13
270

[–] qzx 13 points 270 points (+283|-13) ago 

This post violates rule 1. Just sayin'.....

9
166

[–] PM-me-about-Autism 9 points 166 points (+175|-9) ago  (edited ago)

We all know /u/she's abuse of rule one was an excuse to ban thread she disliked anyway.

https://voat.co/v/youngladies

This is what /u/she reported to the FBI. Where is the child porn. I can say a lot of shit about dudes who look at clothed teen girls. Including call them pedophile. But report it to the FBI? She's histrionic and unreliable and not suited to mod a major subverse.

edit: Not only that but u/she and her SRS gang are also engaging in vote-brigading. This is ample grounds for a demod. It is ample grounds for an intervention.

https://voat.co/v/AskVoat/comments/402112#1737356

edit: I have just been told in a reply that a user revolt is equivalent to vote brigading. I want to know how much uranium you have to eat to go that mad.

edit: I also note that one of the people in the link above was downvoted seven times and this downvote trend likely continued as SRS posters close to /u/she downvoted anything she wanted. This will likely change when they begin IP spamming new accounts.

3
106

[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 3 points 106 points (+109|-3) ago  (edited ago)

If she's irrational enough to think that legal, clothed images of teenagers is fucking child porn then she's not clearly not suited to be a moderator. She also sicked the feds on him, simply because she took personal offense at something. That's how people get swatted. It's an SJW tactic. What's next, reporting Voat to journalists and claiming that the feds are ignoring child porn? That would hurt all of us over something that is not illegal.

Mods don't own subverses on Voat; they belong to the community.

Just choose someone else, and make sure that they act like a janitor, not a censor.

0
34

[–] gatordontplaythatsht 0 points 34 points (+34|-0) ago 

They are all squatters, I merely mentioned a moderator voting system on ideas for voat today and they showed up in large number shitting on the idea saying how it would lead to witch hunting. They're nutty as hell and should not be trusted.

6
2

[–] Rotteuxx 6 points 2 points (+8|-6) ago 

Serious statements your making, care to edit your post to include proof or the source of the allegations ?

I'm genuinely intrigued by what you just reported, please help me educate myself on the subject.

5
-2

[–] datapimps 5 points -2 points (+3|-5) ago 

As a father of four girls, not only am I glad she reported that sub, but I actually considered doing it myself. Call me an SJW (whatever the hell that is) if you want, but creepy guys on the internet posting pictures of my girls on a sub like that will be looking at the business end of my shotgun.

1
22

[–] ForgotMyName 1 points 22 points (+23|-1) ago 

Speaking of which, all of their "reasoning" for rule number one was more-or-less eviscerated here shortly after it was posted by /u/she. I find it amusing that they nearly cut & paste it without addressing any of the concerns raised there hours before this was posted. The only change I see is this bit -

It removes subjectivity from our work as moderators, we don't have to decide what is or isn't a question. If it has a question mark, it's a question.

0
9

[–] Chompchompers 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I suggest removing Rule 1 and replacing it with a reminder that proper grammar and sentence structure make reading more enjoyable. People make mistakes every now and then; some may have injured fingers and can't be assed to click every single punctuation mark but still have a valid question; some may not speak English very well but are still genuinely trying to properly communicate, yada yada. If someone butchers something so badly that you just have to intervene, just make a comment and point out how badly they fucked up their sentence.

0
0

[–] notty_prince 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

?Did I do it right

2
163

[–] lllllllllll 2 points 163 points (+165|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Having a rule that requires a question mark at the end is reasonable. Deleting very popular threads with hundreds of comments because of it is not.

Content should take priority over this specific rule. Such zero tolerance policy leads to a lot of quality discussions being censored. I think a warning (at least in the alpha stages of Voat) would have done a lot more good. This drama and all the censorship could have easily been avoided.

0
81

[–] Truly 0 points 81 points (+81|-0) ago 

Jesus christ, some common sense.

It was the most commented thread on all of voat in more than a day. @She deleted it over missing punctuation that the OP put in the text of his discussion post once he realized he had failed to put it in. Just silliness.

1
23

[–] gatordontplaythatsht 1 points 23 points (+24|-1) ago 

It was the number one thread, I felt so special for a brief moment in time.

11
13

[–] Icy-Defiance 11 points 13 points (+24|-11) ago  (edited ago)

There you go, finally someone makes a good point. If all the retards whining about the FBI and SJW bullshit would shut the fuck up and let people just address the rule they disagree with, this entire discussion could be so much more reasonable.

0
3

[–] Treysef 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Questions can be punctuated with an exclamation mark and still be a question.

0
1

[–] gatordontplaythatsht 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

They're idiots and it isn't about punctuation it's about giving them rules to enforce so they serve a purpose, because realistically on voat the only purpose mods should serve is removing illegal content...

0
1

[–] IllIllI 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I missed all the drama, been busy with term papers and studying for finals. Just had to drop in to say to you: Nice name. ;-P

20
88

[–] Charley 20 points 88 points (+108|-20) ago 

Based on her comment history, she has no place being a mod here. This is a slippery slope if you'd like Voat turning into Reddit.

7
35

[–] JoeWise 7 points 35 points (+42|-7) ago  (edited ago)

I don't think we can use her comment history against her in that way but I do believe she has already abused her power. Also, if you look at the front page it seems an overwhelming majority of AskVoat and Voat in general disagree with /u/she being a mod of AskVoat. That alone should get her moderator status removed.

1
46

[–] 1741666 1 points 46 points (+47|-1) ago 

The comment history of the account you're using to mod should very much be 'admissible' in any discussion on suitability to mod.

14
10

[–] HomerSimpson 14 points 10 points (+24|-14) ago 

With what evidence do you have? If they don't try to spread their views onto people here through modding why should they not be a mod? It is not a slippery slope. It is people like you gathering to witch hunt someone over stupid comments.

1
38

[–] Truly 1 points 38 points (+39|-1) ago 

Rather than type it out again, here is what I posted in the original thread she deleted-

I think the issue people have with She is that she is trying to gain top-level control of a major subverse. Noone with such a strong bias on either side should be in control of a major sub. The vast majority of these people would be just as vehemently opposed to someone from v/niggers taking control of v/askvoat. I say let anyone post whatever bullshit they want, but don't let the most opinionated amongst us moderate.

.

She made a really stupid statement applying intentions to a whole group of people stating it as fact. Its perfectly reasonable to expect a more level-headed person in control of a major subverse.

It appears she is attempting to gain top-level control of askvoat. Showing/discussing that she is so heavily biased against an entire group of people is relevant considering this information.

I believe any poster should be able to say anything at all that they want, but mods should do their best to remain impartial. Showing you have such pre-conceived notions, lack of understanding on reasoned argument, and silly misconceptions seems like a pretty solid reason to stop someone from gaining control of one of the largest verses.

[–] [deleted] 9 points 8 points (+17|-9) ago 

[Deleted]

7
4

[–] Icy-Defiance 7 points 4 points (+11|-7) ago 

Haven't we been recommending that people notify authorities when they see something they think is illegal?

9
1

[–] Oire 9 points 1 points (+10|-9) ago 

She reported content she felt to be in violation of US federal law. How is that a continuation of her "abuse of power"?

4
2

[–] G4 4 points 2 points (+6|-4) ago 

I feel like what you personally believe and how you handle things "professionally" are 2 different things.

0
4

[–] Truly 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Not when the professional job you want is moderation of a discussion forum. Noone would want a radical skinhead running askvoat. For the same reason noone wants a person claiming only bigots oppose the SJW movement running one of the core subverses.

3
62

[–] OpinionOnEverything 3 points 62 points (+65|-3) ago 

Issue is, I don't think an absent question mark should warrant deletion.

1
29

[–] JoeWise 1 points 29 points (+30|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I agree. In fact, I believe anything other than spam should stay. The users will decide whether it is worth looking at or not by up and downvoats.

13
-10

0
15

[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

Agreed. AskVoat is to ask Voat something. If the people in the comments read what the OP posted and start answering a question and sharing their thoughts, then obviously they felt that they were asked something.

1
11

[–] gatordontplaythatsht 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

@shiny has yet to respond to my question about this. My post was the number one post on voat when @she removed it, it had over 500 responses, at what point are you stealing content from your community to enforce a shit rule? Especially when you wait hours until you decide to enforce it.

[–] [deleted] 10 points -2 points (+8|-10) ago 

[Deleted]

2
8

[–] OpinionOnEverything 2 points 8 points (+10|-2) ago 

It's not, by why delete it?

That's like removing non capitalized questions.

0
61

[–] gruix 0 points 61 points (+61|-0) ago 

Considering the percentage of deleted submissions caused by literal interpretation of rule number 1, do you think it would be simpler if the majority of the mods activity was replaced by a simple script using Voat API ?

posts = MakeApiCall(GET, "api/v1/v/AskVoat")
for (post in posts.data):
    if not post.title.endswith('?'):
        MakeApiCall(POST, "api/v1/v/AskVoat/"+post.id+"/comment", 
                    "value='I removed this post because it's title isn't asking a question "?" Please rephrase and submit again. Thanks!')
        MakeApiCall(DELETE, "api/v1/v/AskVoat/"+post.id)

0
24

[–] Truly 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago 

I like this idea. Rather than letting a post get to 400+ comments then deleting it in a questionable manner they can enforce this rule from the get go. If it is really not just a way to remove the occasional post they personally disagree with then there is no reason not to implement this.

Great suggestion

0
20

[–] Treysef 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

Rule 1 is stupid to begin with. A question can still be inferred from a statement. Sometimes questions end with exclamation points because they are exclaiming a question.

0
6

[–] frshmt 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Maybe the mods are just too stupid to understand and they need that little extra help.

0
2

[–] dingo_bat 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Exactly. If /u/she wants mods' actions to be totally objective, there is no need for human mods. I can just write a bot. The entire premise of the mod system is that moderation requires subjectivity and interpretation. If she is not willing to do that, there is no point in letting her moderate.

0
0

[–] fackyuo 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

i think the post should contain a question mark, but shouldn't have to end in a question mark. It allows mode flexible language when asking the question, in my opinion. for the rules -> ?

3
56

[–] totally-not-a-cat 3 points 56 points (+59|-3) ago  (edited ago)

So lame:

Deletion of a post disregarding the rules of /v/AskVoat is hardly a cause for concern, when all a user has to do is copy and paste their post and append a question mark.

Oh, is that all a user has to do?

All the comments from the post are gone. It's absolutely censorship. It's clear why the post in question was deleted - the mod didn't like what was being asked/said.

This seems to be a pretty clear example of mod abuse and I for one wish you'd apologize (or explain why I'm wrong) for it or GTFO.

0
36

[–] gatordontplaythatsht 0 points 36 points (+36|-0) ago 

500 comments, and 185 upvotes at time of deletion, I didn't repost because at that point what's the point?

0
1

[–] ForgotMyName 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You should have posted this instead - "What's a question mark?"

25
-18

29
-22

2
44

[–] GrislyAtoms 2 points 44 points (+46|-2) ago 

Holy crap, just remove /u/she from the mods. This is ridiculous. The fact that the she hasn't been removed makes me question the other mods on here. You are handling this really poorly. At the very least, remove she temporarily, while this shit gets sorted out. There has to be someone with a level head who will take up the slack for a bit. Do some homework, and If it turns out she is as abusive as it seems, don't make them a mod again. Or maybe there is something I'm missing?

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] GrislyAtoms 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Well there's part of the problem. Maybe if there was someone in power who was actually active, something might get done. Isn't there a way to get inactive admins removed? If not, there should be. Otherwise, what the hell is to be done in a situation like this?

Basically all of this noise is futile, until there is an active admin in power.

21
-18

4
39

[–] 1738356 4 points 39 points (+43|-4) ago 

Replacing a post that was critical of shit /u/she did, and then putting in a sanitized version without all the bad bits isn't that transparent. Also, /v/modsofaskvoat is a joke in order to put criticism into a place where it will never be read, and everybody knows it.

19
-12