You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

kestrel9 ago

Initial thoughts: It's a shame to lose good posts due to rule 3.

I like #2: the 24 hour 'edited title' flair idea for posts that otherwise meet the other rules.

I just helped out on Darkknight111 post (filling in titles on a list of PG links). His is part 3 of a series already accepted, so his title could be grandfathered in, as long as the content meets the other rules imo (which I believe it does).

Had the 24 hour period passed without him addressing the flair, I doubt he would have reposted all the very lengthy post, so in his case rule 3 really doesn't work.

Blacksmith21 ago

And yeah - if the sub rallies to support a quality post, but technically bad within the 24 hour flair, then let it stand. It's a technicality which allows shitposts to be removed.

Shitpost:

  • Poorly written title or misleading
  • Link with no explanation of content
  • Post with no stated relevance to Pizzagate
  • Post with no relevance to Pizzagate

ben_matlock ago

i agree. as important as i think titles are, we should definitely err on the side of letting submissions stand if they made a strong effort in good faith (especially if the post engages the community.)

maggiethatcher ago

Also agree. If the post has 10 voats in 24 hours then it is usually a reflection of problems with the post. Flairing artificially reduces the number of voats (because voaters are reluctant to vote up a flaired article)

Cc1914 ago

Exactly!