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.
view the rest of the comments →
MrPim ago
I would say that they are here. But a take over? they've got their work cut out for them
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.