This is one of those things that seems very nice in theory, but fails in practice. On the internet, especially in communities that favor anonymity, you can never know who is the overwhelming majority. So who can vote on this vote-of-no-confidence? How do you make sure it's not brigaded?
I'll give you one simple example:
AskVoat announcements are heavily downvoted, and @she has a negative CCP score. Is this brigading or is this the opinion of the community? Is it a combination of both? Psychological studies show people are more often than not, going to react like the majority if they don't have a strong opinion on a subject.
On the other side of the spectrum, people claim @she has a lot of alts that upvote her and the other mods. How do we know this is true? How do we know these aren't organic upvotes? Is it that far out there to assume people agree with her? Or is it really brigades? A combination of both?
Someone suggested a very cool idea - Seniority. The user suggested that old and active members of the community, should get more "rights". Such as vote weight, have more say in the matter etc etc. This in my opinion is the best solution, but it's not without criticism as well. This kind of experimental system could really hurt new members, as their voices won't be as equally heard.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I really hope they don't do a seniority thing. I've been on sites that did that and it always turned into this ridiculous dock measuring contest of who had been around the longest and scared away new members.
I'm here because everyone on reddit fucking cries about everything. It's a hurt feelings brigade every time someone says fatty or faggot. Words don't hurt me and I have no desire to interact with people so weak.
This makes sense. Whether we dislike /u/she or don't give a damn about her (which is probably the way the majority of voat feels), we can agree that there's a group of people who campaign actively against her. Currently, there's no way to deal with either "bad" mods or "bad" users, except the downvoting game, which both can play, but everyone else lose.
Seniority could be an interesting proposition, but hardly a way to overcome these obstacles. At best it would temporarily works, until the wrong people have seniority, and everything needs to be done all over again. I would prefer an approach based on communities instead. Like multireddits on that other site, if you will, but incorporated so a community can share a dynamic list of subs, curated by mods. One of there communities would be the voat's default frontpage, which would be curated by voat staff and reflect voat's vision of what they want the world to see of voat.
Yes, I completely agree with you. As a frequent user of that sub, and now a mod, I really hate seeing this internal drama. Hopefully, given enough time, enough people will stop giving a fuck and we can return to it being a normal question-oriented sub.
As I said, there are problems with the seniority. Some I thought of, some were pointed out to me later. It was just the best idea in my opinion, of the ones I heard. Yours has it's flaws too. What if (and I'm not saying it will, but hypothetically) the admins have a change of heart and go down the Reddit path? Having full control over what you see and don't see. That's a pretty flawed system, because it's something that should be up to the users, not the admins. Users are, well, the users. They use the site, and should decide what is good content and what is bad content.
It is a matter of values. I value the idea that the property of a (virtual) space gives the owner the right to decide what his space will house. Therefore, I would think that reddit's choice to stop supporting freedom of speech is, even though I dislike it, a valid choice. They are in their own right. So I quit, because even if they can house whatever they like, I don't have to stay there and be supportive of their choices. I think the same goes with voat. And frankly, if I was the owner of a platform like reddit or voat, I wouldn't like people to tell me that I don't have a say in the content of my virtual space.
Of course, if the owner of a virtual space value the concept of the users being in total control of his space, he's in his right, too. In this, we would have to know Atko's position in this dilemma before we can know which way we should throw our ideas.
That's actually a very fair argument. I don't think I have anything to say to that. You made some very valid points. I'll reconsider my position on curation of content.
This conversation was already rewarding, but now I admit that I'm impressed by your good will. It's like we're both reasonable adults. Anyway, take care, see you around and wish you all the luck!
Yes. I'm sometimes impressed by how much spite there is in those people. Also, they managed to make /u/she some kind of scarecrow. About nobody really know who she is. If she switched name and said nothing about it nobody would recognize her based on her speech pattern, only maybe on her mod position.
Yet, now that she's always in some bullshit poll on the front page, everybody assume that she must be somehow despicable. Which she might, or not. Most people have no idea. And this, the creation of this assumption, is what that cabal was able to build so far. This and the growing number of people wanting them to shut up already.
view the rest of the comments →
Calorie-Kin ago
This is one of those things that seems very nice in theory, but fails in practice. On the internet, especially in communities that favor anonymity, you can never know who is the overwhelming majority. So who can vote on this vote-of-no-confidence? How do you make sure it's not brigaded?
I'll give you one simple example:
AskVoat announcements are heavily downvoted, and @she has a negative CCP score. Is this brigading or is this the opinion of the community? Is it a combination of both? Psychological studies show people are more often than not, going to react like the majority if they don't have a strong opinion on a subject.
On the other side of the spectrum, people claim @she has a lot of alts that upvote her and the other mods. How do we know this is true? How do we know these aren't organic upvotes? Is it that far out there to assume people agree with her? Or is it really brigades? A combination of both?
Someone suggested a very cool idea - Seniority. The user suggested that old and active members of the community, should get more "rights". Such as vote weight, have more say in the matter etc etc. This in my opinion is the best solution, but it's not without criticism as well. This kind of experimental system could really hurt new members, as their voices won't be as equally heard.
Sith-Jin ago
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I really hope they don't do a seniority thing. I've been on sites that did that and it always turned into this ridiculous dock measuring contest of who had been around the longest and scared away new members.
Slippy_McSlipperton ago
I like this idea of senority. I would like to see this investigated - even in a sandbox.
TheBoldakSaints ago
I'm here because everyone on reddit fucking cries about everything. It's a hurt feelings brigade every time someone says fatty or faggot. Words don't hurt me and I have no desire to interact with people so weak.
laancelot ago
This makes sense. Whether we dislike /u/she or don't give a damn about her (which is probably the way the majority of voat feels), we can agree that there's a group of people who campaign actively against her. Currently, there's no way to deal with either "bad" mods or "bad" users, except the downvoting game, which both can play, but everyone else lose.
Seniority could be an interesting proposition, but hardly a way to overcome these obstacles. At best it would temporarily works, until the wrong people have seniority, and everything needs to be done all over again. I would prefer an approach based on communities instead. Like multireddits on that other site, if you will, but incorporated so a community can share a dynamic list of subs, curated by mods. One of there communities would be the voat's default frontpage, which would be curated by voat staff and reflect voat's vision of what they want the world to see of voat.
Calorie-Kin ago
Yes, I completely agree with you. As a frequent user of that sub, and now a mod, I really hate seeing this internal drama. Hopefully, given enough time, enough people will stop giving a fuck and we can return to it being a normal question-oriented sub.
As I said, there are problems with the seniority. Some I thought of, some were pointed out to me later. It was just the best idea in my opinion, of the ones I heard. Yours has it's flaws too. What if (and I'm not saying it will, but hypothetically) the admins have a change of heart and go down the Reddit path? Having full control over what you see and don't see. That's a pretty flawed system, because it's something that should be up to the users, not the admins. Users are, well, the users. They use the site, and should decide what is good content and what is bad content.
laancelot ago
It is a matter of values. I value the idea that the property of a (virtual) space gives the owner the right to decide what his space will house. Therefore, I would think that reddit's choice to stop supporting freedom of speech is, even though I dislike it, a valid choice. They are in their own right. So I quit, because even if they can house whatever they like, I don't have to stay there and be supportive of their choices. I think the same goes with voat. And frankly, if I was the owner of a platform like reddit or voat, I wouldn't like people to tell me that I don't have a say in the content of my virtual space.
Of course, if the owner of a virtual space value the concept of the users being in total control of his space, he's in his right, too. In this, we would have to know Atko's position in this dilemma before we can know which way we should throw our ideas.
Calorie-Kin ago
That's actually a very fair argument. I don't think I have anything to say to that. You made some very valid points. I'll reconsider my position on curation of content.
laancelot ago
This conversation was already rewarding, but now I admit that I'm impressed by your good will. It's like we're both reasonable adults. Anyway, take care, see you around and wish you all the luck!
Calorie-Kin ago
And yet regardless of the topic, my reply got brigaded because I'm a mod
laancelot ago
Yes. I'm sometimes impressed by how much spite there is in those people. Also, they managed to make /u/she some kind of scarecrow. About nobody really know who she is. If she switched name and said nothing about it nobody would recognize her based on her speech pattern, only maybe on her mod position.
Yet, now that she's always in some bullshit poll on the front page, everybody assume that she must be somehow despicable. Which she might, or not. Most people have no idea. And this, the creation of this assumption, is what that cabal was able to build so far. This and the growing number of people wanting them to shut up already.
Kal ago
You are talking about Digg 2.0. I have an idea. You and all your powermod friends go back to reddit.
Calorie-Kin ago
Just gave my opinion on some user's suggestion, sue me.