The hypocrisy on all parts is delicious. I love how you guys rag on voat while being the flip side. Fucking wonderful!
I agree this seems pretty cut-and-dry on /s/Math.
I do wonder what the policy might evolve into elsewhere on the website? If a user engages in petty harassment on /s/Whatever, or /s/politics, or /s/pics is that a ban-worthy offense, or does the one getting harassed just have to put up with it and be content with the person collecting downvotes? Will you tolerate non-spamming assholes in a set of general subs in the name of free speech?
No reply necessary really... just pondering out loud.
I agree this seems pretty cut-and-dry on /s/Math.
I do wonder what the policy might evolve into elsewhere on the website? If a user engages in petty harassment on /s/Whatever, or /s/politics, or /s/pics is that a ban-worthy offense, or does the one getting harassed just have to put up with it and be content with the person collecting downvotes? Will you tolerate non-spamming assholes in a set of general subs in the name of free speech?
No reply necessary really... just pondering out loud.
We have different approaches in dealing with non-default mods and default mods. Here is the relevant part of the TOS:
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.
Whilst there isn't a strict outline for removing mods (because that hasn't happened yet), my general opinion would be that non-default mods can pretty much do what they like - within reason, of course. I think we should have a standard procedure for bans, such as requiring a PM to be sent to the banned user explaining why they were banned and whether the ban is permanent or not. If the user is clearly a spam account I don't think it would be necessary though.
Default mods will be held to a certain standard. Banning someone from /s/News should require the user to be persistently harassing others whilst providing nothing of real value to discussion, or consistently making off-topic posts. It shouldn't be a hugbox and mods should not exist to stifle discussion, but at the same time I don't like the Voat culture of attacking users based on their opinions because that isn't real discussion at all. It is self-serving and only creates stronger divides rather than contributing to genuine discussion and debate over topics.
Edit: I forgot to mention that I think the amount of subscribers/activity a sub has should also be taken into account. If we have a large sub that is a non-default, mods might be treated more like default mods because their decisions affect large portions of the userbase.
We have different approaches in dealing with non-default mods and default mods. Here is the relevant part of the TOS:
> 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.
Whilst there isn't a strict outline for removing mods (because that hasn't happened yet), my general opinion would be that non-default mods can pretty much do what they like - within reason, of course. I think we should have a standard procedure for bans, such as requiring a PM to be sent to the banned user explaining why they were banned and whether the ban is permanent or not. If the user is clearly a spam account I don't think it would be necessary though.
Default mods will be held to a certain standard. Banning someone from /s/News should require the user to be persistently harassing others whilst providing nothing of real value to discussion, or consistently making off-topic posts. It shouldn't be a hugbox and mods should not exist to stifle discussion, but at the same time I don't like the Voat culture of attacking users based on their opinions because that isn't real discussion at all. It is self-serving and only creates stronger divides rather than contributing to genuine discussion and debate over topics.
Edit: I forgot to mention that I think the amount of subscribers/activity a sub has should also be taken into account. If we have a large sub that is a non-default, mods might be treated more like default mods because their decisions affect large portions of the userbase.
This whole topic is a minefield...
Moderator power seems to be a sore-point for many on reddit. Many of us have niche interests, and if many niche non-default subs are too tightly controlled just because mods got there first and can do what they like, it could become a sore-point here as well. (Not suggesting this is the case at /s/math.) Reddit bans people at the drop of a hat, and voat gags/repels anyone who challenges their major ideologies via CCP restrictions. I think voat is a toxic shithole because it's not inclusive enough and has a skewed userbase: maybe it needs more free speech, not less.
If you're going to ban people, I agree a standard procedure for bans would be a good idea. A quick thought: not deleting offending content and flagging it in some way eg. 'harassment' or 'spam' 'off-topic'. Perhaps PMs warning users, then temporarily or permanently banning them could be automated based just on the quantity of flagged content. (Of course this won't police brigading).
Personally, I think it's dangerous to try and dictate the best recipe for quality user interaction/discussion. Surely user inclusion is also a priority? Many may find /s/nichesub(+assorted assholes/critics) more stimulating than /s/nichesub(fans only), and I wonder if there's some practical way to have and clearly label both.
This place is still tiny, so you have plenty of time to flesh out your public censorship policy - I look forward to seeing it evolve. Passionate humanitarians like Pete will be very useful test cases/precedents.
This whole topic is a minefield...
Moderator power seems to be a sore-point for many on reddit. Many of us have niche interests, and if many niche non-default subs are too tightly controlled just because mods got there first and can do what they like, it could become a sore-point here as well. (Not suggesting this is the case at /s/math.) Reddit bans people at the drop of a hat, and voat gags/repels anyone who challenges their major ideologies via CCP restrictions. I think voat is a toxic shithole because it's not inclusive enough and has a skewed userbase: maybe it needs more free speech, not less.
If you're going to ban people, I agree a standard procedure for bans would be a good idea. A quick thought: not deleting offending content and flagging it in some way eg. 'harassment' or 'spam' 'off-topic'. Perhaps PMs warning users, then temporarily or permanently banning them could be automated based just on the quantity of flagged content. (Of course this won't police brigading).
Personally, I think it's dangerous to try and dictate the best recipe for quality user interaction/discussion. Surely user inclusion is also a priority? Many may find /s/nichesub(+assorted assholes/critics) more stimulating than /s/nichesub(fans only), and I wonder if there's some practical way to have and clearly label both.
This place is still tiny, so you have plenty of time to flesh out your public censorship policy - I look forward to seeing it evolve. Passionate humanitarians like Pete will be very useful test cases/precedents.
You commented off-topic stuff with the only intent of irritating a user because he doesn't share your views on immigration. On /s/Math.
There is nothing in the TOS that would stop a mod from banning you because of this.