@MadWorld suggestion for mods whom made an oopsie doopsie
When a mod is found out for censoring the content of said subverse and the subverse belongs to the community, there should be a due process for review and removal of such cancerous mod. We should not allow such mod to take down the entire subverse.
Something we could try:
Ask a user to make a submission, to CLEARLY present the evidence against a mod, along with archives.
Ask users within the community to voice their support backed by archives.
2.Ask OP to update the submission, to reflect new info been discovered.
3.Ask OP to make a new submission, to concisely and efficiently sum up this "investigation" and present the result to someone trustworthy.
4.If the evidence presented is strong enough to indicate that a cancerous mod was found, a temporary mod should be swapped in, until a better candidate can be determined.
5.If Vote feature is ready, set up a site-wide (or said subverse) sticky, where the community can cast votes to select the candidates. There could well be a dedicated subverse for voting. Unfortunately, this may turned into a popularity contest, where being popular does not equate to putting the community first.
6.Make the elected candidate promise the things that he would not abuse.
Create a new entry under the "ABOUT" section of the subverse's sidebar, documenting/bonding the words of mod. Optionally record associated links/archives that led to this decision. So if the mod decided to go rogue, community can review the logs and attempt to revoke mod's status, by repeating this same due process.
In regard to step 4, that person should be under review as well. Ideally, it should be someone who you (Putt) trust enough to know that this person can uphold such integrity. Check and balance...
Ok great, I'm also interested in what mods should be doing in addition to not censoring. From what I can gather there seems to be an opinion that mods have specific duties to perform which makes sense. I wonder where the balance lies between doing nothing and let the users do what they want and invoking dictatorial powers to control and police the subverse.
It just depends who you talk to I took my inspiration from @Empress when her sub was trolled and started adding flairs to the users who were clearly abusing the sub so they could immediately stand out. I let trolls for the most part post in my subs even if it's off topic because it helps spread the word and attention to my threads.
Others delete off topic posts with Hitler efficency like on /v/fatpeople hate.
I can't tell you what a Mod should or shouldn't do, what I do like though is an ability for the community to Voat out abusive owners who delete comments for no reason like what OtisT does in /AnonAll or Diesel4420 did at /unexplained
Native ago
Fix your hyperlink and Macworld has good suggestions
european ago
Thanks , fixed. Can you link to what you mean by macworld?
Native ago
@MadWorld suggestion for mods whom made an oopsie doopsie
When a mod is found out for censoring the content of said subverse and the subverse belongs to the community, there should be a due process for review and removal of such cancerous mod. We should not allow such mod to take down the entire subverse.
Something we could try:
2.Ask OP to update the submission, to reflect new info been discovered.
3.Ask OP to make a new submission, to concisely and efficiently sum up this "investigation" and present the result to someone trustworthy.
4.If the evidence presented is strong enough to indicate that a cancerous mod was found, a temporary mod should be swapped in, until a better candidate can be determined.
5.If Vote feature is ready, set up a site-wide (or said subverse) sticky, where the community can cast votes to select the candidates. There could well be a dedicated subverse for voting. Unfortunately, this may turned into a popularity contest, where being popular does not equate to putting the community first.
6.Make the elected candidate promise the things that he would not abuse. Create a new entry under the "ABOUT" section of the subverse's sidebar, documenting/bonding the words of mod. Optionally record associated links/archives that led to this decision. So if the mod decided to go rogue, community can review the logs and attempt to revoke mod's status, by repeating this same due process.
In regard to step 4, that person should be under review as well. Ideally, it should be someone who you (Putt) trust enough to know that this person can uphold such integrity. Check and balance...
european ago
Ok great, I'm also interested in what mods should be doing in addition to not censoring. From what I can gather there seems to be an opinion that mods have specific duties to perform which makes sense. I wonder where the balance lies between doing nothing and let the users do what they want and invoking dictatorial powers to control and police the subverse.
Native ago
It just depends who you talk to I took my inspiration from @Empress when her sub was trolled and started adding flairs to the users who were clearly abusing the sub so they could immediately stand out. I let trolls for the most part post in my subs even if it's off topic because it helps spread the word and attention to my threads.
Others delete off topic posts with Hitler efficency like on /v/fatpeople hate.
I can't tell you what a Mod should or shouldn't do, what I do like though is an ability for the community to Voat out abusive owners who delete comments for no reason like what OtisT does in /AnonAll or Diesel4420 did at /unexplained
european ago
@puttitout @cynabuns @kevdude @crensch