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.
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.
view the rest of the comments →
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
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