Look it, the mods in this sub are respected, and most of them have openly advocated for less rules and less restrictions in the name of free speech. They should stand by these principles now. It's not a huge deal to ask them to un-ban one user, make a rule about the report spam button, and move on. If it's abused again, they can ban again... And since when can a mod be bullied into censorship via the report spam option? :-/ Satanist? Do you even read what you comment before you submit, bro?
It's not a huge deal to ask them to un-ban one user,
I think it may be. This user is trolling the sub because he wants tighter rules. He has openly declared that he doesn't care what the community thinks and will force his way.
If we change our standard practice and unban him, we set the precedent that at any time users can flaunt the rules then cry and stir up drama to get their way.
We offered to remove the ban if he accepted the rules. We told him how to get community discussion going if he wants them to change. He chose to troll, with lies, instead.
It's a tight spot for us.
Not saying we can't or won't, just that there are other factors to consider as well.
What AOU is doing is on par with Spamalak. The degree may be different, but the concept is the same. If we reverse AOUs ban, then the Spamalak, Eastern Lightning, and Manhood bans become questionable as well.
There's a new sticky going up soon, think it over, let us know.
This user is trolling the sub because he wants tighter rules. He has openly declared that he doesn't care what the community thinks and will force his way.
Which is why I, and likely much of voat, would not want him as a system moderator. I assume the amount of due diligence it takes to ensure you are not banning or deleting active user posts as spam is no easy task. Absolutely, system sub mods should always take great caution when deleting or banning for spam. Voat appreciates your caution, diligence, and giving exception when the community requests it. No one is recommending you adopt AOU's requests.
If we change our standard practice and unban him, we set the precedent that at any time users can flaunt the rules then cry and stir up drama to get their way.
The issue here is that it is not standard practice for you or any other system sub to ban voaters who overuse report spam or even users that use it specifically to irritate mods because they don't get their way. Looking back through voat's history, many system moderators were removed because they advocated and enforced rules that can be abused. In this case, we can't even point to a rule as the reason for the ban. It's why so many people are commenting here because it is the wrong precedent to set after you and many others worked so hard to ensure speech on voat.
I understand the difficulty, the tight spot, and I will think it over. I look forward to reading your sticky.
it is not standard practice for you or any other system sub to ban voaters who overuse report spam
Actually that has been our policy from the start. We never differentiated 'types' of spam. We tried to follow the rule in as literal a way as we can.
To be honest, it had never occurred to me that others would see it differently.
We often get spam reports from people whos feelings got hurt. We have threatened more of them than I can remember with bans. They almost always stop at that point.
They don't always stop with just a friendly warning though.
To be honest, it had never occurred to me that others would see it differently.
Understandable, and I see your perspective a little clearer now. However, the amount of comments in this post, voat's history for advocating users' right to speech as paramount, shows that voaters do see it differently. I have never known someone to get banned for using the report spam option because it fell under the spam rule in a system sub, though it may well have occurred in the past. It's a good time for all of us users and you mods to reflect on the issue. Again, I look forward to your sticky, and if I can add anything to that discussion, I will. Keep in mind, most everyone in the comments recognizes and appreciates the hard work you do.
However, the amount of comments in this post, voat's history for advocating users' right to speech as paramount, shows that voaters do see it differently.
I'm not as sure of that.
This was a biased and misleading post, that came with a number of extra visitors.
Voats are never to be trusted in a post like this. We count the voices.
It is clear there is concern. But whether dropping, clarifying, altering, or other is the solution will be determined soon.
Have you been to the new post?
Kevdude made the post, and I know he holds you in high regard... but regardless of how you view the post, you shouldn't dismiss the discussion. As for extra visitors-I fall in that category, as I'm not an active v/videos user. I am an active voater, though, as are all the people commenting. Isn't that enough?
We are not dissmissing it.
We've read the entire thing, and we heard.
We just want to gather additional input, there are many who have no idea what's happening, and others who may have been scared off by the downvoats.
There is also the possibility of people changing their minds after discussion.
So rather than rushing a decision we want to be sure.
view the rest of the comments →
Faustian ago
Look it, the mods in this sub are respected, and most of them have openly advocated for less rules and less restrictions in the name of free speech. They should stand by these principles now. It's not a huge deal to ask them to un-ban one user, make a rule about the report spam button, and move on. If it's abused again, they can ban again... And since when can a mod be bullied into censorship via the report spam option? :-/ Satanist? Do you even read what you comment before you submit, bro?
InnocentBystander ago
I think it may be. This user is trolling the sub because he wants tighter rules. He has openly declared that he doesn't care what the community thinks and will force his way.
If we change our standard practice and unban him, we set the precedent that at any time users can flaunt the rules then cry and stir up drama to get their way.
We offered to remove the ban if he accepted the rules. We told him how to get community discussion going if he wants them to change. He chose to troll, with lies, instead.
It's a tight spot for us.
Not saying we can't or won't, just that there are other factors to consider as well.
What AOU is doing is on par with Spamalak. The degree may be different, but the concept is the same. If we reverse AOUs ban, then the Spamalak, Eastern Lightning, and Manhood bans become questionable as well.
There's a new sticky going up soon, think it over, let us know.
Faustian ago
Which is why I, and likely much of voat, would not want him as a system moderator. I assume the amount of due diligence it takes to ensure you are not banning or deleting active user posts as spam is no easy task. Absolutely, system sub mods should always take great caution when deleting or banning for spam. Voat appreciates your caution, diligence, and giving exception when the community requests it. No one is recommending you adopt AOU's requests.
The issue here is that it is not standard practice for you or any other system sub to ban voaters who overuse report spam or even users that use it specifically to irritate mods because they don't get their way. Looking back through voat's history, many system moderators were removed because they advocated and enforced rules that can be abused. In this case, we can't even point to a rule as the reason for the ban. It's why so many people are commenting here because it is the wrong precedent to set after you and many others worked so hard to ensure speech on voat.
I understand the difficulty, the tight spot, and I will think it over. I look forward to reading your sticky.
InnocentBystander ago
Actually that has been our policy from the start. We never differentiated 'types' of spam. We tried to follow the rule in as literal a way as we can.
To be honest, it had never occurred to me that others would see it differently.
We often get spam reports from people whos feelings got hurt. We have threatened more of them than I can remember with bans. They almost always stop at that point.
They don't always stop with just a friendly warning though.
Faustian ago
Understandable, and I see your perspective a little clearer now. However, the amount of comments in this post, voat's history for advocating users' right to speech as paramount, shows that voaters do see it differently. I have never known someone to get banned for using the report spam option because it fell under the spam rule in a system sub, though it may well have occurred in the past. It's a good time for all of us users and you mods to reflect on the issue. Again, I look forward to your sticky, and if I can add anything to that discussion, I will. Keep in mind, most everyone in the comments recognizes and appreciates the hard work you do.
InnocentBystander ago
I'm not as sure of that.
This was a biased and misleading post, that came with a number of extra visitors.
Voats are never to be trusted in a post like this. We count the voices.
It is clear there is concern. But whether dropping, clarifying, altering, or other is the solution will be determined soon.
Have you been to the new post?
Faustian ago
Kevdude made the post, and I know he holds you in high regard... but regardless of how you view the post, you shouldn't dismiss the discussion. As for extra visitors-I fall in that category, as I'm not an active v/videos user. I am an active voater, though, as are all the people commenting. Isn't that enough?
I'll check out the new post shortly.
InnocentBystander ago
We are not dissmissing it.
We've read the entire thing, and we heard.
We just want to gather additional input, there are many who have no idea what's happening, and others who may have been scared off by the downvoats.
There is also the possibility of people changing their minds after discussion.
So rather than rushing a decision we want to be sure.
Faustian ago
Sounds reasonable, diligent, cautious, and appropriate. See you in the other thread.
Edit.. it would, however, be more true to the tenants of speech to suspend the ban on AOU until you and the community make your conclusions. <3