@kevdude, I'm a little late to this as I don't log in very often now, but let me react to this one. With all due respect, the fuck are you talking about?
After about 6 months @wecanhelp and MF pushed to have that changed. That should have been the tip off. "We know best" is bullshit.
Never has the obligation for mods to explain their removals been lifted. The only thing that changed was when. The rule set you had created did not prove to be scalable or practicable, as explaining every single removal was both very taxing in terms of resources, with the sub often being under shill attack, and just nonsense, as we needed to keep rewording existing sub rules in 90% of the legit cases, as they were simply the results of people not reading the rules in the first place.
We changed the rule about removal explanations so that they needed to be requested, in case the rule number cited in the removal note (which remained compulsory, by the way) wasn't sufficient as an explanation. Every single time when people actually asked for an explanation, we gave one. Contrary to your expectation, not a lot of people asked for one, it really only happened once in a great while.
It's a bit ironic that you're preaching about bullshit in the same comment you're spreading bullshit in. If you don't remember the rule change clearly, feel free to read back. It's also ironic how you removed @Millennial_Falcon on the grounds of being selective and biased, but kept @Vindicator who pushed the whole Q agenda aggressively with selectivity and bias. All in all, it's worth thinking about who's actually feeling infallible in all this.
The only thing I'm surprised about, though, is how @Crensch was on board with all this.
Every single time when people actually asked for an explanation, we gave one. Contrary to your expectation, not a lot of people asked for one, it really only happened once in a great while.
Unfortunately, Falcon stopped reading and responding to most modmail months ago, which is where the vast majority of such questions end up, because people reply to the removal message that Voat auto-sends. I was spending most of my time replying to modmail explaining his deletions trying to get people to fix their submissions and repost. The new 24 Hour Reprieve flair we are using now seems to be working much better; it gives everyone a chance to help submitters fix their threads so they satisfy the submission rules -- simultaneously preventing removals and educating everyone about how to follow the rules.
Unfortunately, Falcon stopped reading and responding to most modmail months ago, which is where the vast majority of such questions end up, because people reply to the removal message that Voat auto-sends.
Unfortunately, this is pretty irrelevant in terms of the original rule that clearly said that explanation requests should be posted as comments on deleted submissions, so that the explanation is visible to all other users on the sub to clear up any doubts in the community. It feels like both you and kev are attacking a straw man without regard to what that rule was about, and what it actually said.
I don't trust that the sub is in good hands right now, but time will tell.
view the rest of the comments →
wecanhelp ago
@kevdude, I'm a little late to this as I don't log in very often now, but let me react to this one. With all due respect, the fuck are you talking about?
Never has the obligation for mods to explain their removals been lifted. The only thing that changed was when. The rule set you had created did not prove to be scalable or practicable, as explaining every single removal was both very taxing in terms of resources, with the sub often being under shill attack, and just nonsense, as we needed to keep rewording existing sub rules in 90% of the legit cases, as they were simply the results of people not reading the rules in the first place.
We changed the rule about removal explanations so that they needed to be requested, in case the rule number cited in the removal note (which remained compulsory, by the way) wasn't sufficient as an explanation. Every single time when people actually asked for an explanation, we gave one. Contrary to your expectation, not a lot of people asked for one, it really only happened once in a great while.
It's a bit ironic that you're preaching about bullshit in the same comment you're spreading bullshit in. If you don't remember the rule change clearly, feel free to read back. It's also ironic how you removed @Millennial_Falcon on the grounds of being selective and biased, but kept @Vindicator who pushed the whole Q agenda aggressively with selectivity and bias. All in all, it's worth thinking about who's actually feeling infallible in all this.
The only thing I'm surprised about, though, is how @Crensch was on board with all this.
Vindicator ago
Hi wecanhelp. Good to see you!
Unfortunately, Falcon stopped reading and responding to most modmail months ago, which is where the vast majority of such questions end up, because people reply to the removal message that Voat auto-sends. I was spending most of my time replying to modmail explaining his deletions trying to get people to fix their submissions and repost. The new 24 Hour Reprieve flair we are using now seems to be working much better; it gives everyone a chance to help submitters fix their threads so they satisfy the submission rules -- simultaneously preventing removals and educating everyone about how to follow the rules.
wecanhelp ago
Hi Vind, thanks for your response.
Unfortunately, this is pretty irrelevant in terms of the original rule that clearly said that explanation requests should be posted as comments on deleted submissions, so that the explanation is visible to all other users on the sub to clear up any doubts in the community. It feels like both you and kev are attacking a straw man without regard to what that rule was about, and what it actually said.
I don't trust that the sub is in good hands right now, but time will tell.