Introducing the 24 Hour Removal Reprieve Flair
A lot of people who care about this sub have had many conversations over the past few months about what can be done to make it run smoothly despite the many difficulties we face. We need submission rules to fight the forum-slider shitposts. We have to administer them consistently to avoid censorship. But many users struggle to craft posts that satisfy them, especially while dealing with anger, frustration and resentment toward mods for removing. We need moderator authority decentralized, yet still effective...Last night, many of those conversations gelled in my brain in a new idea, and @think- and I would like to try it. Here's how it will work:
- Instead of immediately removing posts that fail to meet the submission rules, we will flair them with a 24-hour removal warning, and leave a comment requesting an edit about which rule(s) are at issue. The imperfect post will remain on the board for 24 hours, with the flair.
- The flair will alert all other users that the post is in danger of being removed -- so they can help the OP fix it by supplying links, clarifying the PG connection, explaining things with clearer logic or whatever is missing
- At the end of that time, the post will be automatically removed -- unless the OP responds to the mod comment (not a DM or modmail) to let us know he has edited it and wants the flair removed.
- At that point, mods will reevaluate and either remove the flair, request additional edits, or remove the post
- To avoid a spam tsunami of shitposts, users will only be allowed to have two such flaired threads on the board. Continuing to post threads after you've been flaired for removal will cause you to forfeit the 24 Hour Removal Reprieve. The posts will be removed and the user banned for repeated disregard of the subverse submission rules.
Pros: No more crushing instant deletions and laborious copy-paste resubmissions. All users get the opportunity to moderate the subverse content. Moderators get the opportunity to clearly see community sentiment toward the relevance and value of the subject matter.
Cons: Shitposts stay on the board overnight. (Where they can be downvoated soundly, accruing negative SCP and exposing their purveyors to the appreciation of the community. Ahem. Perhaps this is not a negative!).
The beauty of this approach is that it radically shifts the burden to the users themselves.
Right now, the mods are always the bad guys, with heavy pressure from above* if things aren't removed immediately that violate the rules, and heavy pressure from users if things are summarily removed. Our ruleset is somewhat contrary to the freewheeling expression beloved by Voat at large. Your average Old Goat coming in here to contribute something they think we might be interested in, and getting removed for rule-breaking, is usually shocked, and often complains to ProtectVoat. Understandably.
*Also understandably, because of that anti-rule culture clash, @kevdude @Crensch @VictorSteinerDavion must ensure mods aren't abusing the rules. (Hence the downward pressure lest we mods make the rules look bad). Mods get caught in the middle, and so almost no one wants to take their turn playing dog catcher. Mods are stretched thin and make poorer decisions. The beauty of the 24-hour-flair is it involves the whole community and the user in "Removals" by giving everyone the power to prevent them.
So starting immediately, we are going to try this. Please leave your feedback, ideas, etc. here in the comments, and get involved when you see the new flair and try your hand at modding.
Special thanks to @Disappointed for encouraging new ways of doing things.
DeathToMasonsASAP ago
You act like you and Falcon are not the problem. You two are the ones doing the damage. That is why many of us left or are not here often anymore. You even deleted my post about Trumps connections to the cabal, his endless connections, and then you made a rude comment as you deleted it. We chose our own mods or this place will always be controlled.
wokethefkup ago
Awesome!
Mirelore ago
An awesome idea. Thanks
V____Z ago
Love it - beautiful.
Celticgirlonamission ago
Great Idea guys...keep up with good work! The kids need us!
smokemirrors ago
Thank you Moderators for your time and expert eyes - and excellent changes you have made! I hated MF so could not be part of Voat while he was.
There is a nice new feeling now!
Vindicator ago
Hope you feel more at home, smokemirrors. Welcome back.
smokemirrors ago
Thank you Vindicator! Thank you all :-)
Mammy ago
Very nice. Simple and reasonable. Even I can understand it. ; )
think- ago
Agree with that.
@Vindicator
think- ago
Will do. Thank you.
@Vindicator @Crensch @ESOTERICshade
millennial_vulcan ago
That is what I meant to say, Kevdude, My apologies. Yes ban is too harsh. Just a removal or warning for OP to drum up a synopsis within time frame.
oh thank you!
millennial_vulcan ago
Dear mods + all,
PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. Can we ALSO introduce new regulation banning folk (or at least administering a warning) from submitting a headline or url WITH NO EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT IT IS!!! This sh*t is driving me insane.
If you are going to throw up a link to a video or an article, SUMMARIZE what it is we are clicking on!!! Don't just paste a link and expect someone else to do all the work. Even if you copy + paste the synopsis from that video or article, that is better than just some dumba** rando link that for all we know COULD BE A VIRUS.
It is so obnoxious and lazy. I am sure I have missed many crucial cases because I am never going to click on some arbitrary link without knowing in advance what it is about. I don't know about you guys, but I have enough crap to click on in real life and don't need that when I come here.
Ok, rant over! But seriously please do something about this. PLEASE. Thank you!
@Vindicator @kevdude @think- @crensch @ESOTERICshade
think- ago
Thanks for your input, millennial_vulcan.
Rule 3 already states that video links need an explanation provided by OP.
When I understand you correctly, you would like to expand Rule 3, so that linked articles also require a summary?
The community might want to debate this.
@Vindicator @kevdude @Crensch @ESOTERICshade
ESOTERICshade ago
I might also suggest a timestamp that targets the related material. With a timestamp a mod could check it real quick and make sure its not a spam post. As far as I know that has always been expected of videos. Sometimes a whole video is relevant and in that case OP can still pick any spot in the video that he knows a mod can easily understand.
millennial_vulcan ago
thank you @think- ! Oh yes indeedy. If Rule 3 could be amended, it would benefit all.
I was aware of the rule but I personally have never seen it enforced. The two most pressing issues are (a) 'click fatigue' meaning we all have enough 'click/read' to deal with in our daily lives and (b) the link may be a virus or spam.
The worst offenders lately are the ones that just throw a link to CDAN (or equivalent) in the subject headline. No summary, no RELEVANT LINK TO PIZZAGATE, no fact finding or additional evidence provided. It is such a waste of time and board space.
@Vindicator @kevdude @Crensch @carmencita
think- ago
Totally agree.
millennial_vulcan ago
@Blacksmith21 @Mad_As_Hell @srayzie @Oh_Well_ian
TrishaUK ago
This is a great idea - go @vindicator and @Disappointed!
Vindicator ago
When it's just a link, sure. Unless there is a perceptual disagreement between mods and the community about whether the headline meets Rules 1 and 3. That's where we get into trouble with overly generic headlines, or the ones where the OP just lists a string of key words. They aren't "inaccurate". But they also don't "clearly state Pizzagate relevance". This came up several times yesterday. @think-
carmencita ago
I really did not expect much more than the hope of the Change of the Mods, but now I am Very Pleasantly Surprised. HOORAY! As a Challenged Techie this is Amazing. Thank You!
Vindicator ago
So glad to hear it. It's morning in v/pizzagate. 🌅
GreenDell144 ago
Sounds brilliant. The proof is in the pudding, so they say, but it should work.
sunajAeon ago
Vindicator that's a great idea, a lot more polite approach than the past-thanks
senpaithatignoresyou ago
I stopped sharing information with this sub because of those rules. I will continue to not share information with this sub.
The few occasions i have shared information here, i made sure to cross post it in another sub. I do not trust the mods here.
the rules are counter productive, and i suspect that they have crushed several leads.
Vindicator ago
I can understand that senpai. I hope we can turn things around so you don't feel that way. We are sitting on quite a hoard of research here, the more pieces we gather, the better able we -- and those who lurk -- will be able to put 2 and 2 together.
senpaithatignoresyou ago
Since i posted this, i have discovered that Christopher steele's company has been responsible for covering up and protecting pedophiles in england, and Christopher steele is involved with jimmy savile connections.I am still currently researching this. I can not come here for help due to the current rules, but thankfully there are the chans and the russian Internet.
Giving too many details will dox myself. People here have inadvertently given tooo many details in their research, and have doxxed themselves.
The information provided was good enough for many other subs.
However: I understand where the mods are coming from. I understand that if we are not careful that this sub will be barraged with thousands of false leads. I understand that it is easy to be submerged in dead ends when it comes to citizen investigations.
UNfortunatly the rules here are set up in such a way that it is tooo easy to dox yourself, thanks to internet and social media footprints, and many members have done this as a result.
Vindicator ago
So are you saying that because the material you are working on requires linked sources for every major claim, and your sources are personally connected to you in real life, you can't post here for collaboration?
senpaithatignoresyou ago
No,
Even when linked sources for the claims have been listed, the mods here pull it because of some vague rule or "it's not pizza gate released" so all the stuff i posted here at the beginning of the sub dealing with military contractor abuse in the beginning got pulled.
And that is where the problems begin, When you are in a tiny community like the intel community, or the veterans community, or in union trade organizations, and you start posting articles about an incident that was supposed to be swept under the rug, there is a good chance that some nasty people may put two and two together and figure you that your talking about things you should not be.
Vindicator ago
Ah!!! Thank you for clarifying. That makes perfect sense.
Here's how to get around that much of the time: use SearchVoat.co to find links we've left up on the same topic that met the rules and list several of them to demonstrate this has been considered pizzagate related. Military contractor abuse is definitely part of Pizzagate. Hopefully, the linking to similar but not the same exact incident type of sourcing will be sufficient to avoid doxxing yourself (i.e. create plausible deniability).
karenrussell63 ago
Not sure why social media footprints would be concerning unless @senpaithatignoresyou has shared this content on his facebook/twitter and is worried about his personal accounts showing up if the phrase/title is searched in google. That's why I don't share anything on social media and can't just host stuff on aws :/
ESOTERICshade ago
One shill could totally take over the front page using about five alts. At two slides per alt name that is ten slides. I don't see any procedure for avoiding this in place.
Vindicator ago
Downvoting
GreenDell144 ago
What if a poster is limited to one per day? I have two kids, work full time and I have fair to middling computer skills. This means, I don’t post much, but I’m often finding two minute breaks to look at things and try to make helpful comments. I know there are great researchers and even likely some professional investigators, would they be severely inhibited the if they could only do one post in a 24 hour period?
Vindicator ago
It's not that the number of posts an OP can make will be limited, but the number of posts flaired for rule-breaking. One of the things the shills do is post several crappy, partly or unsourced threads full of disinfo at once (use searchvoat.co and look up posts made here by any username in the ban log that were deleted and you'll see) to slide content off the board. A new legit user might make a couple of submissions without understanding the rules (which don't show up on mobile unless you view the desktop version of the site), and I believe we should give these a chance. But not more than two rule-breakers at a time.
ESOTERICshade ago
I don't know why. 24 hours is a long time. What is your answer to the following not happening? Shills work day and night. If they want to they can keep you jammed. What can you do about the following?
Vindicator ago
If it's obvious shitposts in the order of the old PGisStupid spam that is actually burying quality content, we could remove it. That hasn't happened in very, very long time, though.
What do YOU see as a solution?
ESOTERICshade ago
Good. I just wanted to know that obvious shit posts won't get the flair, but only people really trying in good faith. Carry on my good man :)
Bozito ago
That's odd. Because @think deleted my post this morning because they didn't think my title was comprehensive enough. 🤔
Vindicator ago
He may have done that before seeing my DM and reading the sticky from late last night. We're in different time zones. Give us a chance to coordinate. :-)
Blacksmith21 ago
I like the idea of this as well. Hopefully it works as advertised. I smell butthurt coming for some.
EffYouJohnPodesta ago
Great idea. I assume you'll have to continue removing the really abusive posts from the pedos that are claimed to be things like CP or if it's true spam, without a warning?
Vindicator ago
Yes. Rule 5 stuff would be no exceptions. That hasn't happened much lately, though.
janet58 ago
Very positive change. Thank you. I know I've had posts deleted and didn't really get why, and if I was busy with work, I didn't have time to redo them. This will help immensely.
carmencita ago
Yes, we both had problems with the St. Charles Seminary posting and had them deleted. We were deleted before we could repost or figure out why. This is great! You mad Valiant Attempt!
new4now ago
I forgot the link on one of mine lol
Someone got same article up sooner then me, did it right, so I didn't repost
carmencita ago
Yes, Jane and I both posted it incorrectly and did not have time to correct it. I finally got it right. That's why I am so happy with the 24 Hr. Extra Time!
2impendingdoom ago
really really good idea.
letsdothis1 ago
Upvoat for you!
Disappointed ago
This is a lot better than I had envisioned. Good work.
Vindicator ago
Excellent! Thanks
Mad_As_Hell ago
Great idea, it's really frustrating to have posts deleted without the opportunity for discussion, especially when rules are inconsistently applied by different mods
VictorSteinerDavion ago
The 24 hour reprieve from removal is something I can see as being a way to help new and existing members of the community to gain traction with posts.
But the 24h period must be absolute if the poster fails to meaningfully improve the content.
What that actually means, "meaningfully improve the content", we can figure on the fly to see how it works out.
IpointOutTrolls ago
Naw nigga, its a new house, and you and your Falcon alt ain't in it. In the house, its off the charts yo. You may still be hiding in the woodpile but we ain't scare no mo yo
https://files.catbox.moe/sso8g5.gif
Vindicator ago
I agree. I am not averse to some posts taking more than one round, if they edit but don't fully get it there. The reason is: it all happens in broad daylight where everyone can contribute, so if they're trying to game the system, people will see it and they will destroy their own reputation. I think making the shills dance on stage with ample footlighting is far superior than the "delete-delete-ban-delete-ban alt-attack mods for censorship" treadmill we've been on.
VictorSteinerDavion ago
The perfect mental image for a friday ahahahahaha
UnicornAndSparkles ago
LOVE LOVE LOVE THIS.
karenrussell63 ago
I think this is a good idea. It essentially allows the poster a chance to correct their mistake. When this issue was talked about in the past I believe the concern was that it would put more work on the mods, so I worry about that becoming an issue.
I have to admit I like the idea of highlighting good posts and also the idea of putting good posts in a submission thread, but as someone who's been affected and annoyed by the rules, I think this is a fair to solution. I know that if asked, I would have been happy to provide additional clarity to ensure my post wouldn't be removed.
There may be a lot of fucks giving the mods crap, and some of it may be appropriate, but from what I've witnessed I feel like you guys are doing a good job.
I don't side with the mods or the users, but with the truth.
ESOTERICshade ago
So now mods have the ability to determine what a "special post" is? This will of course reflect a mod's bias. Not a good idea.
karenrussell63 ago
I start out giving you a fair and neutral opinion, but the more you speak the more I think your a shill. The mods would not be determining what a "special post" is, but indicate a post that is following the very simple rules.
ESOTERICshade ago
Person who seldom ever posts here, I don't care what you think about me. It was a joke because you used the phrase "i feel" and these power trippers around here are famous for saying "fuck your fee fees they don't count." It was a joke.
karenrussell63 ago
Ah. You don't need to care what I think about you unless you're a shill, in which case I'd advise you not to slip up because I'll be watching.
I haven't been able to post here often because I have a life outside of pizzagate and typically only post when I have something to contribute. Fair enough though, as someone who likes to stick to facts I should have phrased it better. I was around when /r/pizzagate was shutdown and a large portion moved to riot, a large portion moved here to voat. Many mods came and went and it's hard to know what all went down.
ESOTERICshade ago
Can't wait :)
I understand. Between shills, internet power trip kings and their alts, and just plain stupid people sometimes it is hard to keep up with who is who unless a person has the time to keep their eyeballs focused on it. And then pizzagate is a weird world anyway which complicates things.
karenrussell63 ago
Just don't be a shill.
I've spent time trying to identify the precise moment when it got it's name, have it narrowed down to within a day or two but data is pretty scarce.
Vindicator ago
KR63, did you see this thread published by the guy who started r/pizzagate? He picked the term when he named that sub. It's a pretty amazing read...how fast it all blew up.
karenrussell63 ago
I had bookmarked it but forgot all about it. Thanks for pointing it out, I bet it will be an interesting read.
wincraft71 ago
Any chance we can get users to be able to set just that one flair, collectively? So if >X accounts with a certain level of ccp or scp all flair a thread, it gets flaired without mods? This would allow the users to be the janitors, then the mods deal with the final review for removal after the 24 hours, if needed.
If it's not possible through the flair system, maybe a python bot when enough reputable accounts comment "XYZ" on the post it gets flaired?
Vindicator ago
That is a really cool idea wincraft72. Maybe post that in v/voatdev and see what Putt thinks about it? It might fit right into the new voting thing he is working on.
karenrussell63 ago
Too complicated. Maybe once this new way of moderating has been proven, but for starting out I think whats suggested in the OP is a good start.
wincraft71 ago
Not on their side if they already have an API or can run the script on the backend. The user's part would be simple just comment or flair.
bernitdown ago
Tight. So just so I'm clear, what's to stop vote brigading ruining this system?
UnicornAndSparkles ago
Im guessing if we think its relevant we can help each other with editing in the relevant information in the description and ping a mod to remove the flair?
Vindicator ago
Yep. That is my devious scheme. Y'all just joined the mod team as Stealth Mods.
Vindicator ago
It's not based on votes. Mods will still remove stuff that doesn't meet the guidelines, even if it's been voted up. We've been doing this anyway. But there will now be ample opportunity for people to fix everything but headlines. Those will still have to be removed to be fixed. Not sure how that will work. But this is a start.
Edit: Editing above to include your observation in the Cons. I didn't think of it.
ll0O-O0ll ago
You could edit in a new headline at the top of the submission and then flair the post Edited Title. That way users know that the post has been edited and stayed up, but that the title is not correct.
Vindicator ago
@think- @kevdue @Crensch See parent.
What do you think of this plan? So far, titles are the one wrench in the Removal Reprieve. Think this would pose any problems?
think- ago
Totally agree. I'd really love it if we were able to establish the possibility to edit headlines on Voat, with mod approval.
Two thoughts:
1) Headlines should reflect content, so users can choose what they'd like to read accordingly. To let posts stay, instead of edit and re-post, would make this more difficult, as users would have to look into posts.
2) Shills still would have a feast day when providing clickbaity headlines
3) pro: endless discussion with users, like yesterday, would stop
@kevdude @Crensch: please see parent
Vindicator ago
GREAT IDEA!!!
ll0O-O0ll ago
Thanks