13

14 comments

[–] smallpond 4 points (+4|-0)

I'm hoping you guys will spend some time thinking/planning for this while you're small enough to be able to.

Maybe you can't stop a large group of one-sided users, but you can try to set it up so that group doesn't collect so much power that they can't be dislodged at some point in future. The rules at voat are set up to exclude people of certain opinions - I hope you're careful not to go down that path.

[–] Boukert [OP] 3 points (+3|-0) Edited

We have talked about this a lot as we all saw what happened over at voat over the last years. some context.

  • A mass migration of users would be no problem.

  • A mass migration of "crusaders" or "hate subs" would. Luckily these fanatics are finding their way to voat. The "hardcore" crusaders know us and hate phuks. For now we have the provider TOS to fence with (rather not but it's a tool) I would also like to state; we do not see a difference between left and right in this behavior and will act against both.

  • Unlike voat we have 3 admins spread over 3 timezones that are active on a daily basis on phuks. So there can be interventions/discussion directly with any groups from the top down if/when shit hits the fan.

  • With these active admins; There will be no room for "PV-like" brigading and bullying while squiggling it's way into the "grey zone" left by admin absence.

The rollout plan would be something along these lines:

  1. influx starts.

  2. Check technical/data. (can we handle the traffic/do we need to boost it?)

  3. Open communication/welcome new user mass-influxes with an admin post.

  4. When it's an organised group (a sub jumps ship), admins open communication with mods. (mods then can communicate with users)

  5. Raise userlevel/post-restrictions to prevent an overload

  6. As a last measure we can throw phuks.co into "invite only" (rather not, as I think voat missed out on a large takeover of healthy users during "the blackening"

Main part of our vision is admins who are actively involved in the community, approachable and open for fair discussions.

[–] smallpond 1 points (+1|-0)

Please see my reply to @PMYA.

The intention for open communication and interaction is much appreciated, but I am sceptical about how effective you guys could be against a big group of unhelpful users who are all of the same mind, especially with your current methods for ranking users.