13 comments
There are some excellent popcorn moments in this thread about the link you posted.
https://voat.co/v/whatever/2426676
Here are some winning excerpts (creatively edited the racial stuff as not to violate TOS that would be bad for Phuks)
People want to leave reddit, but they don't see voat as an option and half of the users here have this elitist gatekeeping mindset where if new users won't let you call them bumblebees, then you have to make them unwelcome here.
response:
BumbleFairy is an excellent screening tool, and you know it.
another one:
I see a lot of “volunteers” offering to help. What I hear is Koalas trying infiltrate. Or their reddit onions... We respect all the work you do Puttitout, please do not let the Koalas subvert and screw over the site. They pay shekels to their tribe members to keep harrasment on any site that we are allowed to call out the Joes. If this change preserves our freedoms and makes management of the site all that much better, I am pretty sure you are doing it for the right reasons. One of the reasons I promote Voat to others is because of the free speech aspect, if that goes or is subversed into rule oblivion by a brigade of Koala Moderators paid by Israel to block anything questioning Koalas, It will be time to move on and support another site. Puttitout, You do great work thank you. It is not easy and having to deal with a fan base of Trolls is not easy. Just wanted to say thank you though.
edit* felt like changing "minions" to "onions". As far as I know "minions" will not violate the TOS.
There are some excellent popcorn moments in this thread about the link you posted.
https://voat.co/v/whatever/2426676
Here are some winning excerpts (creatively edited the racial stuff as not to violate TOS that would be bad for Phuks)
>People want to leave reddit, but they don't see voat as an option and half of the users here have this elitist gatekeeping mindset where if new users won't let you call them *bumblebees*, then you have to make them unwelcome here.
response:
>*BumbleFairy* is an excellent screening tool, and you know it.
another one:
>I see a lot of “volunteers” offering to help. What I hear is *Koalas* trying infiltrate. Or their reddit *onions*...
We respect all the work you do Puttitout, please do not let the *Koalas* subvert and screw over the site. They pay shekels to their tribe members to keep harrasment on any site that we are allowed to call out the *Joes*. If this change preserves our freedoms and makes management of the site all that much better, I am pretty sure you are doing it for the right reasons.
One of the reasons I promote Voat to others is because of the free speech aspect, if that goes or is subversed into rule oblivion by a brigade of *Koala* Moderators paid by Israel to block anything questioning *Koalas*, It will be time to move on and support another site. Puttitout, You do great work thank you. It is not easy and having to deal with a fan base of Trolls is not easy. Just wanted to say thank you though.
edit* felt like changing "minions" to "onions". As far as I know "minions" will not violate the TOS.
You missed a koala in that last quote
You missed a koala in that last quote
I got an advanced copy of the list of rules that will be implemented:
- Fuck You
- Shill
- Cuck
- SJW censorship
- to 9 (Various Racial Slurs)
- Antifa propaganda
- Ummm Protekt'n VoooooAaatt
I got an advanced copy of the list of rules that will be implemented:
1. Fuck You
2. Shill
3. Cuck
4. SJW censorship
5. to 9 (Various Racial Slurs)
10. Antifa propaganda
11. Ummm Protekt'n VoooooAaatt
You forgot "Jews" and "Jew Media". According to Voat they cause earthquakes and want to destroy males.
You forgot "Jews" and "Jew Media". According to Voat they cause earthquakes and want to destroy males.
Currently a moderator simply has to provide a “reason” why they are performing such actions, and seeing that often times this reason is made up on the spot, we are not happy with this.
I don't see how this changes anything. Mods can just make up a rule and then select that rule as the reason for banning someone can they not?
>Currently a moderator simply has to provide a “reason” why they are performing such actions, and seeing that often times this reason is made up on the spot, we are not happy with this.
I don't see how this changes anything. Mods can just make up a rule and then select that rule as the reason for banning someone can they not?
Thay can, and I don't think this change will help much. This is probably because the "reason" for deletions and bans was too often ".".
Thay can, and I don't think this change will help much. This is probably because the "reason" for deletions and bans was too often ".".
It adds burden to legit mods. Limits their ability to directly address that specific case in the reason, and will have no effect on the malicious mods who can make up rules, or randomly select options. It removes clarity and adds nothing positive.
It's a bad move in every way. Like bone-head level of bad. I'm surprised Putt can be that retarded.
I can not see any positive results. There is no chance it will have the effect Putt predicts.
It adds burden to legit mods. Limits their ability to directly address that specific case in the reason, and will have no effect on the malicious mods who can make up rules, or randomly select options. It removes clarity and adds nothing positive.
It's a bad move in every way. Like bone-head level of bad. I'm surprised Putt can be that retarded.
I can not see any positive results. There is no chance it will have the effect Putt predicts.
It does at least force mods to give a reason other than ".", as @xyzzy said, but that's as far as it goes. If I banned someone and did not give a reason, there would be a discussion about it that would either result in a reason being given or my removal on the sub. With this, you just click something from a drop down menu and then nothing happens beyond that.
Plus there are reasons for being banned that can not be summed up in a broad definition. We banned people from /v/ModernPowers for very specific and unique reasons that would never come up on other subs.
It does at least force mods to give a reason other than ".", as @xyzzy said, but that's as far as it goes. If I banned someone and did not give a reason, there would be a discussion about it that would either result in a reason being given or my removal on the sub. With this, you just click something from a drop down menu and then nothing happens beyond that.
Plus there are reasons for being banned that can not be summed up in a broad definition. We banned people from /v/ModernPowers for very specific and unique reasons that would never come up on other subs.
It does at least force mods to give a reason other than "."
I don't think it does. it just replaces '.' with 'Default reason #1'.
Plus there are reasons for being banned that can not be summed up in a broad definition
That's the big one to me. We always tried to avoid bans, and when we did it was for very specific reasons after attempting a case by case solution. Something like this would have reduced clarity, not increased it.
> It does at least force mods to give a reason other than "."
I don't think it does. it just replaces '.' with 'Default reason #1'.
> Plus there are reasons for being banned that can not be summed up in a broad definition
That's the big one to me. We always tried to avoid bans, and when we did it was for very specific reasons after attempting a case by case solution. Something like this would have reduced clarity, not increased it.
It's always sunny in Philadelphia theme plays