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.