Disclosure
I attempted to contact several users, involved in the current conflicts in order to try to get their input on this. The users in question I reached were:
/u/kevdude /u/MadWorld /u/Cynabuns /u/PuttItOut /u/sguevar /u/SandHog /u/argosciv /u/Crensch /u/Dismember /u/Vindicator /u/MolochHunter /u/kestrel9 /u/virge /u/cynoclast /u/Rainy-Day-Dream
The reason why I reached to them first was to see if this proposal would work achieve a middle ground that we could work from and try to move forward in order to prevent as much as we could discord on our different communities.
My intent was also that they could feel any voids they could see on what was written as you all know, English is not my first language so I am sure that errors were made.
I however just received the feedback from a couple of the users I sent the message too including a couple of dismissals from two of them that clearly won't have the will to work together at this point. I don't blame them to be honest, much was said during these past weeks that to be honest, as I expressed to them, I am quite tired of it.
I wanted to present to the community something we could all agree on, in addition to the TOS. But this has to be reached by consensus and with the will of working together even if we don't like each other. This is why I added some of the users there on the pings for the message. To me, it was the first step to reach an accord. Will it fail? It actually depends on us. On each one of us.
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:
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.
SmellyAF ago
Could you condense that into one small paragraph?
ledbetter ago
Much here, much very worthwhile. Too much to hope for all to agree with. Perhaps if presented in parcels, we could reach a consensus on some elements. Perhaps 3 or 4 parcels initially, but it would demonstrate agreement on those 3 or 4. Then we might tackle another 2 or 3 seeking consensus on just those. Some compromise might be suggested to reach agreement. Say we got 6. Now we have a basis to determine what else we might agree upon. This would be a long process because so many are involved, and we may never reach agreement on everything. The group is too diverse and all opinions are demonstrably not shared. But it's a good effort and it's a start. What can we gain with some goats simply posting potshots at others, particularly in the anonymous areas. Opinions aren't facts, and everyone in the world seems to have a different opinion about everything. Are we any different?
Parity ago
how danger is your hair mam?
CognitiveDissident5 ago
What you are trying to do is commendable. The lack of leadership by the site owners is what makes it necessary. Shame you have to do their job for them.
kestrel9 ago
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.)
sguevar ago
https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3280245/19210394
kestrel9 ago
I was wondering if you decided to post publicly after I posted a criticism. Also whether you consider leaving out critical responses to your pm an indirect form of tone policing. Had you posted your discussion on PV from the beginning, ALL responses would be available for people to read i.e.
For the sake of transparency, shouldn't all the responses you received be made public? Shouldn't people get to read ALL comments in response to your inquiry? I thought that's exactly what PV fights for every second of every day, to make sure that ALL comments are visible, not just the ones that you feel are appropriate for what you're trying to accomplish. If I responded 1990 ten or twenty times, shouldn't that commentary be respected as well and included in your full disclosure that you are engaging in on two subverses?
"But all seriousness aside" /s Glad to see you were out having some lulz while you were working on your 'can't we all just get along project'. /s https://voat.co/v/SoapboxBanhammer/3276975/19172176/10#19172176
@Crensch @Vindicator
sguevar ago
Sure I can do that however the couple of dismissals were in fact yours and u/Crensch and tried to avoid them because of the fact that you are not willing to work together and were unproductive. Plus I was trying to avoid you two making a fool of yourselfs but sure. I can certainly posts the screencaps of your two responses:
u/Crensch: https://i.imgtc.ws/QbhlMDY.png
u/kestrel9: https://i.imgtc.ws/ZeAwSX3.png
As your group failed to character assassinate me and your attempt seems to be directed to the same intent you are still avoiding the fact that the ones I posted were actually constructive criticism. For example: u/PeaceSeeker wasn't fully onboard with this proposal and u/Dismember also thought it would be better if I brought it in public but wasn't sure if it was too soon given all the drama around it.
Even u/virge that I truly dislike propose a constructive criticism but you two didn't you gave arrogant dismissals over the fact that your group couldn't attack nor my honesty, my consistency nor my character. Even though you so vehemently tried and apparently keep trying. So there is that.
So because I am working on something serious I can't laugh at something funny? Or should I deshonestly make a "shitposting alt" because of fear of people like you so dishonestly taking a comment out of the context it was made on? I mean. Nice poor attempt with your /s to try to attack once again the seriousness I put on this but was kind of closed minded and superficial to say the least.
Here I tell uMadWorld that an user shouldn't have to create an alt account to shitpost (or comment on a shitposting subverse for that matter):
Post in question: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3244180
Comment Mad made: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3244180/18852452 and I quote:
Which is exactly what you are trying to do here (laughable to say the least)
And my response: https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3244180/18853114 and i quote:
So as your leader the "typhoon" put it... consistency.... thanks for giving me another chance at proving mine own.
Enjoy your day.
PuttitoutIsGone ago
You're kinda gay, aren't ya? Anyways, I do like the jist of the message you are trying to send here.
followthemoney ago
There are only two sides.
Pro Free Speech.
Anti Free Speech.
If you think people who say bad things shouldn't be allowed to say them, then you are on team 2. Free speech is literally the right to offend.
Crensch is Team 2. Team 2 is actively engaged in running false flags on Voat against free speech to get permanent rules against free speech in place.
Team 1 is able to ignore drama recognizing shooting is part of free speech. Team 1 has 'emotional resilience' whereas Team 2 is unable to handle criticism and levity directed at them. This is why the free speech hating (((users))) of Voat are unable to do anything other than stir drama because they have no options left to justify banning people for no good reson. Note that their justification is because people said mean words, free speech should be limited.
Make voting public, even if it has to wait until the thread is archived and I plement a script or code that undies vote brigading from the dozens of @srayzie and whiteknight alts that magically appeared after @srayzie and @shizy self deleted because the pile of fake accusations finally toppled back onto the accusers. Their game became too obvious because they falsely accused legitimate users of being shills. It's called 'projection'.
brandon816 ago
This. Please make voting public. Dissenter already does this out of the box, and it seems to be working fine.
Hand_of_Node ago
Unfettered free speech is literally the right to wage verbal war. We're seeing the results of that in our society, after decades of our enemies using "free verbal attacks" against us. They've been free to promote degeneracy, to convert our children to their side, and to demonize us to all and sundry. We've allowed them the freedom to undermine our society, and now it looks like they've almost gained complete control.
How do we know they're on the verge of winning? Having used the weapon of free speech against us for decades, they recognize the dangers of that weapon, so they're moving to eliminate it to prevent counter attacks.
IMCHAD ago
@thewebofslime Stop using your cousins account nigger
sguevar ago
Hmm in Costa Rica we have a saying here: "una mosca hablando de higiene". Translates to "a fly talking about hygiene".
Like a ring on the finger for this comment you are making.
IMCHAD ago
Here’s a Bible Verse you should read Brufver.
followthemoney ago
I will just as soon as you stop downvote brigading all my comments and submissions.
IMCHAD ago
I don’t. Stop trying to spread lies you Consensus Cracking cock sucker.
HollaKost ago
Niggaz are so poor they gotta share a free voat account!
IMCHAD ago
Sheeeit das rite
followthemoney ago
Projection much? The downvotes on my submissions speak for themselves. When I outpaced your ability to downvote, I was able to calculate how much CCP you and the alts have.
Even better, when I outpace your ability to downvote, it means other stuff is NOT getting those downvotes.
It's a good system. Downvoters reveal themselves AND they miss out on burying important information. Kind of a win win for me,
IMCHAD ago
Look at my CCP. I don’t have much. I don’t waste it on you. You aren’t someone that concerns me much. You talk shit and spread the same lies but I have bigger fish to fry than you.
followthemoney ago
I'm talking about your other accounts, obviously.
IMCHAD ago
Not me
followthemoney ago
'dindu nuffin'
Thyhorrorcosmic103 ago
Go fuck yourself.
Caveman_in_a_suit ago
Youngblood, you have good intentions yet surely you know the road to Hell is thereby paved
Freedom comes with messiness. Your attempt to justify order / governance on the expressions and thoughts of others, leads to Reddit-type bullshittery
The fact is, this community rises or falls on the overall quality mix of the participants. Your idea would damage and corrupt freedom of expression. You attempt to indirectly, subtly, control the thoughts acts and deeds of others.
Stop it. Instead, continue to add positive quality content. Encourage others to do so. And attempt, possibly, to gently nudge the "negative" content creators towards a more positive bent - yet with recognition that shit negativity is their right and is part of a healthy freedom-based community.
Parity ago
Many of these things are aspects of the internet people need to learn themselves. Much like the idea that the news should be unbiased, free speech being cleaned up is naive. People need to realize they themselves must learn to decide what they will consider or filter, to think critically, and it's harder in person. You can look at the media and feel that they should change to make it easier for you, but in doing so you only weaken yourself. You can do the same with all the free speech platforms on the internet and think the same, but they're much more fragile and in short supply.
virge ago
I'll modernize good old Jefferson and simply say I'd rather have the problems of too much freedom.
Caveman_in_a_suit ago
Hear, here
also, you & I agree on something - interesting
virge ago
Probably not. Put simply, with too much freedom then good men do not hesitate to act against their oppressors.
Caveman_in_a_suit ago
Too much E-prime in my diet, man
In my reality tunnel, ape-men recreate modern versions of tribes. Hoot, holler, beat their chests - all forms of basic tribalism. We good, them bad. The US, founded on the Declaration of Independence, with some good basic decent ideals laid down - in the end, a great experiment in exploring individual freedom and liberty. And yet, in the end, this too shall pass.
All you really own and control: what's in your head and heart, plus what you can carry in both arms at a quick pace. All else, constitutes illusions - shared and personal alike.
So: fuck it, mind as well have as many lulz as possible while counting the breaths, with other good humored folks, and poke a stick in everyone else's eye if they don't like it
virge ago
I believe the fourth touring is upon us.
All fine and good wisdom, until you have a serious conversation about the technical automation of the heart or the input-problem that is the mind. Don't even get me started about even the most barney basics here being plain for all to see; what you can read with fidelity, you can write.
There is always another threat on the horizon, this is the way of life. Technology has simply accelerated it.
And this is where our ideology parts ways. I am completely abhorrent to the very idea of wasting my time with disingenuous people when I am making it clear that I am genuine. It is this hazy or otherwise blurred areas that separate any two conversations (and can even juxtapose within, demonstrably) that my personal boundaries are set.
Isn't it fair to at least recognize how that could be a problem?
Caveman_in_a_suit ago
Is is is... Hey, relax man. All those negative vibes!
So we stand near the ever approaching brink of destruction - I ask, huh says you and when have we not? As a species?
The last human will die someday. Maybe that's tomorrow. Maybe in 10 years, perhaps 100,000. Maybe it will be you, maybe me, though likely someone else and probably related to both of us.
But we will each and all arrive at the end of our time, deceased. I am now an old fuck, and perceive though limited wit and reason and ignorance and foolishness, "purpose" "meaning" "reasons" - all word ideas we invented. In our grief, we embrace vices. For some,liquor. For others, golf cars gambling drugs. And for many, anger fear or whatnot.
For me: humor. My chosen vice. That you care not for mine, well, I respect your right to choose, dude.
I laugh at both of us
awwisnotafarmpromise ago
Since that will never happen, better to eat popcorn and watch this shithole burn to the ground laughing my ass off.
sguevar ago
u/Dismemeber:
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.
IMCHAD ago
You speak of positive comments, yet here you show that you’re believing the lies that Kevdude spread. @Vindicator describes the truth here.
sguevar ago
I am not interested in engaging with an alt.
However you are misdirecting your comment because I didn't said that. If you had read the previous comments you will see that it was the input u/Dismember gave not me... (G.G)
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).
expose ago
your genuine and disingenuous thing is super true some dudes here you try to talk to em they just shit on you can't hash stuff out like that i got a question though what if a sub got no rules and you get banned cause you don't got liberal opinions cause mrpingping does that.
sguevar ago
That is u/virge approach and I also think is valid.
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: