Except that isn't what he said, now is it?

He's such a free spirited young man (who accidentally outed himself as Peaceseeker on xmad day but I don't think he realised (he forgot to switch accounts when he replied top me haha)

Buddy wanted to make sure that he can be anonymous, and the owner of the website removed him from a very very small position of power.

If that isn't strange, especially on Voat... Jesus.

Mind explaining why, on the internet, a rule like this even needs to be put in place? Aside from actual doxxing or illegal content, why is it that the rule abiding Among Us need to be knee-capped when it comes to looking back at Old conversations that we had?

Screenshots and archives will still exist. Being able to search for those things that were important enough for a user to decide to submit is a pretty valuable thing in a community like this.

Even when it's illegal, you can't delete anything from the internet. And while I'm okay with those things being removed here, I think forcing a full deletion for non illegal things is a bit too much.

If the laws change and the right to be forgotten becomes a thing in the United States, I would agree with that. Until then, this is the law of the land, this is the lay of the land.

I already manually delete submissions from SearchVoat if they have been deleted from Voat and the user asks me to. I am also ready to delete an entire user's submissions if they have been deleted from Voat. I agree that it should be automated.

I have noticed this issue with searchvoat.co also, but didn’t want to broadcast the info.

@SearchVoat see above comments.

You're displaying irrational paranoia... hopefully your day to day life doesn't suffer same.

You're pretty concerned about someone buying the site, but haven't bothered to financially support it...

I get this.

And this is solved simply by deleting.

randomly picked group of mods/janitors from a pool of volunteers, rotation, and just as randomly picked counterpower groups (from the same pool of volunteers)... like jury trial really... if you do randomness right, and if you don't allow carreers, then you don't allow corruption, or at the very least make it very very hard

A voting system for those who actually participate in the sub? This would disallow lurkers and voting bots from participation and allow the community to put a bad mod on the hook.

Sometimes long standing community members aren’t the right people for the job, or they become power drunk, or are just techtards.

When a mod is found out for censoring the content of said subverse and the subverse belongs to the community, there should be a due process for review and removal of such cancerous mod. We should not allow such mod to take down the entire subverse.

Something we could try:

1. Ask a user to make a submission, to CLEARLY present the evidence against a mod, along with archives.
2. Ask users within the community to voice their support backed by archives.
3. Ask OP to update the submission, to reflect new info been discovered.
4. Ask OP to make a new submission, to concisely and efficiently sum up this "investigation" and present the result to someone trustworthy.
5. If the evidence presented is strong enough to indicate that a cancerous mod was found, a temporary mod should be swapped in, until a better candidate can be determined.
6. If Vote feature is ready, set up a site-wide (or said subverse) sticky, where the community can cast votes to select the candidates. There could well be a dedicated subverse for voting. Unfortunately, this may turned into a popularity contest, where being popular does not equate to putting the community first.
7. Make the elected candidate promise the things that he would not abuse.
8. Create a new entry under the "ABOUT" section of the subverse's sidebar, documenting/bonding the words of mod. Optionally record associated links/archives that led to this decision. So if the mod decided to go rogue, community can review the logs and attempt to revoke mod's status, by repeating this same due process.

In regard to step 4, that person should be under review as well. Ideally, it should be someone who you (Putt) trust enough to know that this person can uphold such integrity. Check and balance...

@Cynabuns certainly has brought up and continues to bring up great points in regards to the voat community.

The best solution to the problem right now would be to employ long standing community members to these positions, as these are the people who know Voat the best. Voat is in a critical stage right now of evolution and it's important to have these people effectively run the forums, just for the time being as the evolution takes place. This of course, would be a temporary action to ensure the voat ecosystem survival as voat begins to take more traction within the online community world.

Unfortunately, options are limited and I have put a lot of thought into how to remedy the issue, but of all the options available, employing the "old goats" is the safest security option for now. A successful way of employing this is to create a subverse where people can submit a "resume". Require all accounts applying to be older then 1 year of age, to be non-spamming accounts (i.e users who are not focused on only submitting links), to be active within the voat community and to prove they have moderation experience. Proving moderation experience is easy, especially if they have proof of doing so via evidence of where they moderate. There are countless forums online and I am sure many people from other forums, whether it be a forum related to cars, fitness or whatever. Once again, a temporary solution while voat evolves through this critical period.

Look at what happened to v/theunexplained - one of the larger subverses with over 13,000 subscribers, nuked and virtually inactive caused by a rouge moderator with hundreds of alt accounts. An account that which the voat community has identified as problematic and troublesome, and even documented it all on /v/ProtectVoat.

Lets just use me for this example.

I was a moderator on Reddit years ago for a handful of subreddits including but not limited to r/pizzagate, r/dankmemes, r/uncensorednews, r/dank_memes and others, all of which held over 100,000 excluding r/pizzagate which was unfortunately nunked by the anti-free speech Reddit admins. I have proof of having run these communities with the experience to back them. I was eventually removed from them due to my strong support of free speech and open forums while at the same time not tolerating shills and forum sliding. Things the Reddit community loves.

That's just one example and I am 100% sure there are others like myself on Voat who held similar position on Reddit and other forums as well. The subverse can simply be named v/ModApplications wherein a user, if accepted, can be given a janitorial or moderator role. The users would be "interviewed' by criteria such as their voat history, comment history and link submission history to ensure, as I mentioned before, they are not spammers, CCP farmers or the like.

A easy, temporary solution to protect voat and of course, those who are already effective janitors and mods would stay as they are most certainly needed.