/gunsarecool.

I also find it absurd that a radical, occupier, anti-gun, anti-free speech progressive activist is the moderator of /v/constitution. Ironically, @HenryCorp mods /v/conflictofinterest despite being the biggest example of a conflict of interest here at Voat.


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

Not just an occupier, he's worked at other Soros-funded orgs, too. He's a real, honest-to-goodness Soros Shill!


[–] mamwad 5 points -3 points (+2|-5) ago 

We are currently working on how to handle this via a user terms modification.

IOW I was right.