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.
right, but the mod should govern with the consent of the users. The mods shouldn't be the ones who decide the "way it sees fit" for the whole community, at least not without the input and oversight of their userbase
That's a brand new sub that someone decided to 'test' right away, and the mod saw his excitement shit on and deleted it. Who wouldn't feel this way?
I see your point concerning large subs but isn't this different? Who is the community in this scenario? And isn't this the opposite of a power mod... Isn't this a mod that is undersiege by the community?
And forgive me if I'm getting the details wrong. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
right, but the impetus to do so is concern that the mod will go on to act like a power mod. If the users of the sub could depose him themselves this would be a needless concern. Give the users of the sub more power and power modding will be beneath concern and thus easier to ignore. I'm not saying what happens on v/protectvoat or the results of such is right, I'm talking specifically about the main or at least the most justifiable motivations behind it.
People don't want power mods abusing the mod tools here.
What I'm asking for would address the underlying concern, thus removing the cause itself so we won't need to worry anymore about the effect in this cause effect scenario. users of v/protectvoat act the way they do to prevent power mods, if the users had power over their mods then power mods will be dealt with internally by the subverse, thus no one will need to be as concerned by mod behavior, thus actions predicated on this concern and the problems those actions cause will be overwhelmingly less likely
This particular situation reminds me of a child who puts their finger in someone face and repeats "I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you." then gets punched. Who caused it?
We can all be better. Even me. That's how life works.
Voat changed me greatly, but it took a while for me to learn my faults. So it is with each of us.
I wonder what would have happened if I was run off when I first came to Voat as a user? There wouldn't be a Voat today. This is perhaps why we should be a little more understanding.
it would be easier to be understanding if there was less risk in doing so, we gave mods on reddit the benefit of the doubt and when that turned out poorly. If you want us to trust people in similar positions now give the people here a way to deal with them if "being understanding" doesn't work out again
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
right, but the mod should govern with the consent of the users. The mods shouldn't be the ones who decide the "way it sees fit" for the whole community, at least not without the input and oversight of their userbase
PuttItOut ago
That's a brand new sub that someone decided to 'test' right away, and the mod saw his excitement shit on and deleted it. Who wouldn't feel this way?
I see your point concerning large subs but isn't this different? Who is the community in this scenario? And isn't this the opposite of a power mod... Isn't this a mod that is undersiege by the community?
And forgive me if I'm getting the details wrong. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
right, but the impetus to do so is concern that the mod will go on to act like a power mod. If the users of the sub could depose him themselves this would be a needless concern. Give the users of the sub more power and power modding will be beneath concern and thus easier to ignore. I'm not saying what happens on v/protectvoat or the results of such is right, I'm talking specifically about the main or at least the most justifiable motivations behind it.
People don't want power mods abusing the mod tools here.
What I'm asking for would address the underlying concern, thus removing the cause itself so we won't need to worry anymore about the effect in this cause effect scenario. users of v/protectvoat act the way they do to prevent power mods, if the users had power over their mods then power mods will be dealt with internally by the subverse, thus no one will need to be as concerned by mod behavior, thus actions predicated on this concern and the problems those actions cause will be overwhelmingly less likely
PuttItOut ago
I see both sides and this is what makes it hard.
This particular situation reminds me of a child who puts their finger in someone face and repeats "I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you." then gets punched. Who caused it?
Mumbleberry ago
I feel a little guilty now, but the guy could have taken it with a bit better.
PuttItOut ago
We can all be better. Even me. That's how life works.
Voat changed me greatly, but it took a while for me to learn my faults. So it is with each of us.
I wonder what would have happened if I was run off when I first came to Voat as a user? There wouldn't be a Voat today. This is perhaps why we should be a little more understanding.
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
it would be easier to be understanding if there was less risk in doing so, we gave mods on reddit the benefit of the doubt and when that turned out poorly. If you want us to trust people in similar positions now give the people here a way to deal with them if "being understanding" doesn't work out again
PuttItOut ago
Voat will soon become entirely community managed.
Rainy-Day-Dream ago
I'm glad it will, each community should manage itself rather than mods managing each community carte blanche with an angry mod managing the mods