Explain to me how someone who requests to be a mod, gets 70+ downvoats and then gets made a mod? I'm seriously out of here if they don't listen to their community here.
The request is still pending, and while the community has mostly been negative, the admins have been silent and /u/moe seems intent on handing over the reins.
Exactly. People have opinions. It's like evangelicals/religious fundies. They don't see themselves as "Social Justice Warriors" and to be honest, what's the big deal. They have opinions. Do you you. If you don't like what they say, post your own opinion and hopefully it will get upvoted; or someone may counter you and make a valid point and your opinion could change.
This isn't a specific social network thing. This is just basic human political communication and debate.
This is not about someone's free speech. It's about someone having power to censor others based on attitudes in direct opposition to the intentions of Voat itself.
P.S. Some of them do indeed see themselves as Social Justice Warriors, and can sometimes be seen confused at why it's used derogatorily by others.
I'd say the issue is that they already mod close to 10 subs. All very different and all popular. Apple, Askvoat, anime, tv, and subverse requests among them. I don't think people should be able to mod more than 3 subs at a time. "Power modding" is one of the things that ruined reddit. Granted that was in conjunction with having default pages but it's still disconcerting. For the record even the mod that stole /punchablefaces is on voat. If they bothered to change their username you wouldn't have any idea.
Well, it's a good thing we have a public modlog. I don't care what they're opinions are, let's see what they do. If they start censoring and deleting things at their personal discretion, then yeah, we have a problem. We can't let ourselves devolve into McCarthyism. Without evidence of abuse, I don't see an issue. End of story.
Having opinions and voicing them is not the problem; it's their history of doing everything in their power (literally) to squash other's opinions that worries me. By all means, let them spew their bigotry and let the community tell them what they think of it. But do not let them control the discourse, because we all know how that turns out.
As should be obvious by reading the linked thread, it is already happening. Known militant SJWs are moderating /v/askvoat and /v/subverserequest - apparently with the admins' approval.
I had watched the whole She kerfuffle in real time. So her/he? I knew about. Hadn't paid much attention to Moe. Well, exercise that downvoat button til you hit those magical negative numbers and make their account useless. Unless those rules get neutered, we the users do have some power to wield. And no-I have no problem using that against people I view as a danger here.
Anything into the negatives begins to restrict your account. When you hit -50 you are pretty well screwed. The complete list of rules is here
I will say if this gets to be abused it could get changed pretty easy. So I would personally only use this in extremes. And lastly, no I don't view this as censorship. It's a community policing itself and ejecting those they find objectionable.
I'd say that will get abused easily by both sides. Downvote brigades from SRS could wreak havoc in no time.
Also, I'd say that's censorship, absolutely. A community policing itself and ejecting those they find objectionable is basically what's been going on at Reddit to cause this mess. The point is that they are kicking out opinions they don't like. In terms of users, downvoat and move on. In terms of mods, there needs to be some kind of voat of confidence in place. When you find mods subverse squatting or otherwise performing hostile takeovers, the users need to be able to say "Nope, fuck you - get out".
Instead, we here at Voat have exactly the same issues as Reddit does. Exactly. We have a small SRS style community already here and spreading. It will be WAY worse as soon as Voat opens registrations again. It would take little for people to abandon Voat at this point. Its claim to fame is the promise that it won't become Reddit. Right now, there seems to be little reason to assume that as far as I can see.
A: A community policing itself and ejecting those they find objectionable
B: In terms of mods, there needs to be some kind of voat of confidence in place. When you find mods subverse squatting or otherwise performing hostile takeovers, the users need to be able to say "Nope, fuck you - get out".
Explain to me the difference. And IMO what's going on at Reddit is a lot different than what I'm talking about. What is going on there is an organized and covert action between Admins and a specific favored group. What I am talking about is a majority of the community organically downvoating someone right out the door.
And I'd agree that we should have a way to oust Mods from subs, but we don't have that tool do we. As a user I have one tool at my disposal. No-one seems to care when Amalek is downvoted into the negs for something as annoying yet (in the long run) harmless spamming.
One is about open participation of users in a defined and sub and the other is about moderators operating under false pretenses and then fundamentally changing the subject and rules of a sub no matter how many people are members.
Punchable Faces had 70,000 subscribers wiped out because of some mod bullshit. A person voicing an unpopular opinion to 70,000 can be drowned out effectively by using the voting buttons but without actually removing their posts or anything like that. It allows users to have their say but gives other users the right to downvote if they disagree, etc. Free Speech with criticism is still free speech. Free Speech with censorship (actually removing posts and content) is not free speech.
I think maybe you misunderstood my question. I wanted to know the difference between A and B from the top of my last post. How is
A community policing itself and ejecting those they find objectionable
different from
some kind of voat of confidence in place. When you find mods subverse squatting or otherwise performing hostile takeovers, the users need to be able to say "Nope, fuck you - get out".
Those amount to the same thing
Where did I suggest posts be removed? I suggested using that downvoat button if there is someone you think is a danger to this community. Those posts will still be there, unless that user deletes them themselves.
One is about open participation of users in a defined and sub and the other is about moderators operating under false pretenses and then fundamentally changing the subject and rules of a sub no matter how many people are members.
Censorship is having the posts removed/deleted and the user banned. This is standard operating procedure in the cancerous subs on Reddit. However, downvoting to the bottom is fine with me. It allows a person to speak but also allows other users to show disapproval appropriately. To me, there's a big difference between downvoting "wrong" opinions and having them auto-removed because they used a bad word or phrase that people don't like.
Because as they said in their post, it gives them certain legal protections from prosecution with regards to what people can say on voat, aka they can't be sued due to First Amendment rights etc.
As far as I know, that hasn't happened yet... But who knows, I would think /u/atko would see this coming a mile away, given the history of Reddit. Yet he seems to be OK with it.
Take a look at the post/comment history of /u/she and /u/moe
With control of /v/askvoat (huge default sub) and /v/subverserequest (carte-blanche to hand over any sub to their cronies) it looks like we're in for the reddit-treatment.
Let's not start a witch hunt. Unless there's evidence of abuse, we can't just start publicly persecuting people based off their opinions and that goes against everything Voat stood for, which was freedom of expression.
Please, let's chill it with the McCarthyism. SJWs aren't boogeymen.
This isn't anti censorship though, this is anti-sjw. Unless we have evidence of abuse, this has nothing to do with censorship. All it is is someone voicing an unpopular opinion and getting punished for it.
And? They're free to talk here if they wish, but if they (or you) expect to not be met with hostility after what has occurred on the other site, you're living in a dream world.
All it is is someone voicing an unpopular opinion and getting punished for it.
Free speech gives you the right to say it without it being removed by moderators, it doesn't mean everyone upvoats it the heavens. If you find yourself on an unpopular side of things, come to terms with the consequences, or win the argument.
You're absolutely right, you're allowed to say whatever you want but you cant claim to be anti censorship if youre asking for the exodua of someone solely based on their opinion wothout evidence of abuse.
if youre asking for the exodua of someone solely based on their opinion wothout evidence of abuse.
And I haven't asked for that, but neither should those who have shown an extensive history of malicious intent expect to be received with open arms in a community that is founded on the antithesis of their beliefs. And you can absolutely be anti-censorship so long as the comments of those people are not taken down by the powers the be. Free speech != safe space
Malicious intent? That sounds a lot like a thought crime.
Only if declining to give your wallet to a dude with an extensive record of theft is also a thought crime. The concrete evidence of abuse is the path of reddit over the last 6 months. If they happen to share the views of those on reddit, then I recommend that is where they go. Unless, of course, there is a reason to stay here.
This why we have public modlogs. Do you really think the community would stand for that if they saw blatant censorship? If we have no evidence of abuse then its literally a witch hunt. If you only stand for free speech when it's convenient for you then you don't stand for free speech. It's an all or nothing deal.
Also, that's a terrible analogy. We're not talking about one person here. we don't know this person's history.
And you won't find and instance where I didn't stand for free speech. In fact, I've said repeatedly in this thread that they're free to post. They aren't free from the consequences handed out by the community of the site.
And we have the history of both of the users in question at the top of this post. We have their entire post history, and if people go though that and come to the conclusion that they are SJWs, then, the concerns of this there are absolutely merited.
Because they haven't had a chance to work their way into that position yet. Not that it hasn't been tried. One of the users in question has shown to be a fan of political correctness and a skewed definition of racism--both of which are hallmarks of SJW ideology. And that is the point of the thread.
What position? Super mod? Look at how many threads this whole scandal as spawned. The anti-sjw sentiment is strong and this includes me. As soon as they start deleting things they don't find kosher, we'll know about it thanks to the holy modlog.
This place was about tolerating opposing view points and protecting free expression. Unless we have evidence of their ideology infringing on that, then their ideology should be irrelevant to whether or not they're a bad mod, mod abuse should be the only indicator of that. Anything more is premature and foolhardy. We're a small enough site already, we don't need to cannibalize ourselves.
It's a brilliant place with lots users who are already paranoid. If you want momentum, that's the place to be. And don't knock them, /r/conspiracy were the first people to make their trek from reddit when they were deleting things of /r/worldnews and /r/technology which later led to the creation of /r/undelete. They were the first responders and I should know, I was there and I still remember when this place was whoaverse.
Although they mod /v/subverserequest they cannot change control of subs. Only the admins can do that, although it is still worrying that they're on 2 major subs, and can delete any requests they don't like.
I pity Atko since he is torn between trying to keep Voat from turning into the festering shithole reddit has become and the inevitable SJW shitstorm if he starts banning them.
Sorahzahd ago
Too late, they already gave /v/GMOMyths to @JF_Queeny (well known Monsanto shill).
repoman ago
Yeah - ban them from moderating is what I meant.
sneakybells ago
McCarthyism at it's finest.
Alexwo1 ago
NO, I'm with you.
eldorann ago
Who cares what is posted here? Voat allows free speech and no amount of slandering anything will reduce the page views.
ChairmanCongFuckPao ago
Fuck those pieces of shit
MCVoat ago
Explain to me how someone who requests to be a mod, gets 70+ downvoats and then gets made a mod? I'm seriously out of here if they don't listen to their community here.
dragonpenis ago
It's gonna happen soon or later unless we have strong anti-sjw admins in place.
funroll-loops ago
The comments from users in the thread are mostly critical of handing the sub over to she.
gatordontplaythatsht ago
They're here I've been keeping the best tabs I can but please come help me guys:
/v/reportsrs
let_them_eat_slogans ago
Like half of /v/all is /v/FatPeopleHate, /v/Niggers, and /v/MensRights. So if they want to take it over they have a long way to go.
nofatchix ago
FPH: COME AND TAKE IT. (///////////| *
funroll-loops ago
The request is still pending, and while the community has mostly been negative, the admins have been silent and /u/moe seems intent on handing over the reins.
smokratez ago
They started months ago.
MrPim ago
I would say that they are here. But a take over? they've got their work cut out for them
djsumdog ago
Exactly. People have opinions. It's like evangelicals/religious fundies. They don't see themselves as "Social Justice Warriors" and to be honest, what's the big deal. They have opinions. Do you you. If you don't like what they say, post your own opinion and hopefully it will get upvoted; or someone may counter you and make a valid point and your opinion could change.
This isn't a specific social network thing. This is just basic human political communication and debate.
Dereliction ago
This is not about someone's free speech. It's about someone having power to censor others based on attitudes in direct opposition to the intentions of Voat itself.
P.S. Some of them do indeed see themselves as Social Justice Warriors, and can sometimes be seen confused at why it's used derogatorily by others.
m4tthew ago
I'd say the issue is that they already mod close to 10 subs. All very different and all popular. Apple, Askvoat, anime, tv, and subverse requests among them. I don't think people should be able to mod more than 3 subs at a time. "Power modding" is one of the things that ruined reddit. Granted that was in conjunction with having default pages but it's still disconcerting. For the record even the mod that stole /punchablefaces is on voat. If they bothered to change their username you wouldn't have any idea.
sneakybells ago
Well, it's a good thing we have a public modlog. I don't care what they're opinions are, let's see what they do. If they start censoring and deleting things at their personal discretion, then yeah, we have a problem. We can't let ourselves devolve into McCarthyism. Without evidence of abuse, I don't see an issue. End of story.
anonagent ago
No one is trying to ban SJWs from the site, or from commenting, they have rights just as we do.
What they're trying to block is an SJW from getting power over an important part of the site, that's how the SJW cancer spreads.
funroll-loops ago
Having opinions and voicing them is not the problem; it's their history of doing everything in their power (literally) to squash other's opinions that worries me. By all means, let them spew their bigotry and let the community tell them what they think of it. But do not let them control the discourse, because we all know how that turns out.
funroll-loops ago
As should be obvious by reading the linked thread, it is already happening. Known militant SJWs are moderating /v/askvoat and /v/subverserequest - apparently with the admins' approval.
MrPim ago
I had watched the whole She kerfuffle in real time. So her/he? I knew about. Hadn't paid much attention to Moe. Well, exercise that downvoat button til you hit those magical negative numbers and make their account useless. Unless those rules get neutered, we the users do have some power to wield. And no-I have no problem using that against people I view as a danger here.
Upvoats_McGoats ago
What's the magic number?
MrPim ago
Anything into the negatives begins to restrict your account. When you hit -50 you are pretty well screwed. The complete list of rules is here
I will say if this gets to be abused it could get changed pretty easy. So I would personally only use this in extremes. And lastly, no I don't view this as censorship. It's a community policing itself and ejecting those they find objectionable.
anonagent ago
Is that -50 on your entire history, or a specific comment?
MrPim ago
That is the total of your CCP. So (just as an example) you stand at 254 CCP, you'd need 300 downvoats to put you there.
anonagent ago
thanks.
Upvoats_McGoats ago
I'd say that will get abused easily by both sides. Downvote brigades from SRS could wreak havoc in no time.
Also, I'd say that's censorship, absolutely. A community policing itself and ejecting those they find objectionable is basically what's been going on at Reddit to cause this mess. The point is that they are kicking out opinions they don't like. In terms of users, downvoat and move on. In terms of mods, there needs to be some kind of voat of confidence in place. When you find mods subverse squatting or otherwise performing hostile takeovers, the users need to be able to say "Nope, fuck you - get out".
Instead, we here at Voat have exactly the same issues as Reddit does. Exactly. We have a small SRS style community already here and spreading. It will be WAY worse as soon as Voat opens registrations again. It would take little for people to abandon Voat at this point. Its claim to fame is the promise that it won't become Reddit. Right now, there seems to be little reason to assume that as far as I can see.
MrPim ago
A: A community policing itself and ejecting those they find objectionable
B: In terms of mods, there needs to be some kind of voat of confidence in place. When you find mods subverse squatting or otherwise performing hostile takeovers, the users need to be able to say "Nope, fuck you - get out".
Explain to me the difference. And IMO what's going on at Reddit is a lot different than what I'm talking about. What is going on there is an organized and covert action between Admins and a specific favored group. What I am talking about is a majority of the community organically downvoating someone right out the door.
And I'd agree that we should have a way to oust Mods from subs, but we don't have that tool do we. As a user I have one tool at my disposal. No-one seems to care when Amalek is downvoted into the negs for something as annoying yet (in the long run) harmless spamming.
Upvoats_McGoats ago
One is about open participation of users in a defined and sub and the other is about moderators operating under false pretenses and then fundamentally changing the subject and rules of a sub no matter how many people are members.
Punchable Faces had 70,000 subscribers wiped out because of some mod bullshit. A person voicing an unpopular opinion to 70,000 can be drowned out effectively by using the voting buttons but without actually removing their posts or anything like that. It allows users to have their say but gives other users the right to downvote if they disagree, etc. Free Speech with criticism is still free speech. Free Speech with censorship (actually removing posts and content) is not free speech.
MrPim ago
I think maybe you misunderstood my question. I wanted to know the difference between A and B from the top of my last post. How is
different from
Those amount to the same thing
Where did I suggest posts be removed? I suggested using that downvoat button if there is someone you think is a danger to this community. Those posts will still be there, unless that user deletes them themselves.
Upvoats_McGoats ago
I addressed your first part:
Censorship is having the posts removed/deleted and the user banned. This is standard operating procedure in the cancerous subs on Reddit. However, downvoting to the bottom is fine with me. It allows a person to speak but also allows other users to show disapproval appropriately. To me, there's a big difference between downvoting "wrong" opinions and having them auto-removed because they used a bad word or phrase that people don't like.
MrPim ago
I suggested downvoating. I never once said a thing about removing posts.
DismemberEm ago
It was bound to happen as soon as voat was monetized
voatforgoat ago
Monetised? How? They're asking for donations to support the servers, they haven't sold out.
DismemberEm ago
Give it time. Why form a US incorporated company unless you're going to look for investors
voatforgoat ago
Because as they said in their post, it gives them certain legal protections from prosecution with regards to what people can say on voat, aka they can't be sued due to First Amendment rights etc.
funroll-loops ago
As far as I know, that hasn't happened yet... But who knows, I would think /u/atko would see this coming a mile away, given the history of Reddit. Yet he seems to be OK with it.
AreWeHuman ago
Yep. All the popular oppinions on reddit have started to appear here as well. Felt like it started changing some weeks ago.
qzxq ago
can't imagine why
Alexwo1 ago
I just got here and I'm with you guys against the SJW's. IT's already much better than Reddit.
I just saw this documentary and it's a little nuts about media suppression. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwsRm3-qCSE
PrivateJoker ago
It's obvious they have an offsite place (irc?) to plot takeovers. I say we just delete them when they pop up
funroll-loops ago
Take a look at the post/comment history of /u/she and /u/moe
With control of /v/askvoat (huge default sub) and /v/subverserequest (carte-blanche to hand over any sub to their cronies) it looks like we're in for the reddit-treatment.
Sorahzahd ago
That settles it. I'm out, don't want to be anywhere that these bottom feeders hang out at.
sneakybells ago
Let's not start a witch hunt. Unless there's evidence of abuse, we can't just start publicly persecuting people based off their opinions and that goes against everything Voat stood for, which was freedom of expression.
Please, let's chill it with the McCarthyism. SJWs aren't boogeymen.
CrowTRobot ago
That pretty rich since the tactics of SJWs come far closer to McCarthyism than those of people of the anti-censorship crowd.
sneakybells ago
This isn't anti censorship though, this is anti-sjw. Unless we have evidence of abuse, this has nothing to do with censorship. All it is is someone voicing an unpopular opinion and getting punished for it.
CrowTRobot ago
And? They're free to talk here if they wish, but if they (or you) expect to not be met with hostility after what has occurred on the other site, you're living in a dream world.
Free speech gives you the right to say it without it being removed by moderators, it doesn't mean everyone upvoats it the heavens. If you find yourself on an unpopular side of things, come to terms with the consequences, or win the argument.
sneakybells ago
You're absolutely right, you're allowed to say whatever you want but you cant claim to be anti censorship if youre asking for the exodua of someone solely based on their opinion wothout evidence of abuse.
CrowTRobot ago
And I haven't asked for that, but neither should those who have shown an extensive history of malicious intent expect to be received with open arms in a community that is founded on the antithesis of their beliefs. And you can absolutely be anti-censorship so long as the comments of those people are not taken down by the powers the be. Free speech != safe space
sneakybells ago
Malicious intent? That sounds a lot like a thought crime. Unless there's concrete evidence of abuse, there's nothing to see here.
CrowTRobot ago
Only if declining to give your wallet to a dude with an extensive record of theft is also a thought crime. The concrete evidence of abuse is the path of reddit over the last 6 months. If they happen to share the views of those on reddit, then I recommend that is where they go. Unless, of course, there is a reason to stay here.
sneakybells ago
This why we have public modlogs. Do you really think the community would stand for that if they saw blatant censorship? If we have no evidence of abuse then its literally a witch hunt. If you only stand for free speech when it's convenient for you then you don't stand for free speech. It's an all or nothing deal.
Also, that's a terrible analogy. We're not talking about one person here. we don't know this person's history.
CrowTRobot ago
And you won't find and instance where I didn't stand for free speech. In fact, I've said repeatedly in this thread that they're free to post. They aren't free from the consequences handed out by the community of the site.
And we have the history of both of the users in question at the top of this post. We have their entire post history, and if people go though that and come to the conclusion that they are SJWs, then, the concerns of this there are absolutely merited.
sneakybells ago
If they're sjws why dont we have any evidence of mod abuse?
CrowTRobot ago
Because they haven't had a chance to work their way into that position yet. Not that it hasn't been tried. One of the users in question has shown to be a fan of political correctness and a skewed definition of racism--both of which are hallmarks of SJW ideology. And that is the point of the thread.
sneakybells ago
What position? Super mod? Look at how many threads this whole scandal as spawned. The anti-sjw sentiment is strong and this includes me. As soon as they start deleting things they don't find kosher, we'll know about it thanks to the holy modlog.
This place was about tolerating opposing view points and protecting free expression. Unless we have evidence of their ideology infringing on that, then their ideology should be irrelevant to whether or not they're a bad mod, mod abuse should be the only indicator of that. Anything more is premature and foolhardy. We're a small enough site already, we don't need to cannibalize ourselves.
CrowTRobot ago
https://voat.co/v/AskVoat/comments/401467
That didn't take long.
sneakybells ago
There wasn't really a question there though. Do you think this is soapboxing? ie using /v/askvoat as a place to broadcast their ideas
CrowTRobot ago
A meta discussion about the moderation of a sub does not have to be in the form of a question, regardless of the title of the sub.
And if that's soapboxing, then we might as well leave voat now, because that's what every attempt at mod criticism will be classified as.
Also this: https://voat.co/v/AskVoat/comments/401746/1733058
sneakybells ago
If you want to complain about a mod or mod abuse, I don't think /v/askvoat is the place to do it. Go to /v/conspiracy, we love that shit.
CrowTRobot ago
Yep. That's a brilliant place to discuss people blatantly abusing their powers. You want to start ignoring the obvious, that's on you. I won't.
sneakybells ago
It's a brilliant place with lots users who are already paranoid. If you want momentum, that's the place to be. And don't knock them, /r/conspiracy were the first people to make their trek from reddit when they were deleting things of /r/worldnews and /r/technology which later led to the creation of /r/undelete. They were the first responders and I should know, I was there and I still remember when this place was whoaverse.
TheRedditExodus ago
Although they mod /v/subverserequest they cannot change control of subs. Only the admins can do that, although it is still worrying that they're on 2 major subs, and can delete any requests they don't like.
moe ago
I don't recall deleting a single request on /v/subverserequest (not even duplicates): [modlog]
smokratez ago
You can't even downvoat she on ask voat.
smokratez ago
/u/Atko. Paiging you buddy. We need some answers.
repoman ago
I pity Atko since he is torn between trying to keep Voat from turning into the festering shithole reddit has become and the inevitable SJW shitstorm if he starts banning them.
I guess we'll find out soon enough.
DreamsAndSchemes ago
/u/puttitout was the one reviewing the request, they might be more appropriate to talk to.
smokratez ago
Either one who wants to talk about letting sjws take over their site, would be lovely.
k0s ago
Well fuck.