Hi again, folks! Your friendly neighborhood Mumberthrax here with a quick report on happenings and goings-on about our subverse to keep you au courant. (I learned that term today when trying to make this post!)
But first, thanks to everyone for your words of support in the previous mod-post. I'm very happy that you guys approve of the direction we're moving toward. Also, welcome all newcomers! Voat has seen a massive increase in traffic over the past week, so I hope that you find our little subverse to your liking. : )
So here's a rundown on some recent meta-/v/conspiracy stuff
Mentioned in the previous mod-post:
Near future
This is my current informal near-future to-do list, sorted in no particular order:
- Get the moderation policy approved by the mods, confirmed by the community, and adopted officially.
- Get rules and sidebar updates approved by the mods, confirmed by community, and adopted officially.
- Have a community discussion about how mods should be selected, and formalize policy on this.
- Have a community discussion about bigotry/racism and conspiracy theories to figure out where we all stand.
- Solicit ideas for topics to discuss on weekly sticky'd discussion posts.
- Begin having weekly sticky'd discussions about topics the community chooses.
- Establish a good method for mod-team communication - maybe /v/conspiracymeta, IRC, Slack.com, etc.
- Continue exploring ideas and suggestions from the brainstorming posts and other community discussions and prioritize them.
- Round up recent meta-posts on /v/conspiracy and cross-post links on /v/conspiracymeta for historical purposes.
Oh is that all?
Whew. That's it for now! Thanks again for hanging around, you crazy kooky conspiracy kids! And as always, if you have any suggestions or complaints, let us know! Or compliments, those are nice too. :3
view the rest of the comments →
joseph177 ago
So rule 2 effectively neuters the sub from discussion religion, zionism or any type of historical revisionism.
At least on reddit/r/conspiracy, we are free to discuss this.
Mumberthrax ago
Would you be willing to elaborate on that? That hasn't ever happened with the current rule so far as I'm aware, and it certainly wasn't something that seemed liable to happen to me when I put together the proposed update.
For reference, the current rule is:
and the proposed updated version is:
For additional reference, the definition of bigotry I find most useful is:
Bigot being defined as:
Similarly hate speech is:
Based on this, I think it would be well within the realm of decency and within the bounds of the rule to discuss religion, Zionism, historical revisionism, etc. Discussion on these topics themselves is not forbidden by an anti-bigotry rule.
joseph177 ago
Hate Speech is a political term which is used to silence truth, since some truth is considered hate speech:
Simple Canadian example: http://i.imgur.com/aL4BiWc.jpg
Can't find the video, but I saw some bobble heads yapping and coming to the same conclusion.
Mumberthrax ago
That may be, I'm not really sure that I'm up to date on all the instances in which the term "hate speech" has been invoked. Would you care to propose any alternative terms which convey the same meaning to the common person?
How would you phrase the rule such that racist/sexist/etc. comments and submissions are understood to be not desired in our community?
nokilli ago
Simply adhere to the definition of what a conspiracy is. If the speech concerns itself with identifying a conspiracy for the purpose of exposing it and preventing and/or undoing the damage it intends, then it should be, must be, fair game.