You can't recall who write the rule? Yet it needs to be enforced?
It really doesn't matter who wrote it. The rule is a valid, useful rule.
Are you fucking with me, or did you just wake up in some sort of Kafkaesque dreamworld? You don't know who wrote the rule, but it must be enforced?
Authorship is irrelevant.
You're full of shit. Voat users are smart enough to come to their own conclusions, you just don't want people thinking outside of your narrative.
Voat users are smart enough to not want rules selectively enforced by mods. Do you trust the mods to use their judgment on such things, or are blanket, objective rules that help in a lot of situations make more sense?
The main intent is to make information easily consumable and help people make connections. Bring this intent to every post you make.
Also from the sidebar. So many videos are posted with no real valuable information on what people are looking at, why, or what part of the 40+min video is relevant. There
needs
to be rules forcing people to ELI5 their submissions and the links to PG.
The rules are there to allow mods to
do their jobs
and
to allow people that do not see the connection in a video post (or any post) to understand
why
it was posted here. Of
course
, it's obvious here, but either we have a rule for videos, or we do not - and the latter is unacceptable. (have you seen some of these video posts without an explanation?)
As I mentioned for
/u/TheodoreKent
below(above?), if I remove subjectively, we're going to have issues.
▼ Crensch
It really doesn't matter who wrote it. The rule is a valid, useful rule.
Authorship is irrelevant.
Voat users are smart enough to not want rules selectively enforced by mods. Do you trust the mods to use their judgment on such things, or are blanket, objective rules that help in a lot of situations make more sense?
▼ Crensch
Can't recall exactly. It's to help with this:
Also from the sidebar. So many videos are posted with no real valuable information on what people are looking at, why, or what part of the 40+min video is relevant. There needs to be rules forcing people to ELI5 their submissions and the links to PG.
▼ Crensch
It is rule #8, sorry. I'm not a powermod. Powermods enforce rules subjectively.
▼ Crensch
I didn't have to, but thanks for admitting that you plan on "fuck(ing) shit up". https://archive.is/35nUC
▼ Crensch
I can. I am. If I let this one go, I'll be the exact cancer voaters do not want. The rules are either applied evenly, or subjectively.
▼ GoHeadBeGoneWithIt
What the fuck is he shilling from them now??????! I'm so upset and disgusted.
▼ Crensch
Hi OP, please remove this post and resubmit in accordance with rule 7. Use the "discuss" button on the right instead of "Share a link" for videos.
Thanks in advance for your understanding and cooperation!
▼ Meta_Self
Does it really make a difference? This is pizzagate related.
▼ Crensch
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1457582/7042912
It really, really does. It's one of the main things that separates us from mods that subjectively apply rules to whatever they like.
▼ HST
Seriously why?
You can't expect someone to understand (and therefore not want to cooperate) when you haven't explained why he should do that.
▼ Crensch
I did explain. It's against the rules.
The rules are there to allow mods to do their jobs and to allow people that do not see the connection in a video post (or any post) to understand why it was posted here. Of course , it's obvious here, but either we have a rule for videos, or we do not - and the latter is unacceptable. (have you seen some of these video posts without an explanation?)
As I mentioned for /u/TheodoreKent below(above?), if I remove subjectively, we're going to have issues.
▼ r3dtr1x
I think he's got some good points, but he's also clearly in damage control mode.
▼ sentryseven
Damage from what?