I think the CCP thing kinda sucks but it's a good idea to have make sure people are actually participating in the subs instead of just lurking. I'm guilty of this myself, I've been lurking here since the site launched in Alpha but I rarely post or comment. Still can't seem to break away from REddit as much as I want to.
(5) User requesting subverse must have activity in subverse — At least 2 posts and 2 comments in the last month in the subverse being requested. If content appears to be submitted just to meet this requirement, request will be denied.
(6) 300 CCP is required in the subverse the user is requesting if subscriber count is 1000 or higher.
These rules are bullshit, /v/wallpapers has nearly 4000 subscribers, but content and comments rarely get upvoated.
I'd like to help some of the dying/dead communities, but you are making it prohibitively difficult.
I have a question with this.
300 CCP is required in the subverse the user is requesting if subscriber count is 1000 or higher.
What if the subverse has over 1,000 subscribers but it's completely dead. Therefore you're unable to get 300CCP as it's dead. If it's dead, you won't be able to get any CCP because no one uses it...
Change the rules goddammit, I have been waiting for so long to take over /v/clashofclans due to the leaders inactivity and has never posted on the subverse but I cant because I don't have enough ccp but I should be an exception since I have had voat for nearly 1.2 years
Can you change the rules now because I have been waiting to get my subverse back for like half a year and Rule 1 just has to deny me at the perfect month and its really pissing me off
/u/moe/u/PuttItOut/u/atko and/u/DanielFlamino can we look please look at possibly 1-3 new mods temporary who are solely dedicated to this, all 4 of you are extremely busy with other more pressing issues, and I feel if we get a few people solely dedicated here, even if it is temporary, we can clear the requests up. I would ask for 1 new mod who can transfer the @system ones, and 2 others to deal with the general ones. The new mods would be unable to transfer subs among themselves, that would require the permission of one of the original four. Even a structure such as this would work, we could have 1-2 people monitoring the posts, reviewing the requirements, if they meet them, they are sent to a dedicated person to get the transfers done in a timely manner, possibly 2 people responsible for this. If rejected the first person handles everything.
"(3) Only one pending subverse transfer per user at a time"
It takes literally a month to get an answer back on a request and there are so many subs with popular names just being sat on by people who dont even log on anymore
Everyone has limited time, but it'd be nice if the sticky post made it obvious that subverses not owned by @youcanclaimthissub have additional requirements before a claim to the sub will be approved. Maybe the only subs eligible for transfer are the ones @youcanclaimthissub owns?
Maybe the only subs eligible for transfer are the ones @youcanclaimthissub owns?
Any subverse with an inactive owner (including @youcanclaimthissub) or an owner willing to give up ownership is eligible for transfer. That account exists mainly to indicate subverses that have no owner whatsoever.
So about a day ago I asked another user to make a subverse for me until I was able to make my account, since I kept getting the page saying voat is invite only right now. I was eventually able to make the account, but I don't meet any of the requirements yet.
But now that I have my account, is there anyway I could still get the sub transferred to me?
Hey. I PM'd you about this but you never responded, I still don't know what to do. I am trying to request /v/conservative and have been for some time, but several old claims keep popping up that have been rejected or given up on. The sub keep redirecting me to these old posts and refuses my submission. Please help!
[Question] how does one become a moderator of a sub owned by @system?
[Opinion] I think 300 CCP in subs over 1000 subs is a ridiculous requirement with the current activity level of voat. I moderate a sub /v/FatPeopleHate and we are very active, I comment a decent amount and only have a total number of 524 CCP on my account. I don't see how anyone is gonna hit 300 CCP in a small inactive sub.
The 300 CCP is definitely too much. You make a good point with FPH though considering it is one of the most active subs and you barely have gotten anywhere even as a mod.
In order to become a level-2 Moderator of a system-owned 'default', create a new subverse request as usual. We don't have formal criteria for those yet, so whether or not a request will be accepted is uncertain.
The 300 CCP req is... very likely to change. Or be removed. Dunno' right now.
I did not know the part about making comments. My subverse /v/audioengineering was just taken from me and I was not asked. This seems dishonesty, gamey and not fair.
What do I do? I want it back. When I go to make the report it sends me to the thread the other person made when they requested to take the site. The term squatter take-over is very very relevant. It is like a gypsy shows up on your porch and steals from you. I am upset.
At the time of the request flagging, you had only submitted twocomments within the five months of that subverse's lifespan. You had not created a submission in fifty days. You only became active after the request had been made, and we do not take activity after the request flagging into account because it shows that the owner is likely only reacting to the transfer request and had not been interested in actively building the subverse before it was eligible for transfer.
hey moe, you assign to me a motivation to react to said flagging, to make posts in response to said flagging. I see your concern and the huge job you must have, but how can I be motivated in this way if I am unaware of any transfer request or subvoat flagging?
If the subvoat moderator is informed of a subvoat being flagged, I would sure like to see documentation supporting this. Are we keeping it real, or is this asymmetrical use of power? It is like government, if you are going to use power you have to codify it or people have to be informed of the basics.
I do not know of any way that I was informed of said "flagging" and then as a follow-up you are reflexively attributing to me my honest posting and saying it may be in response to being "flagged." I am sure you can see my view on this, put yourself in my shoes. -Some feedback for you.
moe,
Thank you for putting a little time into my request. I am not sure about your stated timeline. Let me check. You state that at the time of request, the subvoat was inactive for fifty days. According to https://voat.co/v/subverserequest/comments/293396 the transfer request was made 19 days ago, so that would be on or about 7/16/2015 , however I am showing three posts made by me @ 1 month ago.
I see that we are on the same page and are referring to the same thing, however, according my calendar, that is more like 39 or 40 days. You have added 20%.
I did not realize the requirement to post comments. I see that now. I am not here to hassle you and I wish to respect your time. I think you should take into consideration the prior few months Voat has just been getting started with lots of "Where are we going to get the server space for the load?" messages. I think in the early time, you might be a little less formal while people are still learning the Voat system, so to speak.
I think this particular case is going to have a good resolve, as the person who requested the site and I are now co-moderators and their expressed intent is to work together, which is likely an innovation that is for the best. However, I have one request. Currently the subvoat /v/audioengineering shows 2 moderators. Well and good, however it says the subvoat is "created by BostonDrivingIsWorse"
Now that I am back in the moderation, is it possible to list me as the "created by" credit, as in truth this would be the correct information. I did very much create this subvoat. Make sense? Can that be done?
Thank you for your time and reply, and I sure look forward to getting this squared up so we can be on our way.
Yours sincerely,
Calico
I intended to state that it had been fifty days at the time of the flagging, 07/27/15, though the point even stands with it being forty days at the time of the request.
The creator listed in a subverse cannot be different from the owner of the subverse. This is just how the code currently functions; the current level-1 Moderator is established as the 'creator' of the subverse. I do not know whether this is intended behavior or if that was a stub measure.
Regarding being more lax with enforcement of the system (if that's what you meant by 'less formal'), the issue is at least threefold:
(1) Granting exceptions to current policy establishes precedent. A clearly laid out set of rules and prerequisites establishes justifications for each transfer. If transfers are rejected / transferred despite following / not following protocol, the system will be perceived by users as being used arbitrarily — i.e., we approve those that we 'like' and reject those that we don't. Consistency in processing requests removes ambiguity and a large amount of drama resulting from the process.
(2) Alerting inactive Moderators (i.e. potential 'squatters') that an inactive subverse has been requested or allowing activity after the flagging to 'count' toward activity leads to continued squatting. A large amount of subverses have already been seized by those that have no interest in building them and these communities are effectively left to stagnate due to the lack of moderation, customization and community ability to institute changes. This no-warning policy may be unfortunate for those that have temporary real-life circumstances that may lead them away for a while, though we have no way of verifying these circumstances and these subverses are in need of active curators. This is necessary for the moment, however unpopular it may be with those affected by it.
(3) Allowing any activity on Voat or just one submission but no comment (or vice versa) to count as 'active' goes against what a subverse owner is supposed to do. The owner is supposed to contribute to and interact with the community; their duty is to build an infrastructure for the community they desire to see, not 'reserve a name' and wait for an audience to come without doing anything to promote or improve the subverse. A post is a contribution in content; a comment is interaction with the community. To own a subverse without actively contributing to it is doing more harm to Voat in its alpha status than if the owner did not own the subverse at all.
moe, I am going to write back to you tomorrow. I am sick with flu and drove last night. I think you are importing the worst of reddit into your site. the guy you gave my subvoat to just un-modded me and told me to fuck off. that is who you gave my subvoat to, a reddit mod who is telling me to fuck off after taking over my work. I will follow up with you tomorrow. I think you should give at least one warning prior to towing the car. One single reminder email would be appropriate prior to seizing someone's work. I am glad this guy showed his true colors, it makes things more poignent. I will write to you tomorrow. Here is that guy's message to me. This is who you gave my subvoat to. I think you should rethink. I would like to have it back and I request that you review your decision. Here is his message to me:
My first email was on 7/9. That was the one you replied to several weeks later.
I did not tell you where I teach because I prefer to remain anonymous (my user name might give you a hint, though). I find your lack of communication and your judgmental assumptions unprofessional. I'm sorry that because I expect a reply within two weeks, you see me as being in a "hurry".
You do not know me. You do not know my experience. You do not know who I know, or who I've worked with.
Had you been a little more professional and gracious with your response here, I would have been happy to keep you on as a mod, but unfortunately your ego may have done you in this time. I do not accept your demands regarding the cover photo, and as of now, you are no longer a mod of /v/audioengineering.
As for the console- it's an Avid (previously Euphonix) System 5. This is a studio in which I've done a good amount of work, and one of my favorite studios to work in.
Now if you please, fuck off.
Note: My "demands" re: cover photo are that we take turns, each per month.
I totally understand why these rules are on place but I find the rule number 5 to be off-putting from the very same reasons which /u/duoi pointed out.
I moderate NSFW subverses myself and there was one which I requested when I joined. I made a mistake back then though since I didn't have enough CCP. The request was denied. I did another one when I had over 100, but request was ignored for a week at least, then denied when the new rule came to place that account must be 30 days old. Now, I'd like to get that subverse really going and was looking forward getting into 30 days but it seems now I'd have to start to create activity into abandoned subverse which would be image post based in any case. It would surely look like I'd only be doing it for the very reason to get qualified especially as I read about this now and I really have no interest for the very same reasons as duoi pointed out.
So is this absolutely necessary rule written to stone and I should just forget it? Sorry if I sound a bit frustrated with this, you guys are doing wonderful job and by no means I mean to criticize, like said I totally understand there must be rules so it's not going to be a wild west. Just been looking forward to it. I loved to do this on that other place and have been already doing it over here in other subverses.
None of these rules are set in stone; (5) and (6) are the most susceptible to changing.
Contribute content for a few days to the subverse; I see that you've contributed a plethora of content to the other subverses that you moderate, and we'd likely approve your request after a few days of activity given your history.
In the case of squatting: If the Moderator is commenting on content you submit, then they must also have submitted content within the last thirty days in order to be considered active. If they are performing both of these functions, then it's likely to not be considered squatting. In the case of /v/Bondage, the Moderator has been inactive for 1 year, 1 month, 11 days — it's unlikely that they'd return so quickly.
Would there be any particular rules added to prevent squatting (accidentally or on purpose)? Maybe minor things like the frequency of logging in, if the mod in question actually uses any Administration Tools in the past month, etc.?
There aren't currently rules being considered beyond the posting/commenting requirements, no. Logging in and contributing to other subverses does not contribute to the subverse in question and thus is not considered.
@Moe there's a subverse I'd like to request (When my account hits 30 days). It's a subverse that only has 1 submission in it and the creator/mod/headmod has only made 1 submission and 0 comments ever, the last one being 26 days ago.
Do I really need to make 2 submissions in that subverse in order to be considered for it?
Looks like I missed this; sorry for the extremely late reply.
Yes, you still need to meet the activity requirements even if the subverse currently has no recent activity. Need to put forth a bit of content to show that you're interested in building it; as far as commenting in a dead subverse goes, offering commentary on the content you submit will have to suffice.
Rule 5 is the only rule that I don't really agree with on this list. You bring up a good point about poking a dead subverse and in doing so waking up the mod. I also wonder what happens if there's a sub for lions (the sports team) that's completely dead and abandoned, but you want to use it for actual animal lions. Do you have to post sports related content to qualify? What about after the transfer?
All in all it looks like a good list of requirements that will probably be refined as time goes on. There are lots of scenarios that can't be anticipated in advance.
What about empty subs? The subverse I requested is deserted and the moderator inactive for 5 months. The participation rule makes no sense for this, since there's no one to participate with and nothing to participate in, in a sub with an AWOL moderator.
Anonymous subverses are rather tricky to deal with.
Regarding the "2 posts / comments" rule, perhaps we could append "if the subverse has had any activity in the past month" so that 'dead' subverses such as that aren't subject to the requirement.
By the way, your subverse request was created before these new requirements were rolled out and thus is not subject to them. I'll approve it when I get that far in the queue.
Well this is ridiculous, my request was made well before all of these requirements yet the rules were retroactively applied to my request? This is a double standard, and the subverse I asked for is still unused yet I don't meet the new criteria.
Here is the link to my request, check the time stamps and please reconsider. I would love to get into Voat but this is the only thing I'm interested in participating in at the moment.
I honestly do like the site and wish to make the transition if possible
6, while well intentioned, is going to need revising. For instance, some subs (like adult subs) have very little commenting. Also, some subs have many subscribers but very little activity. It would take forever and might even be impossible to get 300 CCP in either case.
I agree.
Another thing is that many moderators are not the chatty type. They might submit to get stuff going but they generally are not the center of attention in comments. And that's ok.
This would be me, haha. I mainly comment to say hello or to try and help (if it is needed). However, I do like participating, and if I want to share something or have my say, I'll comment; sometimes it just isn't needed though. Maybe someone has already said what I would or I don't feel particularity chatty at the time, etc., so I lurk :) I don't think it takes anything away from my ability to be a good mod.
That could work, though the 'defaults' need a mod-cleanup first since there are several people that have been inactive for several months (even over a year) taking up mod slots. One of my main concerns when thinking about 'default' criteria is making sure that the new guy/gal doesn't cause discord in the existing team.
@moe, I've been trying to message you for a good half hour regarding a vaguely similar issue, and the mail will Just. Not. Send. Would you mind messaging me so I can send it as a reply and hope that works?
Not prior to this, no. I was trying to send you a mail asking about a subverse that's unused but locked, so participation is impossible. You should have something in your inbox from me.
Personally, I think it should be based on number of comments, rather than CCP (although, I suppose this could be an issue too, if the sub is totally dead or like /v/sports, as you said) if we're to have a rule like this. In many larger subs you could make a comment, and if the post is highly upvoated, get the 300 CCP from that single comment - whereas someone else might make 100 comments and still not be there. I guess it depends on what the 300 CCP rule is intended for, though (i.e. is it to show activity/interest in the sub?).
Also, there could be a rule that supersedes this. Say, something like 1k CCP and 500 comments globally. Just something to show the requester is active, is what I'm getting at.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts on the matter. We'll see how it all works out :)
Cool, I still meet the requirements! I'm sure you guys are super busy but could you put through my request for /v/bodyweightfitness, please? Found here It's one of the most upvoted posts on this sub lately but I'm afraid it's still getting buried under all the other requests. I'm pretty enthusiastic about this and I'd like to get to work on it as soon as possible, and the community seems to share my enthusiasm and want me to replace their current inactive mod.
I am glad you have changed the rules and I think that this is a very good way of making sure subs are moderated by users who care about the content that is being posted. However, I do think that requiring 300 ccp in the requested subverse is too much, I think this will lead to subs going unmoderated/undeveloped.
I think it could block some requests, at least. The 1000 subscriber requirement mitigates it to a degree, but there are likely some fairly dead subs out there with over 1k subscribers (or eventually will be).
Take /v/gadgets or /v/buildapc, for example. There are 3971 and 2570 subscribers, respectively, but they are quite dead; getting 300 CCP there would be near-impossible, or take a very long time, as of now. They are my subs now, and I'm going to do my best to make them active; just saying, had this been in-place at the time of my requests, there is certainly no way I would have received the subs.
It's definitely something to consider, even if it won't affect a large number of requests.
onemilligram ago
I think the CCP thing kinda sucks but it's a good idea to have make sure people are actually participating in the subs instead of just lurking. I'm guilty of this myself, I've been lurking here since the site launched in Alpha but I rarely post or comment. Still can't seem to break away from REddit as much as I want to.
cynoclast ago
Seconding this. I wanted to take over a dead sub, but not feed absent/squatter mods power first.
This rule is stupid. Good administrators make a good website, not good rules.
SelfReferenceParadox ago
moemon https://i.sli.mg/93dlCP.gif
Chronibus ago
These rules are bullshit, /v/wallpapers has nearly 4000 subscribers, but content and comments rarely get upvoated.
I'd like to help some of the dying/dead communities, but you are making it prohibitively difficult.
Xyphien ago
I have a question with this. 300 CCP is required in the subverse the user is requesting if subscriber count is 1000 or higher. What if the subverse has over 1,000 subscribers but it's completely dead. Therefore you're unable to get 300CCP as it's dead. If it's dead, you won't be able to get any CCP because no one uses it...
ThugLifeNewShit ago
when does a subverse get declared abandoned?
Zucal ago
Question: In the case of inactive mods, how long do they have to have not submitted or commented to be considered "inactive?"
moe ago
They are only human.
Few mortals are able to resist the Mysterious Butt™.
moe ago
Busy administrators.
Mindbender4 ago
Change the rules goddammit, I have been waiting for so long to take over /v/clashofclans due to the leaders inactivity and has never posted on the subverse but I cant because I don't have enough ccp but I should be an exception since I have had voat for nearly 1.2 years
Mindbender4 ago
Can you change the rules now because I have been waiting to get my subverse back for like half a year and Rule 1 just has to deny me at the perfect month and its really pissing me off
moe ago
Whoops, didn't see this comment 'til now.
I'm unable to view identities in an anonymous subverse, so these are set aside for the administrators to investigate.
moe ago
That requirement is waived if posting is disabled or the Moderators are consistently deleting all new submissions.
Icecold82 ago
I think these are great rules.
Call_Me_Kelly ago
I thought this was first come first serve as it can be gotten to, but recently threads only 2 days old are showing pending, what's the deal?
moe ago
Packing and moving several rooms of things; time is scarce.
Hakb404 ago
/u/moe /u/PuttItOut /u/atko and/u/DanielFlamino can we look please look at possibly 1-3 new mods temporary who are solely dedicated to this, all 4 of you are extremely busy with other more pressing issues, and I feel if we get a few people solely dedicated here, even if it is temporary, we can clear the requests up. I would ask for 1 new mod who can transfer the @system ones, and 2 others to deal with the general ones. The new mods would be unable to transfer subs among themselves, that would require the permission of one of the original four. Even a structure such as this would work, we could have 1-2 people monitoring the posts, reviewing the requirements, if they meet them, they are sent to a dedicated person to get the transfers done in a timely manner, possibly 2 people responsible for this. If rejected the first person handles everything.
sniper98g ago
How do you show that the current mod is not active in an anonymous subverse?
ChimpChokingChampion ago
"(3) Only one pending subverse transfer per user at a time"
It takes literally a month to get an answer back on a request and there are so many subs with popular names just being sat on by people who dont even log on anymore
Peglius ago
How long should a top mod be inactive before a request can be made?
moe ago
Thirty days. The FAQ is due to be updated in the foreseeable future.
tdub ago
Everyone has limited time, but it'd be nice if the sticky post made it obvious that subverses not owned by @youcanclaimthissub have additional requirements before a claim to the sub will be approved. Maybe the only subs eligible for transfer are the ones @youcanclaimthissub owns?
moe ago
Any subverse with an inactive owner (including @youcanclaimthissub) or an owner willing to give up ownership is eligible for transfer. That account exists mainly to indicate subverses that have no owner whatsoever.
Peglius ago
thanks!
moe ago
That prerequisite will not change for now.
dsatrbs ago
Tell me about it. These rules are just getting more and more onerous.
nobodywillseethis ago
So about a day ago I asked another user to make a subverse for me until I was able to make my account, since I kept getting the page saying voat is invite only right now. I was eventually able to make the account, but I don't meet any of the requirements yet.
But now that I have my account, is there anyway I could still get the sub transferred to me?
SirFarticus ago
Hey. I PM'd you about this but you never responded, I still don't know what to do. I am trying to request /v/conservative and have been for some time, but several old claims keep popping up that have been rejected or given up on. The sub keep redirecting me to these old posts and refuses my submission. Please help!
moe ago
Oh, thought I responded. Append a '?' to the end of the URL when submitting it.
SirFarticus ago
Thanks
lllllllllll ago
Isn't rule ( 1 ) about 100 CCP unnecessary since rule ( 6 ) already requires 300 CCP in the requested sub?
moe ago
The latter only applies to subverses with 1000+ subscribers.
lllllllllll ago
Oh right. Still, how many people have 300 CCP in a single sub? Unless of course you make a really good joke :).
moe ago
It's very likely that'll be changed. I'm just a bit too busy today to do much regarding Voat.
gnomesane ago
Can we put in a request for a sub so that when we meet the requirements we can have it over anyone else that requests it in the mean time?
moe ago
No, there is no "reservation" system. If the poster is ineligible whenever the request is evaluated, it will be rejected.
gnomesane ago
That's gay, but OK, thanks for the reply.
12_Years_A_Toucan ago
@PuttItOut or @moe
[Question] how does one become a moderator of a sub owned by @system?
[Opinion] I think 300 CCP in subs over 1000 subs is a ridiculous requirement with the current activity level of voat. I moderate a sub /v/FatPeopleHate and we are very active, I comment a decent amount and only have a total number of 524 CCP on my account. I don't see how anyone is gonna hit 300 CCP in a small inactive sub.
HomerSimpson ago
The 300 CCP is definitely too much. You make a good point with FPH though considering it is one of the most active subs and you barely have gotten anywhere even as a mod.
12_Years_A_Toucan ago
Maybe because I don't whore myself out with low effort comments in /new like you or the off topic post like berry! :p
HomerSimpson ago
I do no such thing! Take that back! I am nothing like Berry!
12_Years_A_Toucan ago
You're right. @SportyStrawberry is a much better whore than you.
HomerSimpson ago
Is that a compliment or ?
moe ago
In order to become a level-2 Moderator of a system-owned 'default', create a new subverse request as usual. We don't have formal criteria for those yet, so whether or not a request will be accepted is uncertain.
The 300 CCP req is... very likely to change. Or be removed. Dunno' right now.
12_Years_A_Toucan ago
Thanks for the response moe, y'all are doing a great job as always.
Totally understand having to try and test rules out though to see what works and what doesn't.
calico ago
I did not know the part about making comments. My subverse /v/audioengineering was just taken from me and I was not asked. This seems dishonesty, gamey and not fair.
What do I do? I want it back. When I go to make the report it sends me to the thread the other person made when they requested to take the site. The term squatter take-over is very very relevant. It is like a gypsy shows up on your porch and steals from you. I am upset.
moe ago
[response]
calico ago
hey moe, you assign to me a motivation to react to said flagging, to make posts in response to said flagging. I see your concern and the huge job you must have, but how can I be motivated in this way if I am unaware of any transfer request or subvoat flagging?
If the subvoat moderator is informed of a subvoat being flagged, I would sure like to see documentation supporting this. Are we keeping it real, or is this asymmetrical use of power? It is like government, if you are going to use power you have to codify it or people have to be informed of the basics.
I do not know of any way that I was informed of said "flagging" and then as a follow-up you are reflexively attributing to me my honest posting and saying it may be in response to being "flagged." I am sure you can see my view on this, put yourself in my shoes. -Some feedback for you.
calico ago
moe, Thank you for putting a little time into my request. I am not sure about your stated timeline. Let me check. You state that at the time of request, the subvoat was inactive for fifty days. According to https://voat.co/v/subverserequest/comments/293396 the transfer request was made 19 days ago, so that would be on or about 7/16/2015 , however I am showing three posts made by me @ 1 month ago.
Posting time: 6/7/2015 https://voat.co/v/audioengineering/comments/113404 Posting time: 6/7/2015 https://voat.co/v/audioengineering/comments/113400 Posting time: 6/7/2015 https://voat.co/v/audioengineering/comments/113398
I see that we are on the same page and are referring to the same thing, however, according my calendar, that is more like 39 or 40 days. You have added 20%.
I did not realize the requirement to post comments. I see that now. I am not here to hassle you and I wish to respect your time. I think you should take into consideration the prior few months Voat has just been getting started with lots of "Where are we going to get the server space for the load?" messages. I think in the early time, you might be a little less formal while people are still learning the Voat system, so to speak.
I think this particular case is going to have a good resolve, as the person who requested the site and I are now co-moderators and their expressed intent is to work together, which is likely an innovation that is for the best. However, I have one request. Currently the subvoat /v/audioengineering shows 2 moderators. Well and good, however it says the subvoat is "created by BostonDrivingIsWorse"
Now that I am back in the moderation, is it possible to list me as the "created by" credit, as in truth this would be the correct information. I did very much create this subvoat. Make sense? Can that be done?
Thank you for your time and reply, and I sure look forward to getting this squared up so we can be on our way. Yours sincerely, Calico
moe ago
I intended to state that it had been fifty days at the time of the flagging, 07/27/15, though the point even stands with it being forty days at the time of the request.
The creator listed in a subverse cannot be different from the owner of the subverse. This is just how the code currently functions; the current level-1 Moderator is established as the 'creator' of the subverse. I do not know whether this is intended behavior or if that was a stub measure.
Regarding being more lax with enforcement of the system (if that's what you meant by 'less formal'), the issue is at least threefold:
(
1) Granting exceptions to current policy establishes precedent. A clearly laid out set of rules and prerequisites establishes justifications for each transfer. If transfers are rejected / transferred despite following / not following protocol, the system will be perceived by users as being used arbitrarily — i.e., we approve those that we 'like' and reject those that we don't. Consistency in processing requests removes ambiguity and a large amount of drama resulting from the process.(
2) Alerting inactive Moderators (i.e. potential 'squatters') that an inactive subverse has been requested or allowing activity after the flagging to 'count' toward activity leads to continued squatting. A large amount of subverses have already been seized by those that have no interest in building them and these communities are effectively left to stagnate due to the lack of moderation, customization and community ability to institute changes. This no-warning policy may be unfortunate for those that have temporary real-life circumstances that may lead them away for a while, though we have no way of verifying these circumstances and these subverses are in need of active curators. This is necessary for the moment, however unpopular it may be with those affected by it.(
3) Allowing any activity on Voat or just one submission but no comment (or vice versa) to count as 'active' goes against what a subverse owner is supposed to do. The owner is supposed to contribute to and interact with the community; their duty is to build an infrastructure for the community they desire to see, not 'reserve a name' and wait for an audience to come without doing anything to promote or improve the subverse. A post is a contribution in content; a comment is interaction with the community. To own a subverse without actively contributing to it is doing more harm to Voat in its alpha status than if the owner did not own the subverse at all.BostonDrivingIsWorse ago
Hi @moe,
Thank you for keeping up with this matter, and I apologize this drama has been brought to your doorstep. Please let me know if I can be of any help.
As for @calico's response below, please refer to the condescending reply he sent me, which warranted the pasted response:
Edit for link: https://voat.co/v/subverserequest/comments/293396/1562651
calico ago
moe, I am going to write back to you tomorrow. I am sick with flu and drove last night. I think you are importing the worst of reddit into your site. the guy you gave my subvoat to just un-modded me and told me to fuck off. that is who you gave my subvoat to, a reddit mod who is telling me to fuck off after taking over my work. I will follow up with you tomorrow. I think you should give at least one warning prior to towing the car. One single reminder email would be appropriate prior to seizing someone's work. I am glad this guy showed his true colors, it makes things more poignent. I will write to you tomorrow. Here is that guy's message to me. This is who you gave my subvoat to. I think you should rethink. I would like to have it back and I request that you review your decision. Here is his message to me:
My first email was on 7/9. That was the one you replied to several weeks later.
I did not tell you where I teach because I prefer to remain anonymous (my user name might give you a hint, though). I find your lack of communication and your judgmental assumptions unprofessional. I'm sorry that because I expect a reply within two weeks, you see me as being in a "hurry".
You do not know me. You do not know my experience. You do not know who I know, or who I've worked with.
Had you been a little more professional and gracious with your response here, I would have been happy to keep you on as a mod, but unfortunately your ego may have done you in this time. I do not accept your demands regarding the cover photo, and as of now, you are no longer a mod of /v/audioengineering.
As for the console- it's an Avid (previously Euphonix) System 5. This is a studio in which I've done a good amount of work, and one of my favorite studios to work in.
Now if you please, fuck off.
Note: My "demands" re: cover photo are that we take turns, each per month.
Yours sincerely, Calico
qzxq ago
Could you also Xpost this to /v/VoatUserGroup?
That would be great!
Thanks
TheRealRipster ago
Well, that is annoying - changing rules just as I meet 30 day requirement.
Not going over well at Reddit either!
https://www.reddit.com/r/MechanicalKeyboards/comments/3fr41v/voat_has_modzis_too/
moe ago
Asking for an upvoat brigade. Nice.
TheRealRipster ago
not an easy job:
http://i.imgur.com/qgXTx2I.gifv
JustWonderful ago
I totally understand why these rules are on place but I find the rule number 5 to be off-putting from the very same reasons which /u/duoi pointed out.
I moderate NSFW subverses myself and there was one which I requested when I joined. I made a mistake back then though since I didn't have enough CCP. The request was denied. I did another one when I had over 100, but request was ignored for a week at least, then denied when the new rule came to place that account must be 30 days old. Now, I'd like to get that subverse really going and was looking forward getting into 30 days but it seems now I'd have to start to create activity into abandoned subverse which would be image post based in any case. It would surely look like I'd only be doing it for the very reason to get qualified especially as I read about this now and I really have no interest for the very same reasons as duoi pointed out.
So is this absolutely necessary rule written to stone and I should just forget it? Sorry if I sound a bit frustrated with this, you guys are doing wonderful job and by no means I mean to criticize, like said I totally understand there must be rules so it's not going to be a wild west. Just been looking forward to it. I loved to do this on that other place and have been already doing it over here in other subverses.
moe ago
None of these rules are set in stone; (
5) and (6) are the most susceptible to changing.Contribute content for a few days to the subverse; I see that you've contributed a plethora of content to the other subverses that you moderate, and we'd likely approve your request after a few days of activity given your history.
In the case of squatting: If the Moderator is commenting on content you submit, then they must also have submitted content within the last thirty days in order to be considered active. If they are performing both of these functions, then it's likely to not be considered squatting. In the case of /v/Bondage, the Moderator has been inactive for 1 year, 1 month, 11 days — it's unlikely that they'd return so quickly.
JustWonderful ago
Alright. Many thanks for clearing that out and I'll do as you advised.
Stars ago
Would there be any particular rules added to prevent squatting (accidentally or on purpose)? Maybe minor things like the frequency of logging in, if the mod in question actually uses any Administration Tools in the past month, etc.?
moe ago
Sorry about being late with this reply.
There aren't currently rules being considered beyond the posting/commenting requirements, no. Logging in and contributing to other subverses does not contribute to the subverse in question and thus is not considered.
Ripley_Riae ago
@Moe there's a subverse I'd like to request (When my account hits 30 days). It's a subverse that only has 1 submission in it and the creator/mod/headmod has only made 1 submission and 0 comments ever, the last one being 26 days ago.
Do I really need to make 2 submissions in that subverse in order to be considered for it?
moe ago
Looks like I missed this; sorry for the extremely late reply.
Yes, you still need to meet the activity requirements even if the subverse currently has no recent activity. Need to put forth a bit of content to show that you're interested in building it; as far as commenting in a dead subverse goes, offering commentary on the content you submit will have to suffice.
keithcozz ago
They don't care.
keithcozz ago
There are not enough rules. Try harder.
lllllllllll ago
I think it's nice the rules are now more fleshed out. It reduced the potential for drama.
ChillyHellion ago
Rule 5 is the only rule that I don't really agree with on this list. You bring up a good point about poking a dead subverse and in doing so waking up the mod. I also wonder what happens if there's a sub for lions (the sports team) that's completely dead and abandoned, but you want to use it for actual animal lions. Do you have to post sports related content to qualify? What about after the transfer?
All in all it looks like a good list of requirements that will probably be refined as time goes on. There are lots of scenarios that can't be anticipated in advance.
keithcozz ago
This is a carbon-copy of a website that has existed for the better part of a decade. Pretty much every scenario can be anticipated.
cynoclast ago
Upto to and including a free speech bait & switch. Reddit did that and it's why I'm here now.
PuttItOut ago
We will review. Sounds like there is some valid concern. We are just attempting to be as objective as possible, hence the expanded rules.
superfaggot ago
What about empty subs? The subverse I requested is deserted and the moderator inactive for 5 months. The participation rule makes no sense for this, since there's no one to participate with and nothing to participate in, in a sub with an AWOL moderator.
moe ago
Anonymous subverses are rather tricky to deal with.
Regarding the "2 posts / comments" rule, perhaps we could append "if the subverse has had any activity in the past month" so that 'dead' subverses such as that aren't subject to the requirement.
By the way, your subverse request was created before these new requirements were rolled out and thus is not subject to them. I'll approve it when I get that far in the queue.
Clarkey7163 ago
Well this is ridiculous, my request was made well before all of these requirements yet the rules were retroactively applied to my request? This is a double standard, and the subverse I asked for is still unused yet I don't meet the new criteria.
https://voat.co/v/subverserequest/comments/200924
Here is the link to my request, check the time stamps and please reconsider. I would love to get into Voat but this is the only thing I'm interested in participating in at the moment.
I honestly do like the site and wish to make the transition if possible
superfaggot ago
Ah, thank you, I really appreciate it. That also sounds like a good appendage.
AmyAcker ago
I agree.
This would be me, haha. I mainly comment to say hello or to try and help (if it is needed). However, I do like participating, and if I want to share something or have my say, I'll comment; sometimes it just isn't needed though. Maybe someone has already said what I would or I don't feel particularity chatty at the time, etc., so I lurk :) I don't think it takes anything away from my ability to be a good mod.
moe ago
That could work, though the 'defaults' need a mod-cleanup first since there are several people that have been inactive for several months (even over a year) taking up mod slots. One of my main concerns when thinking about 'default' criteria is making sure that the new guy/gal doesn't cause discord in the existing team.
moe ago
Could you message me the subverse in question so that it can be taken into consideration when re-evaluating these rules?
timsandtoms ago
@moe, I've been trying to message you for a good half hour regarding a vaguely similar issue, and the mail will Just. Not. Send. Would you mind messaging me so I can send it as a reply and hope that works?
moe ago
Did we ever communicate regarding this? I apologize if not; I only just now saw this comment.
timsandtoms ago
Not prior to this, no. I was trying to send you a mail asking about a subverse that's unused but locked, so participation is impossible. You should have something in your inbox from me.
moe ago
Working on getting that updated in the FAQ first, though what we've been following for quite a while is:
Nobody may request a subverse with an active owner (level-1 Moderator)
Non-Moderators may not request ownership of subverses with active level-2 Moderators
(something about requesting to be added to @system owned 'defaults'; still working on criteria for those)
AmyAcker ago
Personally, I think it should be based on number of comments, rather than CCP (although, I suppose this could be an issue too, if the sub is totally dead or like /v/sports, as you said) if we're to have a rule like this. In many larger subs you could make a comment, and if the post is highly upvoated, get the 300 CCP from that single comment - whereas someone else might make 100 comments and still not be there. I guess it depends on what the 300 CCP rule is intended for, though (i.e. is it to show activity/interest in the sub?).
Also, there could be a rule that supersedes this. Say, something like 1k CCP and 500 comments globally. Just something to show the requester is active, is what I'm getting at.
Anyway, those are just my thoughts on the matter. We'll see how it all works out :)
Demonic_Mime ago
Cool, I still meet the requirements! I'm sure you guys are super busy but could you put through my request for /v/bodyweightfitness, please? Found here It's one of the most upvoted posts on this sub lately but I'm afraid it's still getting buried under all the other requests. I'm pretty enthusiastic about this and I'd like to get to work on it as soon as possible, and the community seems to share my enthusiasm and want me to replace their current inactive mod.
Thanks.
moe ago
I meant to go through the queue last night, but I fell asleep at the keyboard I guess. I'll go through the current requests after I take a shower.
Demonic_Mime ago
K, I'll be patient. Thanks man.
PuttItOut ago
That sub will be eligible for transfer soon.
identifier1 ago
You don't own me!
moe ago
Actually, rule #9 was:
9) @moe owns @identifier1But we figured that was implied anyway.
PM_ME_YOUR_ARCHES ago
I am glad you have changed the rules and I think that this is a very good way of making sure subs are moderated by users who care about the content that is being posted. However, I do think that requiring 300 ccp in the requested subverse is too much, I think this will lead to subs going unmoderated/undeveloped.
PuttItOut ago
We can and will adjust accordingly if this proves to be a bad rule. All we know for certain is #99 is a sure thing.
PM_ME_YOUR_ARCHES ago
I'm happy to hear that you are open to changing it and I think you guys do a great job with listening to feedback from users.
AmyAcker ago
I think it could block some requests, at least. The 1000 subscriber requirement mitigates it to a degree, but there are likely some fairly dead subs out there with over 1k subscribers (or eventually will be).
Take /v/gadgets or /v/buildapc, for example. There are 3971 and 2570 subscribers, respectively, but they are quite dead; getting 300 CCP there would be near-impossible, or take a very long time, as of now. They are my subs now, and I'm going to do my best to make them active; just saying, had this been in-place at the time of my requests, there is certainly no way I would have received the subs.
It's definitely something to consider, even if it won't affect a large number of requests.
Anyway, thanks! Keep up the great work! :)