You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
25

[–] Disappointed 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Someone downthread mentioned sub real estate, meaning people angle for popular named subs and then take them over to push their own agenda. For instance I was recently given modship of v/Linux(9k subscribers)and I'm the sole mod there. What is stopping me from doing exactly what this Henrycorp guy is doing here or turning it into a Linux hate sub? Would you step in? If so where is the line drawn between smaller subs and larger subs or would it be admin discretion? That too is open to abuse later. We all saw what happened at Reddit with the admins doing an about face on freedom of speech and lately controlling things even further through coding.

You can't deny that with a name like Environment or Linux that creating a competing sub against it is going to be a very difficult task given how people naturally search and find things on the web. So maybe if there was some way to label a strictly moderated sub or incorporate something in the name to differentiate between moderated and unmoderated subs, that would take that 'name brand' power away from people like Henrycorp who use subs solely to push a narrative and ignore the userbases wishes completely.

Something to chew on anyway.

0
29

[–] PuttItOut 0 points 29 points (+29|-0) ago 

These are exactly the points which make this situation complex. Where is the line and what precedent would be set? What policy will be best for Voat in the future?

These are tough questions which we will not make in haste.

1
12

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

Yea, I don't envy you it. Whatever you do decide some will be unhappy but no one can deny that you both involve the community as much as is practical.

Anyway, if you are ever open to System taking over more subs and if the community agreed, I'd be happy to have that happen on v/linux.

0
4

[–] 5678201 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Just wanted to squeeze in here and say that power is just about the number one threat to freedom, and that by removing some or all (depending) of moderator power, encroaching issues like these would have an awful hard time emerging again.

@markrod420 has been the voice of this argument so far in this thread. Personally the idea that a select few power-hungry corrupt moderators can ruin entire communities irks me to no end. If the moderators could have less power and authority and more of the community management responsibility were to fall on, well, the community, I think we'd all be in a better boat.

Just something else for you and @Atko to chew on.

0
4

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

These are tough questions which we will not make in haste.

The reversal of the subverse request would be easy. Could the subverse list be reconfigured to be listed alphabetically? Help out the little guys?

0
2

[–] 51rH0n3y84d93r 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Thanks for taking the time to reflect on this. I think you have to strike a balance between the mission of the sub and the moderation level. IE: If you had a BBW sub, and FPH users constantly post "REEEE REEEE REEEE", not being able to remove those users would likely be detrimental to the subs continued existence. The alternative is those mods who get off to banning those who they simply disagree with versus people who simply exist to disrupt discussion. Being able to block or mute other users may address the first issue as it would be up to the other user, but again, there are more variables at play.

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

[Deleted]

0
6

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

That was the dilemma I faced when applying to be mod on the Linux sub. I didn't want to be mod but faced with the prospect of someone taking it over and shitting all over the community thousands of people had used for 2 years, I decided to put a request in. One user at the time had a very valid point being something like "what if you are that guy, and just saying you aren't to get control of the sub?" I knew I wasn't going to abuse my power but he and others had no way of knowing and if that decision was left to the admins then they would have just as little an idea as well.

1
3

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

While I value free speech, if the top post in a sub is a call for the mod to step down, the mod should step down. This would solve a lot of the problems with @HenryCorp.

It's fine if he spams his pseudoscience and articles that he's affiliated with to his insignificant subs with a handful of conspiracy theorists and radicals as subscribers, but controlling the message in a sub as important and ubiquitous as /v/environment shouldn't be tolerated.

0
4

[–] sgx191316 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You can't deny that with a name like Environment or Linux that creating a competing sub against it is going to be a very difficult task given how people naturally search and find things on the web.

Right, that's the problem. You can't easily let users vote out a mod because then groups like SRS would use it to take over legitimate subs they disagree with, but what if there were a less potentially destructive action users could take? How about a slot or two for "Suggested alternative subs" at the top of every sub, which are entirely democratic and outside the control of the mods? So if you ever start turning /v/linux into a linux hate sub, your users could vote in /v/betterLinux or whatever as the alternative. Users who agree with you can stay, and those who don't will see the "official" alternative at the top, along with maybe a short description for why it exists, and be able to move over en masse, greatly undercutting the power of big subs to continue on because smaller subs can't organize and can't advertise their existence on the old sub without getting their comments deleted. It wouldn't matter if SRS or trolls voted in stupid alternatives because no one would switch. You could operate an unpopular sub and not have it usurped, but if you genuinely went against your userbase, they'd have a way to organize an alternative.

0
2

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

I'm struggling to get past the idea that the community owns the sub and it's the mod who wants the change who should move but I really like this idea. It solves a lot of things.

0
1

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

Kinda like how v/abortion or v/prochoice is all anti abortion?

That is the one thing I still have to go to that evil place for sub/community-wise [insert sad face here]. I can't even start my own sub as there is no subname that is actually pro-choice based.

0
0

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

Start posting in pro choice and put a v/subverserequest in a few weeks later. If he posts again now it will be obvious he is just posting to squat the sub and you'll be granted the sub anyway. You need at least two submissions and two comments. Read the sticky post at v/subverserequest.