AskVoat is no longer a default sub (announcements)

submitted ago by Atko

I can't stand by and watch stuff like this happen around here. I will not support subverses (by featuring them or making them defaults) with moderators who impose questionable rules such as "your post has to end with a questionmark". Moderators need to calm their tits and focus on nurturing and growing their communities. Rules can always be bent and what better time to bend the rules then now, while Voat is still growing and under development?

I am thankful for moderators who help keep Voat spam-free and I respect your work. I really do. I started working on automoderator for comments and submissions and your job will be made much easier when this is implemented, but for the time being, moderators need to relax and focus on removing spam and eventual illegal content. If I submit a new post and it gains some traction (hundreds of comments, views and upvoats), and my post gets removed because I broke a rule by forgetting to include a question mark in my submission title... well, I would be pissed. People take removal of their comments and submissions very seriously and moderators must think twice before removing stuff if they want to avoid offending users. Voat has a ranking process where time acts as gravity and older posts will eventually fall off the frontpage. Voat also has automatic public moderation logs and everything you remove will still be visible in these modlogs and your actions may be questioned by the community, just like what happened yesterday.

This action can be reverted if /askvoat mods can convince us that the issue has been dealt with or if some other, less restrictive community takes over.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

TheKillerRabbit ago

We need to institute a system where the subscribers can elect/kick out mods through voting. Subs turn to shit when mods are allowed to go unchecked for their actions. Thank you Atko for showing us that you don't take kindly to mod abuse.

youareahomo ago

Bad idea, that shit would be brigade big time.

Freakazoid ago

There's a lot of room for that to be abused. This is the internet and resorting to a poll doesn't always end up with intended results. A popularity contest can be just as bad.

RedSocks157 ago

Oh look, SpaceRosa is back! There is a somewhat credible rumor that it's just an alt for /u/she so just ignore them.

neonneophyte ago

I think this is better. I have always had the opinion that a dictatorship could be better than any democracy, if the right person was the dictator. Sounds terrible but it is true IMO.

I think Atko is that right dictator.

tpdplsio ago

I think for a site like this, where the whole thing can come crashing down and the owners/employees could have their lives fucked over what the users do, it's necessary to have a benevolent dictator. No user is going to take the fall for the serious shit that could happen. Whether that is Atko/Puttitout or a board of directors or some other body, it's necessary to have someone in charge that has something at stake.

TheKillerRabbit ago

Remember Alex Ohanian? How he fought against SOPA and how everyone used to love the guy back when reddit was a new thing? Remember how he said that reddit was a free speech haven? Remember all the things he has done recently? Atko is human; humans tend to let power get into their heads. I'm certain that Atko will be corrupted by the power he wields managing a site like voat. May take years, but he will be corrupted.

dis_is_my_account ago

I'm not so sure Atko is really for free speech in the first place. It seems like he adopted those ideals earlier on and didn't have a chance to go any other way because of what the backlash would be from an entire userbase who did believe in those ideals and came here for them. I think he may just be going with the majority alot of the time.

pitenius ago

Counter-example. Kind of a dick, but incorruptible.

InnocentBystander ago

There are examples of benevolent dictatorships working quite well when a non-authorian type is put in charge. Linus Torvalds is probably the best example. He has never been corrupted.

Linux would not exist if he had tried to do it democratically.

When a person seeks power, they become corrupt (or start out corrupt). But when a person seeks a goal, and power comes as a bonus, it's a different situation. Many people are good in power positions. But people who are good with power rarely seek it. Thrust them into the position and results can often be good.

tpdplsio ago

Give him a chance to fail first. You can always just leave if things go bad. Atko/Puttitout have everything to lose here.

Plus Reddit was different because it was bought out so quickly. The founders were kept around but they ultimately had no control over the business. Even then it took almost a decade for it to really turn to shit.

neonneophyte ago

So we string him up and look for our next benevolent ruler.

Spotddawg ago

Don't let your pitchforks get rusty.

SpaceRosa ago

And how do you stop it turning into a popularity contest? Worse, how do you make sure the better mod comes out on top and not the mod who panders to whatever the circlejerk/popular attitudes are at the time? You'd never see a more liberal moderator voted in by people on this website, even if they were absolutely the most fit for the job. People are too quick to associate that with thier boogeyman SJWs.

goatboy ago

Why would we want to stop it from becoming a popularity contest? People become popular because they have support. People with community support should be given a chance to lead.

FilmMakingShitlord ago

Because not every subverse is popular.

SpaceRosa ago

Just because they're popular doesn't mean they're going to be good mods.

goatboy ago

What does that even mean? On voat, Mods are inglorious janitors. Reddit is the place where mods are allowed to have delusions of grandeur.

SpaceRosa ago

It means what it says. Popularity is not the same thing as ability or skill or knowledge. You can be the most loved on the whole website, but that doesn't determine whether or not you would do well as a moderator.

goatboy ago

There is no skill required... at all.

If a mod ever has any doubt about what to do, the answer is always: Do nothing, the votes will figure it out.

Only idiots worry: bu, bu, but whut 'bout muh rulz?!

SpaceRosa ago

No. You have to have understanding, and you have to know how to engage with your userbase. You have to know when is necessary to take action, and when to hold off. You have to know what's appropriate according to the subverse's needs at changes. These things take skill and thinking to get just right.

goatboy ago

Nope. Literally no skills required.

neonneophyte ago

The judgement and intelligence of our benevolent ruler Atko.

TheKillerRabbit ago

In the long term, it is better to have a democracy than an authoritarian regime simply due to the fact that you can vote the shitty people out. I'm not saying we let everyone vote. Just people who have garnered a certain amount of CCP, who therefore have some credibility in that sub. The fact that transparent modlogs exist, and that these elections could happen anytime, means mods are constantly in the danger of getting voted out of office if they show abuse.

mukt ago

All democracies decay in the long run.

tpdplsio ago

It's just too easy to create drama with numbers then. Subverses will fill up with drama just like /v/Askvoat has in the last 24 hours. People will work the long con to fulfill whatever CCP or time requirements you impose. The modlogs are transparent, if a mod is abusing a sub then you should have to make your case directly to the admins.

TheKillerRabbit ago

Remember reddit? The admins themselves might be tyrannical. I love what Atko is doing with Voat, but I would never trust him with the power to seat and unseat mods. His own biases will definitely affect who he picks for moderator. I want the people to decide as they have the most objective bias since everyone's bias is taken into account.

tpdplsio ago

I mean, you have to give some trust to the guy that had the vision to start the site and put in the work. You already trust him with managing the whole thing and setting the tone for the whole site. I don't know what to tell you then if you don't trust him to make good decisions about mods.

TheKillerRabbit ago

For now, I trust him to make Voat great. Yet Voat will need money to survive in the longterm. Atko will eventually start making decisions that favor monetary gain over what everyone else wants. When that time comes, I lose my trust.

tpdplsio ago

You're assuming he'll have to choose between making money and protecting speech. Just because Reddit chose the money, that doesn't mean Voat can't do better and have both.

TheKillerRabbit ago

That is where we differ. I'm more pessimistic over what he will do while you remain hopeful.

cfl1 ago

How are you going to deal with the obvious possibility of hostile takeovers, where outsiders flood in, vote, but have no interest (or an opposing interest) in the sub's community?

This would make brigading incredibly dangerous and powerful.

TheKillerRabbit ago

Voat already has a minimum downvote cap for CCP. I say that we should have an upvote cap and then let each sub decide for itself who gets to vote.

weezkitty ago

That wouldn't prevent a long con though

FilmMakingShitlord ago

It wouldn't even prevent the short con.

TheKillerRabbit ago

There really is no perfect system. But authoritarian style modding is much more easier to abuse than a democracy style system.

weezkitty ago

No perfect system for sure. Either way could got ugly. I would be okay with it if it is only initiated by an admin after complaints

SpaceRosa ago

Is it worth it to get rid of the shitty ones to potentially get rid of good ones, too? I suppose that would be up to everyone's individual judgement.

Either way, I don't think it'll work. Credibility in a subverse is all well and good, but it's not that simple. Of course people are going to be biased. That's what humans do. How would you make a democratic system without creating a lot of difficulty for people who dare to have different viewpoints than the majority? Being a democracy means that the minority will always get fucked, because it's the majority's opinion that decides it.

TheKillerRabbit ago

So we just let the minority rule over the majority? As a libertarian, I want to see the people decide for themselves. If the majority demands change, then change should happen. I don't really think the minority will get fucked as they can simply leave and create their own sub. If people are to be biased, then it is their right to be biased. I don't want some tyrannical minority trying to decide what I like.

tpdplsio ago

You may be a libertarian but Voat isn't like a government. Even one of the smaller brigade subs on Reddit could come over here and seriously fuck shit up without too much work under your plan. They could elect mods that refused to remove illegal content and you're saying Atko isn't trustworthy enough to be able to do anything about it, even though it's ultimately his ass on the line. Imagine if 500 million Chinese could just register to vote in the US and choose the next president.

SpaceRosa ago

I didn't say that. Don't jump to conclusions, especially not something so reversed.

My point is that I think they will get fucked. How is it any good to leave and create their own subverse? Why should they have to do that? Because they're not in line enough? Nobody will go to a copy subverse that someone created just so they could me the mod of something. This is going to fuck people who don't fall in line if it gets implemented. I'm certain of that.

TheKillerRabbit ago

Everyone has the the right to enjoy whatever they want to enjoy. I don't really see how they would get fucked when they have the right to leave at anytime. Why should they stick around a sub where they don't fall in line when they can go join a sub where they can enjoy talking to other likeminded people? I'm certain nobody will get fucked by having elections.

On the other hand, the power the mods have means that they have the ability to fuck over the entire sub. Although I concede that elections will turn to circlejerks, there has to be an accountability system in place for these people. Even if we managed to unseat an abusive mod, who will decide who gets to be the new mod? The other mods? They might share the same biases as the older mod and might just put in a new abusive mod to take their place. We should at least institute a referendum system where mods that abuse can be kicked out.

TheBuddha ago

You, my good sir, take the internet way too seriously. I have been here since the beginning of internet time - before there was a WWW. If you are unhappy then you have only one real choice - make your own site. If others like it then you will have company. If they do not then you will be in the corner playing with yourself BUT you will be happy. A reasonably compromise might be to make your own subverse and regulate it as you see fit. Others may join, in time...

TheKillerRabbit ago

I'm just saying my two cents. In general, I agree with the direction that Voat is headed. I still have the right to criticize anything that I do not like.

SpaceRosa ago

They shouldn't have to go somewhere else! What use it a website designed to let people speak if it's just going to bottle them up in different groups by ideology? We'd be better together than we'd be apart. Apart if how you get echo chambers, and more bloody circlejerks. But if we mix a bunch of different ideologies, and then decide to have elections, it's basically inevitable that one dominant opinion, the majority's opinions, will make it impossible for someone to become a mod who doesn't fall in line, even if they'd be the best person for the job.

TheKillerRabbit ago

Since every sub might turn into an echochamber, it would be best to sub into as many subs as possible to broaden your perspective.

The echo chambers are already happening. Have you been to /v/news? Find a top post that doesn't relate to Bernie Sanders or some anti police piece. People already have the power to vote over what they see. Why not let them vote over who gets to be mod?

SpaceRosa ago

I know. They're not fond of it being pointed out. But if you let them vote in mods, they'll abuse it to reinforce it. Someone's views don't necessarily mean they will be a good or bad moderator. That should be determined by their policy towards banning, deleting submission, etc, but it will be judged on their leanings. If they're deemed to be "too SJW", or they're not in line enough with the most popular view, they won't get in. Mobs and echo chambers don't vote in people who dissent, even if they'd be the best one for the job.

TheKillerRabbit ago

Although I agree with what you said, there has to be a better system than the one we have. Based on my personal experience with reddit and voat, I believe letting voaters vote the mods is the best course of action. Nevertheless, this argument were having introduced some doubts it and I thank you for that. I will happily discuss a better system with you.

Lord_Of_The_Shit ago

I think having elections for mods is a bad idea. Some of the reasons it shouldn't be done have already been pointed out by others. On the other hand, having a process to "vote out" abusive mods is definitely worth discussing. I made a comment last night about it on another thread.

The thread - https://voat.co/v/ideasforvoat/comments/400821

My comment - https://voat.co/v/ideasforvoat/comments/400821/1730613

These were some of my ideas:

  • If it turns out that somebody has an issue with a mod it should be made known to the members of the sub.
  • I think that only subscibers whose accounts are a certain age (6 mos, 1 yr, whatever) and have a certain level of participation in the sub (200 CCP or whatever IN THAT SUB) should be able to call for a vote. You could even just randomly select some people from that group so that neither side would know who they are and wouldn't be able to try and influence them.
  • They would look at the modlog and decide if whoever has a beef with the mod has a case or not and vote Y/N to hold a sub-wide vote to "impeach". Of course, there would have to be clear evidence of wrongdoing.
  • Before the vote both sides could make one post to state their case and lay out any evidence. No spamming the sub for a week trying to influence public opinion. I also think any attempt by outside parties to try and make a case for either side or influence the vote shouldn't be allowed.
  • I don't think new subscribers (less than 1 mo and less than 50 CCP in sub, or whatever) to the sub should be allowed to participate in the vote.
  • You'd have to get 2/3 of the vote (you want a clear winner so the result can't be disputed) to strip a mods status. If you can't get 2/3 the mod stays.
  • I definitely think this should only be for subs with a large membership (I think 5,000 was suggested), but maybe smaller subs could choose to use this system or not until they reach that membership threshold.

Anyway, I think something like this could be fair for everyone.