[Meta] Yet another meta post! Just a brief update on /v/conspiracy meta-stuff. ( conspiracy )

submitted by Mumberthrax

Hi again, folks! Your friendly neighborhood Mumberthrax here with a quick report on happenings and goings-on about our subverse to keep you au courant . (I learned that term today when trying to make this post!)

But first, thanks to everyone for your words of support in the previous mod-post . I'm very happy that you guys approve of the direction we're moving toward. Also, welcome all newcomers! Voat has seen a massive increase in traffic over the past week, so I hope that you find our little subverse to your liking. : )

So here's a rundown on some recent meta-/v/conspiracy stuff

Mentioned in the previous mod-post:

Near future

This is my current informal near-future to-do list, sorted in no particular order:

  • Get the moderation policy approved by the mods, confirmed by the community, and adopted officially.
  • Get rules and sidebar updates approved by the mods, confirmed by community, and adopted officially.
  • Have a community discussion about how mods should be selected, and formalize policy on this.
  • Have a community discussion about bigotry/racism and conspiracy theories to figure out where we all stand.
  • Solicit ideas for topics to discuss on weekly sticky'd discussion posts.
  • Begin having weekly sticky'd discussions about topics the community chooses.
  • Establish a good method for mod-team communication - maybe /v/conspiracymeta , IRC, Slack.com, etc.
  • Continue exploring ideas and suggestions from the brainstorming posts and other community discussions and prioritize them.
  • Round up recent meta-posts on /v/conspiracy and cross-post links on /v/conspiracymeta for historical purposes.

Oh is that all?

Whew. That's it for now! Thanks again for hanging around, you crazy kooky conspiracy kids! And as always, if you have any suggestions or complaints, let us know! Or compliments, those are nice too. :3

holocauster-ride

Could we somehow work towards having an elected board that appoints moderators? A separation of legislative power from enforcement is crucial.

Maybe only allow subscribers with a couple of hundred comment karma in this subreddit to vote?

DocHopper

Oh god. This sub has zero credibility, since you lobbied the Admins to get top mod spot here behind everyone's back. The community doesn't want this to be your sub, and all this bullshit is exactly what we don't want it to be. If you care about the community, and would like to avoid discrediting this sub from the get-go, you'll step down now. No one wants you as top mod.

Youdonotnome

Hey man, just want to say, the kind of people coming here right now are exiling from reddit because they do not like authority.

Run the sub to the best of your ability and how you want to do it. But I would personally advise implementing as few rules as possible.

Let the community do the work for you. That's what up/down voting is for.

Peglius

No new rules have been implemented, so I dont know what exactly your talking about

axolotl__peyotl

/r/conspiracy 's days are numbered.

/v/conspiracy is growing more and more relevant every day.

Let's never take this place for granted.

Mumberthrax

Yeah I'm not too sure either. It's a good idea! I think it just needs some fleshing out. : ]

Mumberthrax

That could be interesting. I'm not certain how we would measure what sources are credible enough to be fine, and which would belong in a bucket of "unsourced". I could, for instance, say my source is my uncle Joe, or link to a Sorcha Faal post and they'd have about the same general credibility (in my opinion) but someone would need to make that call.

RedHawk

I appreciate what you're doing. I think the less moderation the better this sub will be.

I also see that what destroyed the /r/conspiracy community was the amount of rules they had to put up with to please the reddit moderators. Users should be allowed to question anything here. In fact, I think the part where it says an attack on "nationality" should be removed as that is a political term (borders can change and are man-made) and is copied directly from the /r/conspiracy reddit.

crazyassbullshit

This is a great subverse my only request is choose a good moderator, do your background checks. I'll be so disappointed if this end up like conspiracy from Reddit.

Mumberthrax

Thanks! I'm glad you like it. I agree that anyone being considered should be given some basic interview questions and given a careful check to make sure there's nothing obviously shady going on. I think the real trick though will be having a very good policy for transparency and accountability, so that even if a mod is kind of crappy the community will be able to identify it and that behavior be corrected or the mod removed.

crazyassbullshit

Pipe dream I've only been here for a few months. I post a lot I'm opinionated I post v/gentlemanboners /canada. I've been banned from v/Canada. The moderator doesn't post anything doesn't do anything so I tried to claim it for my own no response. You've seen my username you can check my history maybe I'm in the wrong maybe he's in the right you be the judge.

Mumberthrax

I'm glad you approve!

Someone else previously suggested in one of our brainstorming posts having some way to tag posts on the quality of the sources backing them up. I think it's a neat concept and would be really handy if we found a way to implement it well in an objective and fair sense, as well as functional and easy to use. Seems like it warrants further brainstorming!

Tleilaxu_Ghola

Isn't that what the voting system is supposed to do? I don't want to have a systemic way of discrediting people like this idea seems to be opening the door to. I don't think people need their hands held here that much.

joseph177

So rule 2 effectively neuters the sub from discussion religion, zionism or any type of historical revisionism.

At least on reddit/r/conspiracy, we are free to discuss this.

Mumberthrax

Would you be willing to elaborate on that? That hasn't ever happened with the current rule so far as I'm aware, and it certainly wasn't something that seemed liable to happen to me when I put together the proposed update.

For reference, the current rule is:

No overt attacks on people's race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or creed

and the proposed updated version is:

No bigotry or hate speech

  • This includes, but is not limited to, bigotry based upon ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, and religion.

For additional reference, the definition of bigotry I find most useful is:

  1. extreme intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
  2. the actions, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Bigot being defined as:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Similarly hate speech is:

Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social group or a member of such a group.

Based on this, I think it would be well within the realm of decency and within the bounds of the rule to discuss religion, Zionism, historical revisionism, etc. Discussion on these topics themselves is not forbidden by an anti-bigotry rule.

nokilli

We can point to how jew lies, cheats and steals to achieve power which is then used to commit us into war after war?

Mumberthrax

No. You can point to how a group of people do those things, but those people are not every member of a particular race or ethnicity.

nokilli

Which is what I mean when I say jew, I'm pointing to a group of people who do these things, and while fully acknowledging that it is not "the Jews", it is nevertheless a group that most if not all Jews are loathe to sanction on their own.

Been through the iterative process of finding the right appellation for this group; spent four or five years on reddit using "racist Jews"... well that was anti-Semitic I'm told. So went with "Jewish supremacists", no, that's anti-Semitic too.

Why isn't it racist to refer to "racist whites" or "white supremacists" then?

"Organized Jewry!" No, anti-Semitic.

Meanwhile, jew can engage in the full range of atrocities against people who actually are Semitic, like the Palestinians or the Iraqis or the Syrians.

Can't say "zionist", although it does sometimes apply, it doesn't always apply because it isn't always about Israel, esp. now with banks joining in the big push for war with Russia.

Part of the conspiracy is the game being played with the language. And it's a conspiracy that you as a moderator participate in when you work as you do to censor this conversation through prior restraint, and you're going to be called on that time and time again because it is THE conspiracy and not only is it not going away but its ruinous consequences grow more pronounced with the passing of time.

Rule #2 doesn't belong here. And if language that is potentially viewed as intolerant upsets you, then neither do you.

edit: the spells

pitenius

You're going to want to moderate behavior not topics . Your update emphasizes topic more than behavior because you make lots of definitions. Edit: By which I mean, you talk about "bigotry" (which is itself perhaps name-calling), rather than emphasize copy-pasta, personal attacks, spam posting, etc.

Here's my sniff-test: Would Eustace Mullins be allowed to post here? I'm not sure how deep your conspiracy roots go, but Mullins was a mid-century "Zionist Occupational Government" (ZOG) sort. His views were certainly "anti-semitic" but, for the most part, his opposition was more hateful and vitriolic than he was.

The rule and definitions are what they are. And no one will care or pay attention. The real question is what gets struck and why or who gets banned.

joseph177

Hate Speech is a political term which is used to silence truth, since some truth is considered hate speech:

Simple Canadian example: http://i.imgur.com/aL4BiWc.jpg

Can't find the video, but I saw some bobble heads yapping and coming to the same conclusion.

Mumberthrax

That may be, I'm not really sure that I'm up to date on all the instances in which the term "hate speech" has been invoked. Would you care to propose any alternative terms which convey the same meaning to the common person?

How would you phrase the rule such that racist/sexist/etc. comments and submissions are understood to be not desired in our community?

nokilli

Simply adhere to the definition of what a conspiracy is. If the speech concerns itself with identifying a conspiracy for the purpose of exposing it and preventing and/or undoing the damage it intends, then it should be, must be, fair game.

joseph177

This user actually said it better than I could have:

https://voat.co/v/Conspiracy/comments/250396/895302

samtrovaum

I think they mean things like 'catholics are fucking retards', not 'catholicism is veiled paganism'.

Mumberthrax

Yeah that'd be a fair example of how a common sense application of the rule would go.

samtrovaum

Please please please don't make any more rules. Too much political correctness is death. The up/downvoats are here to separate the good from the bad already. No need for any more burocracy.

Mumberthrax

I agree with the general sentiment you've expressed - too many rules IS a bad thing. I don't really think a modest update to 4 more-or-less common sense rules is too much. The most unusual one in my opinion is the rule about not calling people shills - which was a kind of big problem on reddit.

iAMtheBelvedere

I will say, it is quite enjoyable watching the subverses grow. I wasn't around for the inception of many of my favorite subreddits so it's a new feeling being able to have direct say in the direction we take this! Can't wait for the future!

Mumberthrax

It's exciting for me too. I feel like I have an opportunity to help facilitate the growth of something really awesome, whereas on reddit there often seems to be a kind of resistance to changes, even if the status quo is dysfunctional. It's disheartening! But like @Sciency said, we learn from our mistakes. Feeling quite optimistic. :D

middleman79

I saw a negative(truthful) article on israel in v/news. It was very refreshing. r/news would have never have allowed such things.

Tleilaxu_Ghola

i noticed that also. I could barely believe what I was seeing. I think as this place grows I am going to be interested to see what the moderation policies are in those larger "default" kind of subverses are and if we start to see any creeping, agenda-driven censorship occur. I always hated seeing personal bias and belief driven deletions on reddit, it is a huge factor in my decision to leave.

I don't "hate" reddit. To me there is/was a lot of good people there, and I have come across some great information and discussions in the past, but it is just not the same there anymore. The content in /r/conspiracy is becoming a bit recycled, and there is a LOT more shit you have to wade through now in order to find the good posts and quality discussions. The shillery and trolling has also gotten out of hand. I really like the fact that the shitposting and trolling is virtually nonexistent here. People don't come to voat to fight and constantly try to snark and shit on other people's posts. It makes my morning coffee and conspiracy much more relaxing and enjoyable. It starts me on my day in a better mood coming here every morning.

Sciency

You're doing a great job! This is how we make sure it takes as long as possible for voat to go the way of reddit. We learn from our mistakes.

joseph177

What mistakes were made in /r/conspiracy ? Just curious, thanks!

Sciency

Well, issues of censorship and transparency were problems with reddit as a whole, I think.

I did notice though, people didn't call out the BS when they saw it. There were lots of people on the sub that were way too extreme to be safe to be around, yet no one ever said anything. I'm talking about the people that made zionism into in issue of race instead of an systemic problem.

The biggest change I see from here to there, is how open the moderating feels. @Mumberthax is going out of their way to keep everyone in the loop, and that just brings the community together more effectively than "ruling from a throne in the clouds," if you will. I actually think some of the (reddit) mods were scared to use their power at all, for fear of being removed by another mod.

jerry

and im just sitting here wondering if mumberthrax's alt account is gonna suck his dick all day or if hes actually going to make the account look genuine

Sciency

I suppose I'm asking for that by praising any one person around here exclusively.

I just like the idea of letting the community know when/why mods are being removed, as well as promoting some kind of periodic discussion to bring some order to the mess of new users around here, myself included.

It is kinda funny though, because if I pulled the ol' "Tony Stark: Truth is, I am Iron Man. then everyone would probably think I was a character assassin. The only way to win this game is not to play at all :)

jerry

Mmm yes mumblethrax dont play the game, instead make a comment focusising on probably positive new features and trying to make me look foolish..

This "community discussion about bigotry and racism and conspiracy theories to find out where we all stand" sounds like intro to safe-space and overmoderating 101.

Sciency

smh. Alright, I'm taking your bait. I was being attempting to be funny, but I guess there is no room for that here.

Have you ever heard of McCarthyism? That's the problem we are having here: a sometimes valid concern can be taken to a degree that is harmful to free speech, just like censorship.

Instead of misdirecting the issues, how about you allow me to address your concerns? If you're so sure I am who you think I am, why not address me like a mod and critique the changes around here you don't like? Try and catch me in a lie! Catch me in a fallacy! I LOVE debate, but only when it is done correctly. I'll happily discus and give my opinion on topics you see as an issue, but my identity should not be relevant here.

If you continue to purposely cherry pick my arguments, I'll be forced to assume your goal here is not communication, therefore I will not be dignifying those tactics with a critical response.

Tleilaxu_Ghola

I'm talking about the people that made zionism into in issue of race instead of an systemic problem.

I have spent a lot of time researching the history of Zionism, and this sentiment you are expressing troubles me. (a little)

Because Zionism is rooted in a degree of racism itself, there is going to be some overlap in the topic when it is being discussed. Zionists are racists too, ask any Palestinian if you don't think so.

Sciency

I phrased that very poorly, looking back now.

I meant to be critical of those that (sometimes directly, sometimes not) blame "all jews" as opposed to the jews that are actually involved. It just makes us look like a bunch of 50 year old men making racist jokes to be edgy, and it discredits real complaints one might want to voice.

So, to make my ambiguous words somewhat more clear: Zionism is certainly racist, as an idea and as a practice. Using racism to characterize them, takes us down to that level.

Mumberthrax

Thanks! I agree. So long as we have a will and an interest in improving, I think we can excel. :)