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.
cleaning up spam is one thing, but generally deciding what content shows up on the front of the subverse is what the voating system is for not what mod deletions and bans are for. The users of the subverse should have whatever subverse they want, the mods are just there to clean it up for them. The users own the sub and the community, the mod is just their volunteer janitor, who they should be able to dismiss if he does his job improperly to their standards.
Boss what I said wasn’t a shit test or to provoke a reaction. It was the truth. I deleted very little in my time as a moderator and only one person.
Sanegoatiswear which I think you and I can agree on needed it.
The subs are never the creators and always the subscribers which is something atko made clear the day he told us all to make subverses.
My feelings are and have always been that when someone begins to delete comments and ban people it deserves to be called out, and even I was, but I was found right in the discourse of public opinion.
This was a brand new sub, less than a day old. There is no community in which to speak. It's a niche sub for a particularly narrow purpose and target audience. It has every right to remove shit posts imo. Having standards is not censorship, posting off topic content is an abuse of the principals we hold.
You wouldn't stand for this in real life. Build a park for your kids to play. Post a sign letting the community know its for everyone's enjoyment. Now the homeless move in. Tent city. Trash everywhere. Can't remove them or it would violate your values, right? What happens to the park? Who would let their kids play there? How would you solve this? Creating rules? Enforcing rules? Standards are real. They matter.
Tell me where I'm wrong.
Better yet, go create a sub with good intentions. I'll destroy whatever chances you have to create something of value and claim it's Free Speech. I can do it to you too while hiding behind the protections of Free Speech.
You have a point in concerns to established subs and new mods, but this is quite different considering, don't you think?
I don't love your example of the park, because there are many existing laws that wouldn't allow the exact use you are describing. If the park is truly for anyone's use, with no other governing rules, then you'd be a foolish idealist to think children could play there. Free speech is kind of the same thing. It's going to attract the best and the worst, but certainly not the casuals.
This guy specifically went wrong when he started being ban happy on comments moreso than any posts (in my own opinion). Voat seems to be of the opinion that comments should be left alone in non-private subs, and the community should up/down vote them for ranking. I personally like this philosophy, though it isn't an official rule.
I offered this gentleman my own opinion, that he should leave comments alone or he would get destroyed by the response. He deleted that comment.
I guess we have fundamentally different viewpoints, since I don't feel like we have to grow, and you'd likely prefer that we did (which is perfectly reasonably).
I'll give you that the park example isn't a direct match, but it does have similarities.
I don't feel like we have to grow
And here is the issue. I feel that Voat doesn't want to expand and acts accordingly. My view is that truth must have as many eyes on it as possible. I got involved with Voat to make the world a better place by promising not to censor the inconvenient aspects of humanity and evil. We can't change the world if we run everyone off. We expect people to be wise and mature as soon as they arrive, this is an unrealistic expectation.
I also lack knowledge of the comment deletions. All I can say is when Voat targets you, most people react by going nuclear. Doesn't make it right, but humans react this way by default.
I mill lowers out on the regular. Same with glock gen 3s on the 80% kits.
If you are within USA I suggest CBC industries and Sanders Armory.
When I get enough cash I will mill one of my AR10 lowers and make me a serious reach out and touchem gun. We will have constitutional carry here in Oklahoma Nov 1st, and this white one will be my carry gun.
I have found that an AR15 that is not black or FDE isn’t seen as frightening to people.
This is the wives and people are actually very receptive to it and don’t see it as scary as mine.
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.
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
cleaning up spam is one thing, but generally deciding what content shows up on the front of the subverse is what the voating system is for not what mod deletions and bans are for. The users of the subverse should have whatever subverse they want, the mods are just there to clean it up for them. The users own the sub and the community, the mod is just their volunteer janitor, who they should be able to dismiss if he does his job improperly to their standards.
PuttItOut ago
https://voat.co/v/MillionDollarCraft/modlog/submission
Tell me honestly if you feel any of those submissions deserve not to be deleted.
AR47 ago
Boss what I said wasn’t a shit test or to provoke a reaction. It was the truth. I deleted very little in my time as a moderator and only one person.
Sanegoatiswear which I think you and I can agree on needed it.
The subs are never the creators and always the subscribers which is something atko made clear the day he told us all to make subverses.
My feelings are and have always been that when someone begins to delete comments and ban people it deserves to be called out, and even I was, but I was found right in the discourse of public opinion.
PuttItOut ago
This was a brand new sub, less than a day old. There is no community in which to speak. It's a niche sub for a particularly narrow purpose and target audience. It has every right to remove shit posts imo. Having standards is not censorship, posting off topic content is an abuse of the principals we hold.
You wouldn't stand for this in real life. Build a park for your kids to play. Post a sign letting the community know its for everyone's enjoyment. Now the homeless move in. Tent city. Trash everywhere. Can't remove them or it would violate your values, right? What happens to the park? Who would let their kids play there? How would you solve this? Creating rules? Enforcing rules? Standards are real. They matter.
Tell me where I'm wrong.
Better yet, go create a sub with good intentions. I'll destroy whatever chances you have to create something of value and claim it's Free Speech. I can do it to you too while hiding behind the protections of Free Speech.
You have a point in concerns to established subs and new mods, but this is quite different considering, don't you think?
MinorLeakage ago
I don't love your example of the park, because there are many existing laws that wouldn't allow the exact use you are describing. If the park is truly for anyone's use, with no other governing rules, then you'd be a foolish idealist to think children could play there. Free speech is kind of the same thing. It's going to attract the best and the worst, but certainly not the casuals.
This guy specifically went wrong when he started being ban happy on comments moreso than any posts (in my own opinion). Voat seems to be of the opinion that comments should be left alone in non-private subs, and the community should up/down vote them for ranking. I personally like this philosophy, though it isn't an official rule.
I offered this gentleman my own opinion, that he should leave comments alone or he would get destroyed by the response. He deleted that comment.
I guess we have fundamentally different viewpoints, since I don't feel like we have to grow, and you'd likely prefer that we did (which is perfectly reasonably).
PuttItOut ago
I'll give you that the park example isn't a direct match, but it does have similarities.
And here is the issue. I feel that Voat doesn't want to expand and acts accordingly. My view is that truth must have as many eyes on it as possible. I got involved with Voat to make the world a better place by promising not to censor the inconvenient aspects of humanity and evil. We can't change the world if we run everyone off. We expect people to be wise and mature as soon as they arrive, this is an unrealistic expectation.
I also lack knowledge of the comment deletions. All I can say is when Voat targets you, most people react by going nuclear. Doesn't make it right, but humans react this way by default.
AR47 ago
This I agree on, and perhaps this is something to deal with at a later date and time?
PuttItOut ago
I'd say that if a mod is deleting relevant content then we have a major issue. If it's shit posts and abuse it falls into a different category.
AR47 ago
Alrighty I am glad to have your take on it, and that is only because I have never seen you say it.
I am going to go back to making a new AR 15.
Got me a 10.5 upper in 7.62x39. Going to call it my
AK-KK (going to paint it all white too)
What you think?
PuttItOut ago
Hey! AR10 or AR15? We should talk.
AR47 ago
AR15
I mill lowers out on the regular. Same with glock gen 3s on the 80% kits.
If you are within USA I suggest CBC industries and Sanders Armory.
When I get enough cash I will mill one of my AR10 lowers and make me a serious reach out and touchem gun. We will have constitutional carry here in Oklahoma Nov 1st, and this white one will be my carry gun.
I have found that an AR15 that is not black or FDE isn’t seen as frightening to people.
This is the wives and people are actually very receptive to it and don’t see it as scary as mine.