You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

22
0

[–] Clayton 22 points 0 points (+22|-22) ago  (edited ago)

I am going to have to put my foot down on this /u/Atko, but I don't like the way things are happening around here. No disrespect to you or to Voat, but you took sides on the /v/AskVoat debacle without ever even doing an investigation. Many mods have been trying to get a hold of you about much needed features for a month now, you say you don't have time, but yet you are wasting time on picking sides in a petty fight over something that broke the rules. /u/she is the only active mod in /v/AskVoat and her request to take full control over /v/AskVoat has been pending for almost a month despite her being qualified to take over and matching all requirements.

The whole /v/AskVoat controversy could have been handled if /u/she's request was granted, but instead for whatever reason the powers at be are making a popularity contest out of this. Apparently all that's needed for someone not get get a sub despite them meeting the criteria for having the sub is a little bit of a concern about said person.

I'll be honest, in a couple of my subs I am afraid to enforce the rules out of fear you will side with the community instead of having a proper investigation. What you did was a knee-jerk reaction and I feel you owe /u/she an apology.

5
11

[–] gatordontplaythatsht 5 points 11 points (+16|-5) ago 

He obviously did investigate as he clearly stated the situation, and how rule number 1 was being enforced in a terrible way that obviously discouraged posters and discussion. Calm your tits as well @clayton

12
-2

[–] Clayton 12 points -2 points (+10|-12) ago 

No he didn't. I have been talking at length to /u/she and he never once contacted her to find out what was going on.

1
6

[–] Vloorshad 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

[...]in a couple of my subs I am afraid to enforce the rules out of fear you will side with the community[...]

And if you start deleting IAMAs with hundreds of comments/upvoats then it's a conversation that needs to be had.

a knee-jerk reaction and I feel you owe /u/she an apology.

No. It took me 15 minutes to see enough posting history to know that /u/Atko made a good call. Knowing what we all know about the other site, there's no way you can go through her posting and deletion history and honestly say that it doesn't throw up a bunch of red flags.

3
1

[–] Clayton 3 points 1 points (+4|-3) ago 

My sentiment is shared by many of the mods of big subs. Just because something is highly up later doesn't mean it is t violating the rules. In /v/protectandserve we had a rule against police brutality discussion, yet people ONLY up payed police brutality discussions. If someone makes an IAMA that isn't an IAMA and it gets to the front page can I remove it? Or do I just let people violate the rules?

3
3

[–] CrowTRobot 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

but you took sides on the /v/AskVoat debacle without ever even doing an investigation.

Proof needed.

Many mods have been trying to get a hold of you about much needed features for a month now,

Proof needed

but yet you are wasting time on picking sides in a petty fight over something that broke the rules.

Firstly, there is nothing petty at about taking action on something that was clearly a concern of a significant portion of the community. Second, there is nothing petty about censorship, and this post

https://voat.co/v/AskVoat/comments/401467

Was clearly an attempt to quash a discussion that was critical of the mods. The grounds for deletion are complete horseshit, since the post doesn't actually break any of the stated rules unless you redefine every single word she tried to use.

/u/she is the only active mod in /v/AskVoat and her request to take full control over /v/AskVoat has been pending for almost a month despite her being qualified to take over and matching all requirements.

Not even @she said she was the only active mod. From the start of this entire thing, @shiny was also active. And you aren't going to be given a default sub when there is significant opposition from the community. This isn't reddit. People have a say in things here.

I'll be honest, in a couple of my subs I am afraid to enforce the rules out of fear you will side with the community instead of having a proper investigation. What you did was a knee-jerk reaction and I feel you owe /u/she an apology.

You don't run default subs, so the odds of your subs coming under that level of scrutiny are few and far between. Even if that were to happen, if you don't have asinine rules, people aren't likely to get annoyed in the first place. Knee-jerk? Apologize? Don't make me laugh.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

3
-2

[–] Clayton 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

I am here to make my voice heard. I don't care how many downvoats I get. The opinion off all the mods is vastly underrepresented here.