The hypocrisy on all parts is delicious. I love how you guys rag on voat while being the flip side. Fucking wonderful!
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.
We have different approaches in dealing with non-default mods and default mods. Here is the relevant part of the TOS:
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.