One thing Voat may have done right.

[–] InnocentBystander 6 points (+6|-0)

I generally agree that minimal bans is best.

But Voat never operated like that. Each sub had its own set of rules that got enforced. Different sub's need different rules, so that makes sense.

Voat also has many sub's that can be very ban-happy. FPH comes to mind. I don't have a problem with a sub like that. They are very clear about what the rules are, and the community supports them.
But Voat also has sub's like cheers that bans 'because'. And no rules or explanation s are given.

I would love to see a system wide rule here that states no mod can ban except for posted rules.
I would also like it if there was some guidelines that required mods to have community support for adding/changing rules.

But rules will be needed for sub's that have a topic or purpose. And rules will need to be different for different sub's. I do not see how a standard site wide set could fill the needs of all subs.

I like how you are thinking, and what your instincts are, but it is a more complicated issue than it may seem.

For now the admins seem to be just seeing how things evolve. But at some point, if the site keeps growing, we will need to codify some of this.

[–] PMYA 5 points (+5|-0)

Pinging @Christheguy because it is relevant to the post too.

I put together the current version of the TOS. At the moment, some of the things in the TOS are quite restrictive. There are the obvious things like a ban on child porn and whatnot, but some of the things listed there are not there because we wanted to ban it.

Gambling, for example, is prohibited. I have had to make posts on Voat about vulnerabilities in surveillance cameras and other things, because discussion about that sort of thing is not allowed here. The reason for this is our current hosting provider has a very strict set of rules regarding what their service can be used for. Hate speech, gambling and discussion about hacking are banned under the hosting provider's TOS, so it has to be in our TOS too whether we like it or not.

So far, the only content removed from Phuks has been spam. It was very very very clear that it was spam, and on one occasion there were about 40-50 spam posts made within an hour, all of which were removed. Nobody has been shadowbanned, all sitewide bans can be seen in the site log, which is on the sidebar on the frontpage. All mod bans can be seen in the sub logs. We do have some banned domains, all of which were domains being spammed. There is a page that contains the banned domains but I can't remember the url.

I would love to see a system wide rule here that states no mod can ban except for posted rules.

This would be a nice safeguard, but it is easily bypassed by adding new rules to the sidebar when you want to ban someone. There is also a problem from a moderating point of view too. I have banned people before for reasons that did not come under sub rules. The entire ban list on ModernPowers on Voat was probably banned for reasons that were not specified on the sidebar. However, in all cases, the players were behind the decisions because it was the best thing to do for the sub.

I would also like it if there was some guidelines that required mods to have community support for adding/changing rules.

I think this would work very well on Phuks as it is right now. There is no doubt that we would all be able to agree to rules on different subs without disagreements. This is pretty clear considering that basically none of our subs have rules, yet everyone is sticking to a certain standard when they post. The problem is, depending on the userbase, this can be a very bad thing. 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 should adopt the ModernPowers model for dealing with this stuff. Have a very basic guideline to start with, then deal with each problem as it arises. The userbase is small enough to figure our shit out gradually.

Pinging @Christheguy because it is relevant to the post too. I put together the current version of the TOS. At the moment, some of the things in the TOS are quite restrictive. There are the obvious things like a ban on child porn and whatnot, but some of the things listed there are not there because we wanted to ban it. Gambling, for example, is prohibited. I have had to make posts on Voat about vulnerabilities in surveillance cameras and other things, because discussion about that sort of thing is not allowed here. The reason for this is our current hosting provider has a very strict set of rules regarding what their service can be used for. Hate speech, gambling and discussion about hacking are banned under the hosting provider's TOS, so it has to be in our TOS too whether we like it or not. So far, the only content removed from Phuks has been spam. It was very very very clear that it was spam, and on one occasion there were about 40-50 spam posts made within an hour, all of which were removed. Nobody has been shadowbanned, all sitewide bans can be seen in the site log, which is on the sidebar on the frontpage. All mod bans can be seen in the sub logs. We do have some banned domains, all of which were domains being spammed. There is a page that contains the banned domains but I can't remember the url. >I would love to see a system wide rule here that states no mod can ban except for posted rules. This would be a nice safeguard, but it is easily bypassed by adding new rules to the sidebar when you want to ban someone. There is also a problem from a moderating point of view too. I have banned people before for reasons that did not come under sub rules. The entire ban list on ModernPowers on Voat was probably banned for reasons that were not specified on the sidebar. However, in all cases, the players were behind the decisions because it was the best thing to do for the sub. >I would also like it if there was some guidelines that required mods to have community support for adding/changing rules. I think this would work very well on Phuks as it is right now. There is no doubt that we would all be able to agree to rules on different subs without disagreements. This is pretty clear considering that basically none of our subs have rules, yet everyone is sticking to a certain standard when they post. The problem is, depending on the userbase, this can be a very bad thing. 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 should adopt the ModernPowers model for dealing with this stuff. Have a very basic guideline to start with, then deal with each problem as it arises. The userbase is small enough to figure our shit out gradually.

[–] 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.

[–] Christheguy [OP] 3 points (+3|-0)

I understand what you're saying about the TOS, and support banning illegal activity here. I think you guys are on the right track, and because of that choose to be a Phukker (is that what we're calling ourselves now?). Hopefully you can find a provider that balances cost with freedom, but I understand why we have the rules we have for now.

One concern I have is once we begin to get more people, we might attract the negative attitudes and actions that voat unfortunately did. So far though I think the general positivity and openness of the current users should be enough to keep this site "on the right track" so to speak.

[–] PMYA 4 points (+4|-0)

Edited

This is something that has come up before when we've talked about advertising to get more users. The unfortunate consequence of hosting a site with a basis built on free speech is it will attract toxicity. Reddit banned their hate subs to make the site more appealing to advertisers, but I would not be in the least bit surprised to find out that they also had the secondary motive of killing Voat. When the blackout happened, a mixed demographic of users moved to Voat. By banning the hate subs, they dumped all of the users they didn't want anyway onto Voat, and ensured that some of the blackout users who left would come back, due to the hate sub users making Voat shit.

It might be a blessing that we are temporarily restricted by our hosting provider. We have avoided that toxicity for the time being. That, and the fact that we basically cherry picked half of the current users, anyway.

Load more (2 comments)

One thing Voat may have done right.

10 comments

/s/Whatever