This would not be the preferred option in my mind, even enough it may end up being the popular option. As it will require too much input from the Admins, being nanny's for the site moving forwards. When that time would be much better spending their time making this site even better. Unless there is evidence a mods account has been hacked and a hostile take over as taken place, in which case they can just remove the bad mod and revert to the previous mods.
In the spirit of Voat and free speech this is the preferred option unless a top mods account is hacked and the subverse goes through a hostile takeover as previously mentions. Though it does leave the average user in the lurch, but there could be solutions to this problem via the users moving forwards.
I feel removing subverses should be avoided for as at all costs long as possible, because this is the start of a slippery slope and the beging of the end that ends up with Reddit style locked down platform
Futhermore
As previously mentioned I would be inclined to go for option 2 as this is most inline with Voats free speech stance, the Subverse is what the moderators want to make it and let the average user decided which succeeded and fails by their votes and the system should work. However I would suggest someone starting a subverse that is dedicated to pointing to alternatives to subverses when they become corrupted like this, something like /v/altersubverse or /v/subverseareus (sorry i am terrible and coming up with names).
Someone can waste a few months or a few £100 to get to control of a subverse but if there was a robust way for people to relocate to a new subverse all this time will be wasted as the user base can just move on with minimumal impact. This has the added benefit of allowing the average users to manage the whole process as they can just leave the subverse when it gains a Nazi mod and start again, using the old subverse as a template.
view the rest of the comments →
7554034? ago
Thoughts on the options.
This would not be the preferred option in my mind, even enough it may end up being the popular option. As it will require too much input from the Admins, being nanny's for the site moving forwards. When that time would be much better spending their time making this site even better. Unless there is evidence a mods account has been hacked and a hostile take over as taken place, in which case they can just remove the bad mod and revert to the previous mods.
In the spirit of Voat and free speech this is the preferred option unless a top mods account is hacked and the subverse goes through a hostile takeover as previously mentions. Though it does leave the average user in the lurch, but there could be solutions to this problem via the users moving forwards.
I feel removing subverses should be avoided for as at all costs long as possible, because this is the start of a slippery slope and the beging of the end that ends up with Reddit style locked down platform
Futhermore As previously mentioned I would be inclined to go for option 2 as this is most inline with Voats free speech stance, the Subverse is what the moderators want to make it and let the average user decided which succeeded and fails by their votes and the system should work. However I would suggest someone starting a subverse that is dedicated to pointing to alternatives to subverses when they become corrupted like this, something like /v/altersubverse or /v/subverseareus (sorry i am terrible and coming up with names). Someone can waste a few months or a few £100 to get to control of a subverse but if there was a robust way for people to relocate to a new subverse all this time will be wasted as the user base can just move on with minimumal impact. This has the added benefit of allowing the average users to manage the whole process as they can just leave the subverse when it gains a Nazi mod and start again, using the old subverse as a template.