Profile overview for dbibbs.
Submission statistics

This user has mostly submitted to the following subverses (showing top 5):

1 submissions to introductions

1 submissions to whatever

This user has so far shared a total of 1 links, started a total of 1 discussions and submitted a total of 120 comments.

Voting habits

Submissions: This user has upvoted 292 and downvoted 4 submissions.

Comments: This user has upvoted 198 and downvoted 13 comments.

Submission ratings

5 highest rated submissions:

Hello voat, really excited to be here!, submitted: 7/8/2015 11:32:45 PM, 13 points (+13|-0)

What would cause this? (negative downvoats, note the aggregate score), submitted: 8/19/2015 3:56:08 AM, 1 points (+2|-1)

5 lowest rated submissions:

What would cause this? (negative downvoats, note the aggregate score), submitted: 8/19/2015 3:56:08 AM, 1 points (+2|-1)

Hello voat, really excited to be here!, submitted: 7/8/2015 11:32:45 PM, 13 points (+13|-0)

Comment ratings

3 highest rated comments:

deleted by user submitted by deleted to MeanwhileOnReddit

dbibbs 0 points 129 points (+129|-0) ago

Yep, but since I haven't felt the need to go back since voat has been stable it'll be easy.

Account Deleted By User submitted by Collokey to MeanwhileOnReddit

dbibbs 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago

A provocative announcement is made during the blackout, which drives traffic to the site making the blackout analytics seem less severe. Tin foil hat firmly in place.

Ousted Reddit Employee Victoria Taylor Finally Breaks Her Silence submitted by deleted to news

dbibbs 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago

As much sentiment as people feel, you have to admit that there's no way that this would or should happen. It wouldn't be the right move for voat and it wouldn't be the right move for her. Voat is still in its infancy and shouldn't spend money on the kind of salary she can probably command, at least not in this stage of the game. If we do see celebrity AMAs on voat (the kind she would help curate at least) it will be far, far in the future and we've got much more important priorities for today. Sorry to be that guy, I guess I'm kinda responding to all the posts I've seen of this nature.

3 lowest rated comments:

Mods are upset over my idea to give large sub verses the option to vote them off, they're more concerned with keeping their power, then the quality of Voat submitted by gatordontplaythatsht to whatever

dbibbs 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago

Yes, that is one of the options and I agree that in the case of small, special-interest subs this is probably the best solution. My opinion though is that for large, general-interest subs if enough people want a changing of the guard then there should be a mechanism by which to do that. And also in my opinion, in the case of /v/askvoat, deleting posts with active discussions because of a typo is reason to be upset.

What would cause this? (negative downvoats, note the aggregate score) submitted by dbibbs to whatever

dbibbs 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago

Aha, well I suppose it is still in alpha. And sounds like this bug is already known.

Mods are upset over my idea to give large sub verses the option to vote them off, they're more concerned with keeping their power, then the quality of Voat submitted by gatordontplaythatsht to whatever

dbibbs 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago

Let's say that Stan Lee creates a character and then creates a sub in order to allow people to discuss it. Yes, the original character, the intellectual property, is his and no one can dispute that. But the discussions that people have around his character are not his to own, they belong to the community. If Stan Lee were to make some mod decisions that pissed off a lot of the people that he drew in to his sub then he can't be surprised if they want a change in leadership, whether that is creating a new sub or trying to change the original one. In the case of large subs it is my opinion that a change in leadership would be the preferential course of action in order to minimize disruption of the community.

I think you made a valid point initially, though I disagree with it. Your Stan Lee example is horrible though as it equivocates ownership of IP with ownership of discussions surrounding it.