More
12

I think all of the users here have used a site that fell into a slow or sudden decline, whether it be Reddit, Voat or something else.

In the case of Reddit, it has many problems. Money has been a big issue. The push to remove and censor certain subjects/content from the site in order to appeal to advertisers ended up alienating a lot of users who just wanted somewhere to post/look at stuff and not have it taken down. Going way way back, you could say it started with /r/jailbait, which (I think) was the first sub to be banned. It was definitely the first high profile sub to be banned. The admins were not giving mods the tools they needed, mods were taking things down even though there was nothing wrong with the posts at all and subs started being banned left right and centre. However, Reddit is still around and it seems to be doing just fine, nothing more than a blip on the radar.

Voat benefited directly from the shit happening on Reddit more than once. It started to be linked more and more as more subreddits were banned, more users were banned, Victoria was fired, the blackout happened, Ellen Pao became synonymous with Adolf Hitler etc. This had the effect of bringing everyone who was not wanted on Reddit over to Voat, making it an anti-echo chamber in relation to Reddit. Voat also has a money issue - they aren't really getting any. Another anti-attribute that can be applied to Voat is they are very very very cautious when it comes to banning things or removing things, because they know that censorship is killing Reddit. Unfortunately, this has led to shit content reaching the frontpage every day, a spam problem and the formation of protectvoat, which is basically the same as /r/ShitRedditSays but they claim to promote free speech on the site.

So what can be done here? Is it a roll of the dice to see if we end up with the same echo chamber that exists on Reddit or Voat? Which mistakes do we avoid and how can they be avoided?
I think all of the users here have used a site that fell into a slow or sudden decline, whether it be Reddit, Voat or something else. In the case of Reddit, it has many problems. Money has been a big issue. The push to remove and censor certain subjects/content from the site in order to appeal to advertisers ended up alienating a lot of users who just wanted somewhere to post/look at stuff and not have it taken down. Going way way back, you could say it started with /r/jailbait, which (I think) was the first sub to be banned. It was definitely the first high profile sub to be banned. The admins were not giving mods the tools they needed, mods were taking things down even though there was nothing wrong with the posts at all and subs started being banned left right and centre. However, Reddit is still around and it seems to be doing just fine, nothing more than a blip on the radar. Voat benefited directly from the shit happening on Reddit more than once. It started to be linked more and more as more subreddits were banned, more users were banned, Victoria was fired, the blackout happened, Ellen Pao became synonymous with Adolf Hitler etc. This had the effect of bringing everyone who was not wanted on Reddit over to Voat, making it an anti-echo chamber in relation to Reddit. Voat also has a money issue - they aren't really getting any. Another anti-attribute that can be applied to Voat is they are very very very cautious when it comes to banning things or removing things, because they know that censorship is killing Reddit. Unfortunately, this has led to shit content reaching the frontpage every day, a spam problem and the formation of protectvoat, which is basically the same as /r/ShitRedditSays but they claim to promote free speech on the site. So what can be done here? Is it a roll of the dice to see if we end up with the same echo chamber that exists on Reddit or Voat? Which mistakes do we avoid and how can they be avoided?

38 comments

[–] mamwad 2 points (+2|-0)

I'm not talking about submission guidelines, I'm talking about explicitly giving users rights. There's a difference. Submission guidelines restrict the user, whereas user rights restrict moderation and administration rights to restrict the user.
[–] PMYA [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

I'm not sure about that. It could very quickly create a "but muh rights" situation and make things quite difficult for moderators or admins.

This is the relevant part of the TOS about moderators:

Moderators are not a part of site staff, and may be removed at any time, for any reason. Moderators may create their own rules as long as they do not violate the terms of this agreement. By becoming a moderator of a default sub, you agree to represent the best interests of the community you moderate. Continuous failure to do so may result in your removal as a moderator.

So at the moment, it basically says that default mods will be removed by admins if they keep fucking up, but mods of non defaults can make their own rules and do whatever they like. What we could do, in order to improve the situation for users a bit, is add another line that says moderators will be held accountable for not following the rules of the sub they moderate. It will mean that either the moderator is removed for being a dick, the user actually has a thing they can point to so they can clearly show the mod is being a dick, or it will mean a new rule is created by the mod to stop whatever it was that the user was doing.

Not perfect but could be a slight improvement.

@Polsaker @pembo210 @Boukert what do you think?
[–] Polsaker 3 points (+3|-0)

Maybe I was right when we needed a sort of Constitution, whereby user rights are explicitly framed and checks and balances are put in place to prevent abuse.

It's probably not the first time I say this, but I like how Wikipedia is managed democratically. Users can elect admins (for a given wiki, like en.wikipedia.org or es.wikipedia.org), and then once a year there's election for stewards (that are like global admins for all wikis), and only users with a certain level of activity can participate in those elections.

The bad side is that usually those elections end up being a shitshow where people are constantly digging for faults on the user, and only few end up being elected (because the community wants "perfect" admins).

@mamwad @Boukert
[–] Boukert 1 points (+1|-0)

Way to idealistical, just look at brigades on both voat and reddit. Would you like to end up with the loudmouths, kevude's and crensch's ..... cause this is how that works. This will end up in drama, a shitshow, more drama, polarization, even more drama, shitflinging, brigading, witch-hunting and drama (did I mention drama?)

I'd rather be professional and let people be judged on their CV's and behavior. Thus garantueeing quality and consistency.
[–] PMYA [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

As a moderator, I don't like this. I wouldn't want to put x amount into a sub, say /s/ListenToThis for example (subscribe, you know you want to), just to have some other guy take it over.
©2016-2022 Phuks LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ToS | Privacy | Changelog | Canary | Donate | Bugs | License
Served by c7693d2284ae