One thing Voat may have done right.

[–] InnocentBystander 4 points (+4|-0)

but it is easily bypassed by adding new rules to the sidebar when you want to ban someone.

I think that can be solved by stating that rules can not be retroactively applied.
And for sub's that prefer to make up and enforce rules on the fly, they can make a rule saying 'we can and will ban for any reason, at any time'. If users do support the mods then they may be fine with that. But at least it is out in the open and users know what they are getting into.

Let's say the quality of content on one of the subs you're moderating drops. In order to combat it, you want to add a rule, but you need to seek community approval first. Users do not agree to the rule change because it means they can't shitpost anymore. Unpopular decisions sometimes make subs better.

I think we see things differently here. I think the users should have final say. Whether the change makes the sub better or not is a subjective opinion. And if most of the existing community likes it how it is, and doesn't want the new rule, then i don't think it should be allowed. I feel mods are there to guide and enable the community, not control or direct.
If the mod really doesn't like what the sub has become, they are free to start something new. But i don't think they should be able to shut down an existing community because it went in a direction they hadn't planned.

I think this may come down to the view of who owns the subs. Some feel the mod that built it up owns it and should be able to do what they want with it.
That is a valid opinion, but i feel a sub is owned by the community that forms around it.

In my opinion a sub and it's mods have no value on their own. They only gain value when a community forms around them. This creates an imbalance of power when the community has the value but the mods have control of the sub. We've all seen that go badly.

Despite the fact that i have not always been treated well, or fairly, as a mod, i still feel that it is the community that should be provided with protections and safeguards.
Mods are easily replaced, but the community is not.

> but it is easily bypassed by adding new rules to the sidebar when you want to ban someone. I think that can be solved by stating that rules can not be retroactively applied. And for sub's that prefer to make up and enforce rules on the fly, they can make a rule saying 'we can and will ban for any reason, at any time'. If users do support the mods then they may be fine with that. But at least it is out in the open and users know what they are getting into. > Let's say the quality of content on one of the subs you're moderating drops. In order to combat it, you want to add a rule, but you need to seek community approval first. Users do not agree to the rule change because it means they can't shitpost anymore. Unpopular decisions sometimes make subs better. I think we see things differently here. I think the users should have final say. Whether the change makes the sub better or not is a subjective opinion. And if most of the existing community likes it how it is, and doesn't want the new rule, then i don't think it should be allowed. I feel mods are there to guide and enable the community, not control or direct. If the mod really doesn't like what the sub has become, they are free to start something new. But i don't think they should be able to shut down an existing community because it went in a direction they hadn't planned. I think this may come down to the view of who owns the subs. Some feel the mod that built it up owns it and should be able to do what they want with it. That is a valid opinion, but i feel a sub is owned by the community that forms around it. In my opinion a sub and it's mods have no value on their own. They only gain value when a community forms around them. This creates an imbalance of power when the community has the value but the mods have control of the sub. We've all seen that go badly. Despite the fact that i have not always been treated well, or fairly, as a mod, i still feel that it is the community that should be provided with protections and safeguards. Mods are easily replaced, but the community is not.

[–] PMYA 5 points (+5|-0)

Edited

I think this may come down to the view of who owns the subs. Some feel the mod that built it up owns it and should be able to do what they want with it.

In my opinion, defaults are public owned, and non-defaults belong to mods, in most cases. An exception might be a sub with a lot of subscribers, or perhaps a sub where the aim is for it to be very much based around the community.

I understand that this is a divisive topic. On Reddit, there is so much traffic on non-defaults that you can't really argue non-defaults should be mod-owned, for lack of a better term. I can not imagine what it is like to mod a sub with hundreds of thousands of subscribers. At that point it is basically a job, and between managing all that traffic, sometimes having to implement shit admin "rules" and also the undeniable fact that some mods clearly have their own agendas to push, it is no surprise the modding situation there is out of control.

On Voat, it is almost as though the opposite is true. There is so much bickering over mods and so much discussion about rules, it actually stifles content creation to the point where the only thing actually being posted is meta shitposts from people who feel like they have been unfairly treated by mods, or people who are exercising their free speech by discussing nothing but their right to exercise free speech.

In both cases, moderation is made very difficult, and the userbase is affected by it. In my opinion, the only way to fix this might be to fundamentally change the way moderation works. This has been talked about on-site and off-site before, and all suggestions have involved a vulnerability in the methodology that could potentially be abused. Perhaps there should be an admin post about this to try and come up with some sort of plan that can be rolled out in the future. I think the proposed hierarchy system could play a part in this, maybe mixed with some kind of tool for post reporting. No progress has been made with that yet though, probably because there isn't a need for it yet and there are more important things that need attention at the moment.

I would actually agree with you on letting communities dictate sub rules - perhaps not on smaller subs but on defaults - if /v/News had not happened. Users ended up stripping basically all of the rules, turning it into a cesspool. Happened with a few other subs too. Allowing users to choose also opens up an avenue for abuse. Should people who do not participate in a certain sub be allowed to decide on the rules the sub has? Because someone could very easily start campaigning for rules whilst having no interest in the sub at all. You could say that response to rule change posts should be judged on upvotes on comments, but we all know that is not a trustworthy measure. When you invite a community to decide on the rules, you don't invite the sub, you invite the entire site. You could say that only users with a certain amount of upvotes or posts in a sub can give input on rules, but that cuts out the opinions of lurkers, and is basically the same as mods deciding, because the decision is going to be made by a select few users. >I think this may come down to the view of who owns the subs. Some feel the mod that built it up owns it and should be able to do what they want with it. In my opinion, defaults are public owned, and non-defaults belong to mods, in most cases. An exception might be a sub with a lot of subscribers, or perhaps a sub where the aim is for it to be very much based around the community. I understand that this is a divisive topic. On Reddit, there is so much traffic on non-defaults that you can't really argue non-defaults should be mod-owned, for lack of a better term. I can not imagine what it is like to mod a sub with hundreds of thousands of subscribers. At that point it is basically a job, and between managing all that traffic, sometimes having to implement shit admin "rules" and also the undeniable fact that some mods clearly have their own agendas to push, it is no surprise the modding situation there is out of control. On Voat, it is almost as though the opposite is true. There is so much bickering over mods and so much discussion about rules, it actually stifles content creation to the point where the only thing actually being posted is meta shitposts from people who feel like they have been unfairly treated by mods, or people who are exercising their free speech by discussing nothing but their right to exercise free speech. In both cases, moderation is made very difficult, and the userbase is affected by it. In my opinion, the only way to fix this might be to fundamentally change the way moderation works. This has been talked about on-site and off-site before, and all suggestions have involved a vulnerability in the methodology that could potentially be abused. Perhaps there should be an admin post about this to try and come up with some sort of plan that can be rolled out in the future. I think the proposed hierarchy system could play a part in this, maybe mixed with some kind of tool for post reporting. No progress has been made with that yet though, probably because there isn't a need for it yet and there are more important things that need attention at the moment.

One thing Voat may have done right.

10 comments

/s/Whatever