You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

8
147

[–] flope_de 8 points 147 points (+155|-8) ago 

I do not think /u/she would be a fitting head mod for /v/AskVoat, because her comment history indicates that she might be opposed to the core values of voat and the AskVoat community.

26
-9

[–] Kaysic 26 points -9 points (+17|-26) ago 

Her comment history indicates that she might be opposed to the core values of voat and the AskVoat community

First:

  1. What are the "core values" of voat you're citing?
  2. What are the "core values" of AskVoat you're citing?

Second:

What, exactly, about her comment history do you find objection with? Looking through it out to five pages, I find nothing out of the ordinary for what should be considered a healthy level of cynicism. So she thinks FPH is a disgusting community? So what, so do a lot of users, including myself - however, I don't see her advocating its removal or censoring anywhere, or removal of any subverse for that matter. So she thinks that rules should be applied to AskVoat? What's wrong with wanting to maintain a bare minimum level of quality, such as "questions to AskVoat must actually be questions" and "Don't advocate suicide?"

0
31

[–] SoupTyrant 0 points 31 points (+31|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The issue for me is the quality of her writing/level of discourse. She seems to throw around insults willy nilly, and mocks people who disagree with her and appears to have been a bit sexist in her comments.

Honestly, if someone likes to discuss heated topics online, fine. If someone is very opinionated fine. If someone insults and mocks people who disagree with them fine. But all 3 of those in one user is not giant subverse moderator material. I want the mods of these giant important verses to be respectful, in control, objective and far more concerned with contributing to the community than arguing with it.

Edit I still am apprehensive based on those comments, but after going through her comment history they are very few and far between and the bulk of her comments are of a higher quality.

4
6

[–] Scandinavian 4 points 6 points (+10|-4) ago  (edited ago)

Don't take this bait, people. It wants you to provide examples that they can then tear apart and ridicule you with. It's the oldest trick in the book. The information on the user she - its account being 2 months old and all - is readily available for everyone to see already.

Stand your ground.

35
-12

[–] moe 35 points -12 points (+23|-35) ago 

opposed to the core values of voat

In what way? I need specific examples here, not a bunch of people telling me the same vague thing over and over again after being linked here from a different subverse.

8
49

[–] Scandinavian 8 points 49 points (+57|-8) ago  (edited ago)

Great. We got an SJW white knight as moderator in a core function, subverserequest, having basically transferred a huge verse, AskVoat, to SJWs despite loud protests. Might as well go back to Reddit then.

6
42

[–] flope_de 6 points 42 points (+48|-6) ago 

I was actually linked here from a thread in /v/AskVoat :).

You'll only have to look at her three lowest ranked comment to see why people are concerned.

She thinks normal people are unable to understand, and should not discuss, issues transvestites might have..

She defends feminism, and ideology based around female supremacy, and sexism and gender discrimination against men.

She defends the SJW culture, a movement known for bullying and silencing people who do not share their worldview.