This post is going to be stickied for 48 hours. During that time, please click here for the usual sticky:
Fully Sourced Executive Summary of Pizzagate Evidence
About the Update
Moderator Rules, along with the new Submission Requirements, have been in effect for over a month now, and we have since managed to better understand the requirements and challenges involved in moderating the subverse according to these rules.
Unfortunately, the volume of rule-violating content that gets submitted to the subverse has repeatedly proven to exceed our moderating capacity, even with a generously sized moderator team that is often criticized for its headcount alone. As it became clear that the current Moderator Rules are not economically viable, we needed to find ways to make the moderator team more efficient while still preserving transparency to a reasonable extent. As a result, we're retiring the proactive explanatory moderator comment on deleted submissions in favor of on-demand explanations. Simultaneously, we're introducing a 2-week probation period for new moderators, during which explanatory comments on their deleted submissions will still be required, in order to provide new moderators a means to establish trust in the community.
Accordingly, new Moderator Rules are as follows, effective immediately.
Moderator Rules
(1) Submissions removed by a moderator will specify the following in the Reason field:
- one or more rule numbers referencing the Submission Requirements that have been violated;
- the username of the submitter (for later inspections).
(2) Submissions removed by a moderator on their probation period will, additionally, get a comment that will:
- explain clearly which rule the submission broke;
- explain what the poster needs to add/fix to resubmit or suggest an alternate subverse in the network to post it to;
- provide a hotlink to the suggested subverse;
- be distinguished as a moderator comment.
(3) Comments are to be off-limits to moderation, with the following exceptions:
- illegal content (CP, direct threats against IRL entities, anything that you could be criminally charged for in US court);
- doxxing;
- adspam;
- copypasta (the moderator will leave the first instance and remove the rest);
- NSFW content (images, etc.) that has not been appropriately labeled as such;
- hyperlinks to malicious URLs.
(4) Moderators are not required to vet submissions based on source quality, however, they can.
- This ensures that moderators have the means to fight planned disinformation.
- When cited sources don't plausibly back the claims, the submission can be considered unsourced.
- When on the fence, the moderator should err on the side of free speech, and let the community self-moderate with votes.
On-Demand Explanations
Users can request a detailed explanation for the removal of any submission. In order to do so, the explanation request needs to:
- be posted as a top-level comment on the deleted submission (for transparency);
- ping at least one moderator (using the @ sign);
- be specific and demonstrate a prior understanding of the rules cited as the reason of removal, requesting information beyond what the Submission Requirements already provide.
Examples for specificity on a submission removed per rule 1:
- "Why has this been removed?" ✘
- "This is related to Pizzagate, why has this been removed?" ✘
- "@wecanhelp, I think my post complies with rule 1 as it is about the Clinton family, and I'm clearly stating that. What am I missing?" ✔
Moderators, regardless of these rules, are still encouraged to be supportive, and make helpful comments on removals where it makes sense and there is a realistic chance of improving a submission that is otherwise investigative in its nature.
view the rest of the comments →
wecanhelp ago
@kingkongwaswrong @Crensch @VictorSteinerDavion @heygeorge @kevdude
THE_LIES_OH_THE_LIES ago
Let's make a monthly or biweekly post of fringe deletes, that did get deleted, please. I have seen some good stuff get deleted, and a lot of bad stuff as well.
SpikyAube ago
That's a good idea! I'd be happy to compile that if we can decide on criteria for which posts get included. @wecanhelp
wecanhelp ago
I don't think this is a good idea. We should zoom out a bit, and see that we're trying to use one sub for everything, merely because this one has the largest audience. I understand the problem, but this is not the solution. It would consume a lot of moderator time to even just come up with and transparently discuss the criteria for such posts, let alone actually maintaining a digest like that. This post is precisely about severely limited mod resources, and I'm not sure what the solution is, but whatever it is, it's not on this sub. There's a reason for having submission rules.
redditsuckz ago
You have 15 moderators and you already asked all 15 of them if they would like to do this and they all replied no?
There are over 10,000 people on this sub and dont you think if you ask one of them might be willing to compile a list?
wecanhelp ago
No, why, which part of my "I don't think this is a good idea" suggests that my response represents that of 15 moderators? I was personally pinged to offer my opinion, which I did. If you're interested in others' input, or want to see this happen, go right ahead and put some effort into interviewing and organizing. Since I don't agree with the proposal, I don't see why you're expecting me to run errands for you to make this happen.
redditsuckz ago
"wecanhelp" is your username...O.o
We are here to help each other not hinder and as a mod all you would have to do is put a sticky up asking if someone would like to compile a list for a biweekly thread compilation of removed submissions and even sticky a thread with the removed submissions for a day or two. Now if that takes up too much of your time then ask another mod to do it.
wecanhelp ago
I'm here to help, not to wipe your ass. If you want something, you're part of the same community, go ahead and make an effort, ask some people, make a plan. There's only a single sticky allowed per subverse on Voat. We will not sticky everything that pops out of your head.
redditsuckz ago
Not totally convinced of that...I noticed you and gopluckyourself logged on around the exact same time rogue mod numbchuck logged on when he caused damage to the sub by deleting important posts;
http://archive.is/twzsl
So maybe there are still a few "rogue mods" here and some deleted posts deserve attention that only you can give because you are a mod with "sticky powers".
wecanhelp ago
Oh, sweet! I always wanted to see when people log on to Voat, could you please point me to the logs of that?
Oh, wait - this is not your honeypot website that I've needed to flag twice. Too bad.Edit: That was voatsucksreally, my bad.
redditsuckz ago
As in "log on" you arrived at 8:21 pm and numbchuck is there within that minute to do damage to the sub;
http://imgur.com/a/rFapL
And what website is that?...because if I had a website it would be for actual investigations of pizzagate not some drama lama bs that you encourage and let happen to v/pizzagate.
wecanhelp ago
Has it ever crossed your mind that as mods, we, y'kno, tend to be around? By "arrived", you certainly mean I was here in that very minute, along with, well, I can't say for sure but I think about... 1k+ people? Not to mention it was my interaction with numbchuck in PMs that triggered him (see his first removal with the comment "cunt", which was my post that I have since resubmitted), so, geez, is there a chance then that he and I both were online at the same time? You know who else was here at the same time? Kevdude. He was alert enough to stop numbchuck. Or, was he numbchuck? Stay tuned, kids, we'll find out in another episode of Scooby Doo.
I stand corrected regarding this one. I have mistaken your username for voatsucksreally, apologies for this one, I'll make an edit in my comment claiming that the website was yours. You're nonetheless full of shit, but this was my mistake.
THE_LIES_OH_THE_LIES ago
THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^
SpikyAube ago
Ok yes I see your point, I was getting a bit too enthusiastic there...