The stricter moderation is in response to the community getting frustrated with the content. I have openly asked for feedback both on the new rules, as well as the deletions I've made.
I honestly believe shills are flooding the subverse with spam and looking to illegitimise the subverse, or get us called out for censorship. We're between a rock and a hard place but after seeing how leaving the sub to its own devices led to a frustrated user base, we're experimenting with being a bit more defined in our modding and rules.
As always, welcome feedback and thoughts on this.
Also in response to your actual thread, we removed all the 'OMG ANTISEMITISM' concern trolls. I'm happy for people to talk about any connections they find relating to jews etc and not going to censor on those grounds. But I'm not interested in the sub just devolving into a conversation between pro-free speech and 'muh antisemitism' posters.
Pizzagate should be considered a default equivalent.
First, it comes directly from a well-known popular subReddit.
Second, it is an across-the-board term to describe the topic.
Arguments that posts are "off topic" do not cut it in any other default equivalent. Pizzagate is asking for special treatment.
REDDIT banned the community. This means that the entire topic would be shut down if the main supporters of Pizzagate try to return there with a new subReddit. But here at Voat, the topic is not banned, and probably never will be.
The best answer to a situation like this, rather than block anyone who might have a different view, is to create another subverse where the "serious" team can maintain a tightly regulated space. You could even put the more serious curated subverse in the sidebar of the original Pizzagate for exposure.
That's fair. :)
What else is fair? The same thing applies to many of the subverses where HenryCorp moderates.
Why is this submission already marked "not abuse" @Kevdude?
view the rest of the comments →
kingkongwaswrong ago
Please review my sticky (https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1438391)) which I posted pre-deletions, as well as the deletions & reasons.
The stricter moderation is in response to the community getting frustrated with the content. I have openly asked for feedback both on the new rules, as well as the deletions I've made.
I honestly believe shills are flooding the subverse with spam and looking to illegitimise the subverse, or get us called out for censorship. We're between a rock and a hard place but after seeing how leaving the sub to its own devices led to a frustrated user base, we're experimenting with being a bit more defined in our modding and rules.
As always, welcome feedback and thoughts on this.
Also in response to your actual thread, we removed all the 'OMG ANTISEMITISM' concern trolls. I'm happy for people to talk about any connections they find relating to jews etc and not going to censor on those grounds. But I'm not interested in the sub just devolving into a conversation between pro-free speech and 'muh antisemitism' posters.
flyawayhigh ago
Pizzagate should be considered a default equivalent.
First, it comes directly from a well-known popular subReddit.
Second, it is an across-the-board term to describe the topic.
Arguments that posts are "off topic" do not cut it in any other default equivalent. Pizzagate is asking for special treatment.
REDDIT banned the community. This means that the entire topic would be shut down if the main supporters of Pizzagate try to return there with a new subReddit. But here at Voat, the topic is not banned, and probably never will be.
The best answer to a situation like this, rather than block anyone who might have a different view, is to create another subverse where the "serious" team can maintain a tightly regulated space. You could even put the more serious curated subverse in the sidebar of the original Pizzagate for exposure.
That's fair. :)
What else is fair? The same thing applies to many of the subverses where HenryCorp moderates.
Why is this submission already marked "not abuse" @Kevdude?