I notice over and over articles coming up that you can look at the title an guess that the user is altering them. The recent one today spawning this was "Religion of Peace strikes again as 16 year old girl is burned to death in Pakistan" the actual title of the article is "16-yo girl burnt alive in Pakistan for helping couple elope". This item was 8 hours old when I saw it. I never see a note from the mods on these I have even made a point to alert the mods then check back later and nothing, so I decided to do some looking at the mods comment history for the last week in /v/news
amyacker - 0
forksandgusy - 0
system - 0
Typo - 20
So among them they spend enough time in the sub they mod for one of them to make 20 comments. In 7 days
This was even brought up 6 days ago in /v/newsmods by @unruly https://voat.co/v/newsmods/comments/1013254 and only typo responded.So I have to ask why have the rule about "User-editorialized titles are subject to deletion. State only the facts, not opinions or speculation." if it is never enforced?
Edit: I think I will partly take Typo's advice and just un sub /v/news Do I want heavy modding I'm not sure but I do want the ones that are written to be enforced especially when the mods know the rule is wanted.
view the rest of the comments →
Typo ago
Since you won't reply, I took the time to look through your history. You've only mentioned rule breaking posts 4 times. So I'm not really sure why you chose to post now unless there is something else going on here.
https://voat.co/v/news/comments/947521/4754436
OP quoted directly from the article. "“I don’t believe them, and neither should the American people … Personnel policy, however, is driven by the ‘diversity metrics’ outlined in the 2011 Report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission. Diversity, not military readiness, is the highest priority.”".
His post fell within the rule.
https://voat.co/v/news/comments/962460/4830332
Looks like someone wasnt on before this post reached a significant amount of upvoats and there for, accoding to Atko, shouldn't be removed.
https://voat.co/v/news/comments/983697/4930146
It was an uncoming event offered by a university. Seems open to all so I guess it could be considered advertising. You marked it for Rule 2 though. I feel like that points to your lack of understanding of Rule 2 first showcased in the first one I posted.
I followed the link and it appears Amy replied as well. You come across as someone who has a motive OP. Especially when a lot of these comments are in favor of removing the rule (because censorship) when you clearly like the rule, but posted because you want it enforced more. You failed to correct those people.