You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Owlchemy ago

I guess I don't know enough about this whole idea to really comment intelligently, but I do have some concerns. I pretty much like Voat the way it is, otherwise I wouldn't have spent as much time here posting, so as with anything, change can be scary. My biggest concern is that I am in the vast majority here ... those who follow the Voat philosophy and have almost never banned or censored someone from any subs I mod. I've also spent a lot of time building up subs that I enjoy. So my concern is that it now sounds like in the interest of appeasing a few for the misdeeds of a tiny minority of mods like HenryCorp, I could be voted out of one of my own subs by a group which bands together for no other purpose but to take over a sub. Maybe I'm just reading more into this than there is ... but I don't get the point.

PuttItOut ago

Ok Owlchemy, let me try to take on a few points:

So my concern is ... I could be voted out of one of my own subs by a group which bands together for no other purpose but to take over a sub.

This is an issue I have given a lot of time thinking about. Part of sites like Voat is that a user can create their own unique eco-systems and I do not plan on abandoning this.

I do not want malicious take over of a sub by people that don't contribute to it.

So I've designed most of the infrastructure to give the "content producers" the power and to strip it from those who don't contribute. So if it is done right, a group of people who do not contribute to a sub will not be able to take it over. If you don't have skin in the game you have no power.

How this works: Votes with an outcome (mod removal for example) will have a restriction placed on it so that only contributors to that subverse can place votes. Just for simple purposes we can say that in order for a user to vote they would have to have say X comments in that subverse in the last Y days.

All these details are yet to be hammered out but I wanted to make sure you know that I am not enabling a mob here, I'm giving producers their voice back.

In addition, only certain subs will have these outcome votes allowed in them. I was thinking that once a sub gets to a certain size (posts per day, subscribers, etc) it then turns "public" and allows outcome votes.

zombielordzero ago

So I've designed most of the infrastructure to give the "content producers" the power and to strip it from those who don't contribute. So if it is done right, a group of people who do not contribute to a sub will not be able to take it over. If you don't have skin in the game you have no power.

This would put the moderators in competition with content creators in a dick measuring contest for most points/most activity depending on how you measure the metrics. My main example for this is /v/feminism, where for the greater part of a year, @Goat_watch was the main contributor, yet he wanted nothing to do with moderation... until he realized he could ban people he didn't agree with (aka any actual feminist that wandered in). then he was very eager to get a spot. My opinion is the shit needs to be seen so the votes can decide how much it stinks instead of kicking the shit out on sight. After a few weeks, he did relent and agree he can argue more when the feminists are not banned.

TL/DR: content creators don't always realize how a sub should be run, and could drive the audience away if the moderation is too heavy handed. It should be a high bar to transfer ownership, how high is a matter of debate.

Dancing_Queen ago

That’s exactky what would happen.

Goat_watch ago

Just because i wanted to spam feminists with "you are banned" and "you are unbanned" a few dozen times doesn't make me bad moderator material. :)

zombielordzero ago

no, its the fact you salivated over the concept of replying "no bitch" if they ever asked to be unbanned.