You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Vindicator ago

Make a proposal that EVERY rulebreaking post gets a 24 hour flair. Go on.

With all due respect, we did that: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2400756

How does 24 hour grace on source-linked research posts turn into "certain posts"?

The thread in which you made the comment I linked above limiting the flair after telling mods it should have been immediately removed was an unsourced discussion post similar to this one, which you said the flair shouldn't apply to. Have I misunderstood what you wanted?

Crensch ago

All right, I see a pattern here that I think might not have been expressed properly.

At the basest level, posts MUST be research-related here. The disconnect is these meta posts speaking to the users of the subverse without any effort to present any research at all.

'Hey guise, no arrests still let me blackpill and whine and narrate how Podesta is going to walk.'

And this post, "Hey guise, this is a how-to on trannies."

There's not even the chance of redemption of the post to meet guidelines, because the very basis of the post is nothing more than someone telling you what they had for breakfast, content-wise. It's an opinion piece; an editorial. Nothing of the proper substance here.

While it's true that it opens the door for trolls and shills to take their thoughts to the front page with a post doomed to be removed in 24h, they have 24h+time till mod discovery to keep it here. @kevdude, I think, given the recent rule discussion, that even these posts need 24h, since that's what the community wanted, and giving mods the power to subjectively decide on immediate removal on their own is bound to cause problems with moderation. All it takes is for some shill group to catch onto this, and we have posts toeing that line until a mod slips up.

IF the community has a problem with these posts filling up the place, or if the mods have issues and ask the community for help changing the rules to specifically allow for this, then that sounds about right. It's my understanding that the most recent rule discussion did not include these kinds of posts, or the caveat that they'd be removed immediately.

I also don't think @Vindicator was trying to be facetious here, but instead used your words as his guideline on removal, since the rules, as written, don't mention immediate removal. It's exactly what I would do in his position. Including linking directly to your comment mentioning it.