They literally downvoated @Coors_Nationalist to the point where he can't vote, post, or comment. Who is the real censor? The guy who has a sub for a specific Minecraft server and doesn't want his sub filled with off topic garbage? Or the people who take away his ability to use the website? @PuttItOut, this is a problem I've touched on over the years. If someone isn't a spammer but just isn't liked or has "the wrong opinions" they are prevented from using the site.
Possible solution: an appeal process where someone downvoated to oblivion can have their site privileges returned to them.
This is an issue, it is an exploit in our system. I've never once denied this.
Sub owners should run their subs how they want. But then Voat users should vote how they want. See the problem? Which group are you going to target?
How I see it: 90%+ of these cases involve someone conducting themselves in a fashion incompatible with Voat's principles, or they are hostile and prideful in their conduct/communication. Both scenarios indicate an unwise person.
It would be ideal if Voat lived and let live, but that will never happen because Voat is filled with people that test and abuse in order to claim a trespass. Voat is right in the end though... Those with incompatible principles never assimilate. In this way I'm proud, but I do wish Voat was more measured in their response rather than going nuclear immediately. This drastic attack based response is a sign of immaturity on the part of Voat and actually works against Voat in the end. I wish Voat was wise enough to see this perspective.
Pretty sure @stonetoss took off because of a similar situation.
Thanks for the quick response. I understand both sides and see your dilemma. @stonetoss is a good guy. Chasing people like him away is not good for voat. I understand people attacking a powermod of a sub that is used for a more general purpose, but when someone has a personal subverse like this, the freedom to moderate how they see fit should be more important. I know you probably won't have any solution anytime soon, but thanks for acknowledging the issue. I don't think voat will be able to ever grow much without this being addressed.
This is exactly why Voat hasn't grown. Voat is its own worst enemy, we just don't acknowledge it.
There is no solution from where I stand as any solution will remove freedoms from one party.
This is ultimately the issue with all public goods... How can you offer freedom without limiting it?
I obviously do not have a solution, but this scenario is the root of all Voat's problems as a community. We solve this, or grow past it as a whole, we would be unstoppable.
the motivation behind this, (though I won't deny people do this for fun), is basically as follows;
Ugh you showed your true colors there. It isn’t yours and it never will be. You as a creator and moderator should allow your ego to admit that the sub belongs to its members.
it's intended to provoke a reaction. Assumedly the mod will just ignore people making fun of him, the users of the sub will downvoat unrelated or unwanted content and everyone moves on, but what happened was the mod deleted the post and various comments and banned people just for making fun of him. If he'll delete posts and comments just because random people on the internet make fun of him, who's to say he won't censor other content he doesn't like?
If the users of his sub could deal with any issues of such nature themselves there'd be little or at least less motivation for any sort of watchdog-esque group to step in on their behalf or out of their concern. Rather than letting power mods run subs how they want, give users the tools to be sure the mods run the subverse they want to use. Users get the subs they want, and mods get punished if they abuse the moderation tools they're trusted with.
Doing this would negate the necessity of the original motivation that kicked this whole, and similar, fiascos off.
But this is a niche sub. It should be allowed to govern itself in any way it sees fit. And that includes removing content that is purposefully malicious.
Voat's promise is that we won't ban (harm) users from the entire site over speech, but this doesn't work for small niche subs. Standards are good. Shit posts are noise.
Voat's promise is that we won't ban (harm) users from the entire site over speech
Yet, essentially a portion of the Voat user base made the site nearly unusable for this coors kid. So the next step is to let the pitchfork and torch crowd have more power!
This place is strange yet awesome.
...
Maybe some day, Voat will transition to a more republican philosophy.
actually i said it should be based on subverse CPP so the power is in the hands of the actual users of the subverse rather than exclusively in the mods, v/protectvoat is basically users of the site in general trying to rein in the mods of the whole site, if there was a reliable option for users of a specific subverse to deal with potential problems after they occur you wouldn't see people trying to deal with potential problems before they occur
I can solve this issue but it opens the door to other evils
Sounds ominous. You’re better off just letting the rabble continue to rabble. There has to be some slight uptick in growth, no? Or maybe we lost a bunch of Aussies and Kiwis and that is not helping.
Can someone explain to me why @Rainy-Day-Dream keeps harping about Voat Votes? As if this great idea hasn’t been in development/development hell for something like two years?
While I have you, on a scale of 1-10, how pissed is our anal going to be when I deface their advertisement?
basically how I see it is currently the inmates at large are running the whole asylum, whenever a warden steps out of line at all they riot and immediately try to kill him, even if he's only recently been hired. This has led to an all time low of inmate abuse relative to other asylums the inmates were transferred in from, but the asylum itself isn't functioning very well in a lot of ways.
so what I propose is that each individual ward be run only by the inmates in it, and they be given a legal recourse to deal with mistreatment so they don't immediately try to resort to violence.
view the rest of the comments →
dtaraasdfasdf ago
why dont you just wait until the pv goon squad doesnt like what they do, then lie about them, then downvoat brigade them to nothing?
That the protectvoat way @puttitout
oiseaulibre ago
They literally downvoated @Coors_Nationalist to the point where he can't vote, post, or comment. Who is the real censor? The guy who has a sub for a specific Minecraft server and doesn't want his sub filled with off topic garbage? Or the people who take away his ability to use the website? @PuttItOut, this is a problem I've touched on over the years. If someone isn't a spammer but just isn't liked or has "the wrong opinions" they are prevented from using the site.
Possible solution: an appeal process where someone downvoated to oblivion can have their site privileges returned to them.
PuttItOut ago
This is an issue, it is an exploit in our system. I've never once denied this.
Sub owners should run their subs how they want. But then Voat users should vote how they want. See the problem? Which group are you going to target?
How I see it: 90%+ of these cases involve someone conducting themselves in a fashion incompatible with Voat's principles, or they are hostile and prideful in their conduct/communication. Both scenarios indicate an unwise person.
It would be ideal if Voat lived and let live, but that will never happen because Voat is filled with people that test and abuse in order to claim a trespass. Voat is right in the end though... Those with incompatible principles never assimilate. In this way I'm proud, but I do wish Voat was more measured in their response rather than going nuclear immediately. This drastic attack based response is a sign of immaturity on the part of Voat and actually works against Voat in the end. I wish Voat was wise enough to see this perspective.
Pretty sure @stonetoss took off because of a similar situation.
oiseaulibre ago
Thanks for the quick response. I understand both sides and see your dilemma. @stonetoss is a good guy. Chasing people like him away is not good for voat. I understand people attacking a powermod of a sub that is used for a more general purpose, but when someone has a personal subverse like this, the freedom to moderate how they see fit should be more important. I know you probably won't have any solution anytime soon, but thanks for acknowledging the issue. I don't think voat will be able to ever grow much without this being addressed.
PuttItOut ago
This is exactly why Voat hasn't grown. Voat is its own worst enemy, we just don't acknowledge it.
There is no solution from where I stand as any solution will remove freedoms from one party.
This is ultimately the issue with all public goods... How can you offer freedom without limiting it?
I obviously do not have a solution, but this scenario is the root of all Voat's problems as a community. We solve this, or grow past it as a whole, we would be unstoppable.
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
the solution is giving users a means to oppose power mods themselves thus making them the constituents of their favorite subverses
PuttItOut ago
We will have this shortly, but how would have this feature solve this current issue?
Isn't this about a private subverse who's mod deleted something designed to be deleted by the author for the purpose of creating this exact situation?
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
basically what happened here at least as I understand this, is a user posted what could be described as a shit test.
https://voat.co/v/MillionDollarCraft/3126979
the motivation behind this, (though I won't deny people do this for fun), is basically as follows;
it's intended to provoke a reaction. Assumedly the mod will just ignore people making fun of him, the users of the sub will downvoat unrelated or unwanted content and everyone moves on, but what happened was the mod deleted the post and various comments and banned people just for making fun of him. If he'll delete posts and comments just because random people on the internet make fun of him, who's to say he won't censor other content he doesn't like?
If the users of his sub could deal with any issues of such nature themselves there'd be little or at least less motivation for any sort of watchdog-esque group to step in on their behalf or out of their concern. Rather than letting power mods run subs how they want, give users the tools to be sure the mods run the subverse they want to use. Users get the subs they want, and mods get punished if they abuse the moderation tools they're trusted with.
Doing this would negate the necessity of the original motivation that kicked this whole, and similar, fiascos off.
PuttItOut ago
But this is a niche sub. It should be allowed to govern itself in any way it sees fit. And that includes removing content that is purposefully malicious.
Voat's promise is that we won't ban (harm) users from the entire site over speech, but this doesn't work for small niche subs. Standards are good. Shit posts are noise.
I made my v/BestSubInHistoryEver authorized only for this very reason.
heygeorge ago
Yet, essentially a portion of the Voat user base made the site nearly unusable for this coors kid. So the next step is to let the pitchfork and torch crowd have more power!
This place is strange yet awesome.
...
Maybe some day, Voat will transition to a more republican philosophy.
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
actually i said it should be based on subverse CPP so the power is in the hands of the actual users of the subverse rather than exclusively in the mods, v/protectvoat is basically users of the site in general trying to rein in the mods of the whole site, if there was a reliable option for users of a specific subverse to deal with potential problems after they occur you wouldn't see people trying to deal with potential problems before they occur
PuttItOut ago
Voat has long been a science experiment to me.
I can solve this issue but it opens the door to other evils of which I don't know which is worse.
heygeorge ago
Sounds ominous. You’re better off just letting the rabble continue to rabble. There has to be some slight uptick in growth, no? Or maybe we lost a bunch of Aussies and Kiwis and that is not helping.
Can someone explain to me why @Rainy-Day-Dream keeps harping about Voat Votes? As if this great idea hasn’t been in development/development hell for something like two years?
While I have you, on a scale of 1-10, how pissed is our anal going to be when I deface their advertisement?
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
basically how I see it is currently the inmates at large are running the whole asylum, whenever a warden steps out of line at all they riot and immediately try to kill him, even if he's only recently been hired. This has led to an all time low of inmate abuse relative to other asylums the inmates were transferred in from, but the asylum itself isn't functioning very well in a lot of ways.
so what I propose is that each individual ward be run only by the inmates in it, and they be given a legal recourse to deal with mistreatment so they don't immediately try to resort to violence.