Rule review 16/11 (videosModTalk)

submitted ago by InnocentBystander

I feel now would be a good time to go over our preferred method conflict resolution. We feel civil discussion is a *necessary* ability in order to get community consensus. [Our preferred appeal methods.](https://voat.co/v/videosModTalk/1405328)

If we put up a sticky every time one user was upset, there would always be a sticky, and nobody would read it or care. @Violentlight said [it more eloquently](https://voat.co/v/videosModTalk/1393397/6776933) than I can.

Also, some have asked about the history of rules here, so I have begun making [a collection of old mod related posts](https://voat.co/v/videosModTalk/1404441). It is still missing some, as they can be hard to find, but much of it is there.

Now, to the point. This sticky is to determine whether spamming smail is considered spamming.

For the past year+ we have never differentiated spam by type. Posts, comments, spam reports, were all treated the same. If it is a user they get warnings followed by temp ban, followed by perma-ban. Bots/adspam gets instant perma-ban. Smail may be new, but spam reports are not. Nothing about this is new. We have warned many users over it. Many delicate types like to hit the report button when their feeling get hurt. We ask them to stop, then threaten them with a temp-ban. It almost always stops with the warning.

We've never received a complaint over this practice, until yesterday. The banned user is not appealing the ban. He doesn't care.

The community has been misled at times, and issues are conflated, for now we just want to answer the question of whether we continue with the ruleset as it has been, or if we need to change the ban policy.

A couple things to consider: -No user ever gets caught with a surprise ban. They are always warned, and made to understand before it gets to that point. -We have banned 'real' users before. I even made a [PV post where I asked them for help](https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/1070322) -Reasons and conversation that leads to a ban can always be found or watched at /v/videosModTalk. Transparency for everything. -Agenda driven trolls (eg. Spamalak), are persistent and malicious. If we allow them, things will decline. Sure, we can probably ignore one guy. But then we have to allow the hurt feelings, and the next trolls that show up. This removes one of our tools and will affect everyones experience.

A follow-up question, does the length of the temp-bans need to change?

**NOTE: Due to potential abuse, voats do not count for anything. Make a comment to share your opinion. Even if someone else has already said the same thing.** We will read every comment.

Cynabuns ago

No worries. Besides: you questioning a post just tells me that you're looking out for Voat, no matter who makes the submission and this speaks volumes :)

We are good

Cynabuns ago

You did?? I think it's already forgotten :)

AOU ago

if you don't want spam reports or want to run on a radically different definition of spam to most of the world, can you use CSS to hide the "report spam" function on posts in your sub? might help protect your modmail from people reporting your spammy-looking posters.

Doesn't work on mobile or desktop browsers with /v/AVE installed and setup to ignore sub's custom CSS.

AOU ago

You stepped down because you disagree with admins (as you did with me) regarding what voat rules considers regarding spam.

I've only reported spam (and have been banned for doing so).

For me, nothing has changed, and I will continue to report spammers without bias.

I also invite all the voaters to do the same, especially reports the ones who spam videos with the benediction of mods.

Let's make voat a spam-free place.

AOU ago

Not same user, but same spammer.

I reported as much as this spam account posted.

So if I follow what you said, the spam account was posting in excess too.

PM_ME_YOUR_ARCHES ago

Once again, I am taken out of context.

PuttItOut ago

I don't doubt that.

PuttItOut ago

A note about spam reports that is worth stating:

Voat limits a single item from being reported more than once per 12 hours (I think). Also of note is that a single user is also limited to reporting more than a handful (have to look at code) reports in a given period as well.

Both of these measures are to attempt to limit flooding and abuse of this feature.

If this is not working as intended or needs updating we can address that.

Banning a user on a system sub for spam reports, as defined by Voat, should not be done.

As many have already guessed, we want to be involved as little as possible, in the hopes that our community can discuss and resolve such issues on their own without admin hand holding. We are watching this dialogue play out and considering both sides as objectively as possible.

A point worth noting, when we act on a system sub we have a history of purging mods.

PM_ME_YOUR_ARCHES ago

If the mods of default subverses have to stick strictly to a ruleset designed for default subverses, why have mods?

Would it not be easier to make all of them into janitors or css mods? Because if this example is anything to go by, that's all they are.

PuttItOut ago

I have no input on rules of system subs.

My comment was entirely directed at the fact that a user was banned for reporting spam that is (apparently) inline with what Voat considers spam.

This specific situation (banning a user for spam reports) should not happen on a system sub. It's petty.

I have no comment on what a sub considers spam, that is for the community to decide and I didn't comment on this subject.

PM_ME_YOUR_ARCHES ago

a user was banned for reporting spam that is (apparently) inline with what Voat considers spam.

The user in question posted examples of what he was reporting as spam, and some of them were actually not spam at all. Example.

Perhaps there should be a way to stop or temporarily stop users from reporting spam if the reporting system is being abused. I myself have done this to annoy other mods on subs I have modded.

Disappointed ago

After reading a few posts in the thread yesterday I have changed my mind a little and think there are other ways to handle abuse of the report spammer feature than banning someone. I'm willing to help out in any way to achieve alternative solutions.

Length of temp bans for genuine users or other offences should be different to the blank 1 month ban you give out now. @angmar suggested tiers of bans for real users vs spammers getting the ban hammer immediately and I liked that.

InnocentBystander ago

think there are other ways to handle abuse of the report spammer feature than banning someone

Do you have any specific suggestions?

Disappointed ago

I like the more janitors option even if they are just doing an initial sort to hand to lvl 2 mods. It would mean compromise but I think it's preferable to outright banning.

InnocentBystander ago

So if I understand you, you would prefer adding some L3 mods. And no repercussions for flooding smail.
Do you feel that there would never be a flood, or you feel mods should just deal with it and put in the extra time?

Disappointed ago

No I think going forward initalially appoint more janitors and then also try to get some restrictions/options added to the report spammer function for mods. So it will mean the reports may continue in the short term but we'd be working to counteract the possibilty of abuse. Sorry its Saturday morning here its a busy time for me usually, so I might take a bit to reply and I can't read the surrounding comments.

Cuckbot ago

The banned user is not appealing the ban. He doesn't care. @AOU is this true? If he cares or not this still has an effect on other users and should not be ignored. @Atko and @puttitout are you on board with this thread beung presented like this after all the users input here https://voat.co/v/videos/1402055 yesterday?

Cynabuns ago

Puttitout has weighed in, on this thread, https://voat.co/v/videosModTalk/1405422/6796984

It also appears that @Violentlight and @InnocentBystander no longer appear as mods on v/videos

Edit to Add: Mods have a "we quit" post and they stickied it, https://voat.co/v/videos/1406203

Cynabuns ago

See parent comments, @dungles @Angmar @rosti @mickgoestojail @faustian

Cynabuns ago

See parent comments, @kevdude @aou @disappointed @first_post_king @califit

InnocentBystander ago

We are not ignoring that post. We read every comment in it. It is all being taken into consideration.
We don't rush though.
We are getting additional feedback. Not everyone has had a say, or even seen that anything is going on.

Give it some time. We never let you down in the past did we?

Cuckbot ago

I'm not getting pings again. As long as you take those posts into consideration then. Maybe put that into this post so everyone knows they dont have to repeat themselves because honestly at the minute this reads like its trying to divert from the fact he is banned and a lot of people had a big problem with that.

Violentlight ago

This post decides whether a ban is appropriate or not. We don't make the decisions of this sub. We leave it up to the community. We had been functioning like this for over a year without issue. Since it is an issue now, we bring it to the community. The same thing we asked AOU to do. Simply bring his concerns to the community. Thats what this whole post is. Find out what the community wants done. So we are not trying to divert away from anything. We are trying to put a giant light on it. Giant sign. Asking people to please, please, please, come weigh in. So we know how to move forward with this.

Cuckbot ago

All I can read in the thread is that the user doesn't care about the ban. Its not really clear. @THC said there would be two clear questions presented and that sounded really good. I dunno I have to go but maybe have a talk between yourselves if the questions shouldn't be put at the top and made really clear what you are asking. Please consider asking for more mods as a first step this is Voat and we don't have anywhere else where they don't ban people over things that can be sorted out in other ways. Everyone has dug in here and taken a side but just stop a minute and think that there are other options first.

Violentlight ago

Now, to the point. This sticky is to determine whether spamming smail is considered spamming.

A follow-up question, does the length of the temp-bans need to change?

It might seem confusing, because AOU is constantly talking about our definition of spam. But, we tried to make it pretty clear what we wanted to discuss. Don't have a lot of control over the direction some of these discussions go though.

InnocentBystander ago

We want people to repeat themselves.
There has been time for discussion, and for people to look into things. Opinions change.
We also want to have a thread where they know that voats are meaningless. In the last post they may said nothing, because it had been said, so voated instead. But we need to hear from individual users to know what they really think. Voats are easily manipulated.

We're doing our best.

Cuckbot ago

At least a link back to that thread so that people can be informed as much as possible and a note that it will be taken into consideration.

InnocentBystander ago

I'll add a link now.

Cuckbot ago

Thanks even if it doesn't matter now.

Cuckbot ago

Remove the ban and get some more janitors if you are overwhelmed. It will also be very difficult for mederoaters to prove if someone has been spamming because other users have to take their word for it.

@faustian wrote this post which I'm sharing here.

I made a mistake yesterday in suggesting a new rule, and I'd like to update my position now. There is no doubt that the mods of v/videos are well liked within your community, and from the comments I've read by frequent users to this sub, you all do a great job. In the past many of you have actively advocated for less restrictions and less rules, and as such, I see your aversion to a new rule now. If you allowed such a rule, the prospect of abuse is far greater, as there is no way for the rest of us to see the report spam issues or the warnings the mods give etc... It's a bad idea.

In the old days, report spam would show in your mailbox, but now it's in moderator mail.... there's little to no potential harassment issue because 'your mailbox is getting hammered etc.' & the inconvenience is far less to mods... I can also see that users may take advantage of this issue, and it may become a nuisance. However, there's no rule against being an asshole on this forum-nor should there ever be. I think you agree that nuisance does not warrant censorship.

My opinion, you should unban AOU, for the same reasons you have advocated for less restrictions and rules, for our freedom of speech. Deal with the report spam issues as they come. If you feel truly overwhelmed, bring on a couple of active users in this sub to your team. Admins once said there would be a way for the community to pick the sys mods.. so, maybe you can make a thread and ask your active users if any of them are interested in helping go through the report spam, then bring them on to the team? Absent that, you'll just have to go through all the report spam... but, you are right, no new rule.

Edit since the thread is fairly unclear repoting spamming as per the site rules should not be bannable.

Violentlight ago

It's not that we are overwhelmed. Its that I would like to have the 'Report Spam' button remain relevant for the team. I don't think its the place to have a protest. We spent months talking to AOU about his concerns with spam. We tried to explain many times that v/videos runs off of a community decided definition of spam. AOU was helpful with his spam reports at one time. But he made it very clear to us that he was going to use it to protest now. We gave him so many options to bring his concerns to the community. But at our last sticky, he didn't even show up. So I just have no idea how to help him.

I just want the smail to remain relevant. I really appreciate the users that help us out by reporting spam. We would probably have found it ourselves. But we certainly find it faster by checking smail in the morning. And when we get notifications back, we get to the spam even quicker.

I would like for users to have a little bit of responsibility as well. We didn't spring this on AOU. We worked for months with him. We told him all his options to bring his concerns to the community. Because we sure as hell are not changing the rules because of one user. He never took it to the community. He just ramped up his reporting to smail.

Cuckbot ago

The whole defense of the ban so far has been because its affecting the sub because it means you have to sift through more reports. That can be solved with a couple of janitors rather than banning someone from a default sub.

InnocentBystander ago

whole defense of the ban so far has been because its affecting the sub

Not how I am looking at it.
The ban is for repeatedly, and intentionally breaking a rule.

When we talk about how it affects us, that is just to counter the claim that it is harmless.
One guy we could live with. But open it up for abuse, and there are many others who have tried the 'spamming the report button game'. They stopped because of warnings.
AOU knows what he is doing, and it is both malicious and intentional. He has an agenda. And does not care what the community thinks.

Your proposed solution of adding more mods is not something I am comfortable with.
You roll the dice every time you appoint one. So we have tried to maintain a minimum.

InnocentBystander ago

prove if someone has been spamming because other users have to take their word for it.

It was never denied. And taking 'our word' for it is sometimes a part of the job.
We don't provide details around doxxing incidents or child porn. You have to take our word for it.

I think it is fair to say we have a good record, so far. I get that we should never be blindly trusted, which is why mod conversations are public, we have regular feedback posts, and can be engaged with in multiple formats at any time.
Full community oversight.

I saw, and noted, @faustians comment, and I hope he shows up here as well.

If we removed the ban, where would you set the threshold for bannable offences?

Cuckbot ago

This isn't only about you though because you have other mods of defaults who I wouldn't trust as much as you to believe about the amount of spam or to say "he just spammed us again he's banned again we tried" The solution needs to be one of either more mods to handle the spam, the admins actually giving some better guidance to their default mods on what they consider spam and how they expect default mods and janitors to handle it and later maybe some coding to help. But right now someone is banned for what they believe was doing the right thing to help report spammers. I'm not saying they are completely innocent or an angel either but lets have a ban as the absolute last resort if the user is a genuine user.

Violentlight ago

I honestly refer to flooding as spamming too. But that probably came from gaming and less from here. Someone starts "spamming" chat in a game, you just call it spam. I honestly never knew the distinction. But I will be sure to try and use it more accurately from now on.

InnocentBystander ago

A couple things to consider:
-No user ever gets caught with a surprise ban. They are always warned, and made to understand before it gets to that point.
-We have banned 'real' users before. I even made a PV post where I asked them for help
-Reasons and conversation that leads to a ban can always be found or watched at /v/videosModTalk. Transparency for everything.

AOU ago

If there's something you think they'll miss, report it. Doesn't need to be much more difficult than that.

lol, that's exactly what I did.

AOU ago

Mods of default subs have the responsibility to enforce voat's rules regarding spam (in this case).

If they think the rules are not as they see fit, they should talk to admins instead of superseding them and bring favouritism over some spammers to help them getting revenues from their spam YT channels.

AOU ago

he would have been able to flood moderators with spam reports (note that's flood moderators, not spam them)

I'd like to let you know that I have never reported a spam post twice.

That's not flood, but legit report of spam.

The following link will lead you to the entire list of all the reports (a total of 42) I have made in /v/videos for the pas 7 months.

https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/1402487

Mods are trying to paint me like if I was the bad spammer here, but all I did was reporting blatant spammers.

I got banned for reporting a VIP one that is under their protection and they threatened me to stop reporting his spam posts, for which I refused their attempt at intimidating me. I just followed the official rules of voat regarding spam (I posted them in this thread already).

InnocentBystander ago

somebody doesn't respect that and treats them like dirt

Actually, that part is ok. We're a thick skinned group, users are under no obligation to be nice.
But it is appreciated when they are.

AOU ago

I suggest you to go back and read all the threads again.

You've completely missed the whole issue.

AOU ago

Since when following voat rules of spam and reporting blatant spam is spam?

Guidelines of /v/videos/

Spam

Spam being defined as irrelevant posts, chronic reposting, or advertising is not allowed in any capacity. Use the "Report Spam" button if you see any.

This is supposed to be an add-on of the following official rules:

From the User Agreement:

Voat is for Personal (ie, Not Commercial) Use Only

From the FAQ:

SPAM/Self-Promotion: Submitting only links to sites you operate or are associated with... is considered SPAMMING.

AOU ago

The banned user is not appealing the ban. He doesn't care.

The banned user (from /v/videos) is me, I do care, but not whining over it.

The ban issue is secondary, considering the biased behaviour of mods of /v/videos regarding spam.

Violentlight ago

Spamming was the term being used in some of the 4-5 posts about this. Some of the over 800+ comments were referring to it as spamming. I swear I remember someone ask us to make a sticky to find out if spamming mod mail is the same as spamming a sub.

No intention of bias. Just been reading a ton of comments, and it was being referred to as spam there sometimes. I never once saw anyone call it flooding till now. I was trying to find that one specific comment. But this discussion has been over so many posts and different subs. I'm just relieved its all in one spot now.

EDIT: Uhhg, I can't find it. But I did see someone say flooding with spam. So I was wrong about not seeing flooding.

InnocentBystander ago

Whee

I am not here to argue this. I am here to listen.
Your opinion has been made very clear. Thanks for the input.

I'm moving on now.

Edit: spelling

InnocentBystander ago

I'd advise you to read the rules on the sidebar.
It fits the definition used by this sub.

InnocentBystander ago

You see things your way.
I see them mine.
That's what this post if for. To determine what the community thinks.

If you want to be able to ban people for abusing mods,

Nobody has asked for that.

If you'd had a rule like that in place before banning troll

The rules is over a year old now. This is not it's first appearance.

IMO temp bans should start as just a few days and re-bans should double in length each time, but I don't see ban length as being a major issue here.

Noted.

AOU ago

Spam is spam.

All the spammers should be treated the same way.

If you can't or don't want to understand that, you should step down and let other mods do it.

Violentlight ago

So your position is that we should treat mod mail spam the same as all spammers?

InnocentBystander ago

mod mail

Carefull, Putt might be watching.
it's called smail.

AOU ago

Your attempt at blaming people who just want to make voat a spam-free place is pathetic.

You help spammers to reach the frontpage while ignoring the voat rules about spam.

Let me remind them to you once again:

From the User Agreement:

Voat is for Personal (ie, Not Commercial) Use Only

From the FAQ:

SPAM/Self-Promotion: Submitting only links to sites you operate or are associated with... is considered SPAMMING.

As mods of a default sub you have the responsibility to enforce and prevent spammers to reach the front page.

Trying to swipe this real issue under the rug will only make it bigger.

If you don't want to treat all spammers the same way, you should step down and let admins get new mods who will.

InnocentBystander ago

people who just want to make voat a spam-free place

That is not the topic of this post.
There are already many posts for that.

This post is on mod rule enforcement policy.
Your opinion has been noted.
Thanks.

AOU ago

I'm not writing this message for you, but for the community.

They have the right to know their mods are biased.

Violentlight ago

So now your worried about the community?

AOU ago

I don't use the "community" card as you did (dozens of times) to justify your biased and arbitrary support for spammers.

InnocentBystander ago

We use the community card to justify everything.
It is both our pass, and our chains.

It is one of our two foundation principles. Free Speech, and Community Rule.

AOU ago

You use the community card to justify your biased behaviour that consist in favouritism of certain spammers.