Introduction
We all came to Voat because we were looking for a place in which we could express ourselves without the fear of unlawful censorship being applied to us. Most of our, and I say “our” because it is our platform, user base engage on comments and discussions more than postings. This obviously doesn’t take any consideration to our admin team. But it puts a burden on our shoulders to work together to help improve it.
Freedom of speech is a right that should be consider invaluable. To most of us, there is no price for it. This is why we need to defend it the best way that we can. However, it can’t be respected in a chaotic way, for leaving it like that will only apply the rule of the jungle. We are after all, not animals and hence we have the reasoning to achieve things on our own as well as together.
Usually the greatest things in life are achieved by a coordinated effort from all of the parties involved. Raising a family, building a home, a community, a city, a nation. All this because we shared a common identity with those that helped us through those efforts. Voat is our community. Filled with a vast number of different thought flows and we can only work together to make it better, or to bring it to the ground. This doesn’t happen by the actions of a sole actor, but by the actions and inactions of ALL of us.
I. Importance of comments
Comments on the platform are the expression of our ideas, for good or for bad (as long as they are within the boundaries of the law), the right to being able to say them across the platform should not be trumped.
They allow us to train our character and to strengthen it as well as our principles and values when they are confronted by others. The exchange of these comments allow us to grow and give us a perfect opportunity to learn how to react to them. They can also be considered the proof or evidence of our truthfulness.
II. Types of Comments
In every interaction there will be different types of comments, but we would like to categorize them unto two groups: Positives and Negatives.
-
Positive comments: Should be considered those that are productive to the discussion. That express clear ideas and positions. That encourage the discussion. That express understanding to other people positions. That inform others. Those that express neutral positions.
-
Negative comments: Should be considered those that are slandering and insulting other users. Those that are expressed with arrogance and dismissiveness of users. Those that are cryptic and present obtuse ideas and positions. Those that harass others because of their beliefs and opinions.
III. Effective ways to deal with negative comments?
-
Proactive downvote and move on.
-
Don’t engage them, ignore them.
-
Block the user that made them.
-
Inform others of the user’s nature (troll, shill with evidence)
-
Keep an archive of those comments as evidence of your statements.
-
Be true to your word. Don’t purge your content nor comment history. This allow you to establish context. When someone tries to discredit you because they selectively chose one comment without providing context, then you can defend yourself more effectively.
IV. Responsibilities of the Moderators
-
Establish clear rules that will be interpreted literally, effectively and objectively.
-
Offenders must be given a warning by private of an offense they have committed. If they repeat the offense, they should be banned.
-
Harassment rules should be placed following a legal guidance. This needs to be discussed further. And should not be with the intent of delete a comment, but to use the comments as proof of the breaking of the rule. (After further discussion, this should also be proposed by consensus to the admin team so it becomes a Global Rule)
-
Rules about Sharing of personal information should be put in place with clear specification of the situations and exceptions. If the owner of information posted a link to his/her personal information, they do so at their own risk and discretion. Users sharing this link are not to be held accountable of such behavior. Unless: A previous public request/announcement had been extended by the owner that his/her information can only be shared by him/her and no one else. If another user starts posting the owners information, the owner has a right to demand deletion of the comments and posts that have said data. That will be considered the first warning to the offender. If the offender repeats the offense, then the user should actively and without appeal be banned from the subverse. (This should also be proposed by consensus to the admin team so it becomes a Global Rule)
-
Keep a public record of infractors. Even if the warnings are to be sent by pms, the record should be made publicly and moderators should encourage the rest of their community to check them periodically.
-
Proactively inform the users in order to teach them how to handle troublemakers on their own. They should not overreach their power until it is completely necessary and as last resort.
-
Should mediate during conflicts and the moment a user presents an emotional outburst during the interaction, whether is the accuser or the accused, they should give out a public warning that states that if the behavior continues a temporal ban will be applied so the user can cool it off. Timeframe should be discussed and then specified. (Timeout rule).
-
Regarding pornographic material, that remains at the discretion of the moderator team, whether they are comments or posts.
V. Responsibilities of the users
-
They should inform themselves.
-
Be vigilant for the safeguard of their subverse.
-
They should be proactive in action and denunciation with evidence of the matters they denounce.
-
They should not default to the moderators to act for them.
-
They should be responsible of the information they share online.
-
The requests they do in the future and their denunciations must follow a proper redaction, with order and form that respects a logical argumentation. This will allow an objective analysis from the Mod team and it will also provide an opportunity for the accused to defend themselves.
-
Keep your calm because emotional outbursts will not help their cause.
VI. Conclusion
This is a simple layout of the possible framework that we can use for maintaining order on the site and protecting the Freedom of Speech for all users in an equal manner without those that seek to create chaos to trump the right of others. It should also provide the tools to the moderators to defend themselves from toxic behaviors.
These were the inputs provided by the ones that did responded (They will be on the comments please arrange them by OLD so you can see them firts):
StarAnon ago
Is there a hierarchy at Voat, or is this discussion regarding rules for this sub? Thanks.
kestrel9 ago
Please see my questions over omissions as a form of tone policing https://voat.co/v/Voat/3279799/19207156/10#19207156
And this one too, which I had not yet showed up in my comments section:
In addition to my other comment, do you think the two users you told
may have decided not to respond based on that remark? We can't know so I guess only they know. Perhaps using that isn't such a great idea in trying to bridge gaps.
You're comment here was bizarre as well:
If I may ask, why do you believe yourself to be a lead on drafting a "Constitution" when you omit such comments once you decided to go public? (That is, after receiving criticism over engaging in drafting something for the community, without actually taking into account initial input from the community.)
WhiteRonin ago
Hey nigger bitch!
Why you wanna start shit with me?
Go suck some @crensch dick because he know you like it too!
kestrel9 ago
https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3274898/19153194/10#19153194 @sguevar
sguevar ago
And the dodge continues... I will leave you to your convenience as you couldn't argue further your superficial accusations... Have a goof night.
kestrel9 ago
There's no dodge. I can counter your response. Whether I decide to or not I don't know yet, since you consistently miss the salient points, what sense is there in beating a dead horse?
virge ago
Don't bother. WhiteRonin (who has various alts) is a disingenuous account. Everything he types is the equivalent of a retarded toddler waving their hands in the air screaming LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME, and he's only happy if he can get attention from genuine users.
Quite simply, if you ignore WhiteRonin, he spergs out and follows you around which is hilarious but he becomes extremely harmless.
WhiteRonin ago
Keep running fag!
@kestrel9 look how this fag can’t even respond to me.
But he’ll say it’s the high road but he is sneaky talking smack about me without a ping.
He gay!
He chicken!
zyklon_b ago
@whiteronin will destroy u
kestrel9 ago
Thanks for the advice. BTW, your point regarding genuine vs disingenuous users gets to the heart of the problem, i.e. the fabled "impasse".
virge ago
Confusion over genuine vs. disingenuous is the fundamental breakdown. Disingenuous accounts come in all shapes and sizes, but the biggest bunch of them feed off trolling genuine accounts, which makes them vampires of sorts. It only works when they hide in the darkness and don't get exposed to the light, because once you start ignoring the ones like WhiteRonin that only exist to feed off trolling genuine (while of course, often pretending to be genuine) they get bored pretty quickly.
Catch 22 for the "uninundated" genuine accounts who don't realize this, because their very nature leads them to try and communicate in a serious fashion with the disingenuous accounts.
sguevar ago
That was actually directed at u/virge.
For example see here, I said exactly the same thing to him when he asked me this:
https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3274898/19164067 and I quote:
Which then I answered this: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3274898/19164138 and I quote again:
Any more poor attempts from your part? You keep proving my consistency here.
Again, the user you so conveniently removed from there was u/virge. He knows I dislike him and I have shown that many times specially after his attempts to do exactly what you are doing, trying to character assassinate me, pull comments conveniently out of context and in his situation, stating that u/WhiteRonin and I were sock puppet accounts (even though he dismisses now he had said it and post about it and then remove his comments and content to avoid once again being on the spot)
Nice try u/kestrel9 but you might want to improve your attacks if you really want to attack me.
Have a nice day!
sguevar ago
u/Dismember:
I agree with peaceseeker here, in that you should be involving all of voat in this. At the end of the day I don't even think negotiations will help at all. This is as simple as a woman using men to get her way or get some revenge.
I can only speak for myself as far as protectvoat goes. So you will have to sell the idea to everyone else. Personally I think this is way too soon as people are still processing the drama and trying to make sense of Crensch's turnaround.
COPY
sguevar ago
u/PeaceSeeker:
While I appreciate the sentiment of getting people to talk things out and try to come to an understanding, I don't think a discussion like this ought to take place in private. For one, attempting to draft a "constitution-like" document in private and then sharing it with the userbase seems clique-ish and manipulative (why not just start publicly to begin with?); and secondly it is an inefficient way to communicate with Voat's current infrastructure.
From Voat's User Agreement Rules and Moderators sections:
The first paragraph demonstrates that Voat's stance is not that of /u/kevdude's, where subverses should not have the right to enforce their own rules if they deviate from his opinion about what rules are acceptable; Voat plainly states that any rules that comply with Voat's User Agreement are acceptable to enforce.
The second paragraph reminds us that Voat can remove any moderator for any reason, and Voat has a history of doing so when Voat believes the moderators are abusing their moderator privileges or are acting contrary to the interests of the communities they represent, which /u/Crensch can keep in mind in the event that he decides to use the power the /v/GreatAwakening community has granted him to act contrary to /v/GreatAwakening's expressed interests (and the first section also reminds /u/Crensch that he should probably create the rules before he enforces them, but I digress).
COPY
sguevar ago
u/kevdude:
maybe add some exceptions from the list outlined in the Pizzagate sub. I put this up to community discussion and no one seemed to have a problem with these points:
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1541871
(2) Comments are to be Off Limits to Moderation, With The following exceptions:
COPY
sguevar ago
u/virge:
immediate feedback is that "positive" and "negative" comments can be far more accurately described as "genuine" or "disingenuous", because someone can be genuine and impetus of their comment being "positive" or "negative" is in the eye of the beholder (same applies to disingenuous).
Put simply, the most important thing when engaging with someone is not how positive or negative you believe their statement to be, but if the user is genuine or disingenuous. Two genuine people can agree to disagree based on ideology (kev and I are examples of this). Disingenuous people are just chaotic and not serious by nature, making them like oil to water for engaging with genuine people.
Opinions and expression without censorship are the keystones of free speech. Disingenuous people are only interested in eliciting a specific reaction from others with their behavior, and the reasons behind that are somewhat irrelevant if you cannot establish this first. Motivations don't even matter until you have established what side of this dichotomy each party is a member of.
NOTE: I don't disagree with his input and I think that the initial writing could be added in a way that doesn't affect the form. But I am adding it like this in order for you all to see what you agree with and don't and what you all would like to add or not.