You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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.

5
0

[–] Kaysic 5 points 0 points (+5|-5) ago  (edited ago)

But here's the thing - what I see, and if I'm overlooking something please correct me on this - is that the professionalism of discourse is very much kept separate between her posts as a moderator and her posts as a user. Yes, there are comments that fit the attitude you point out - but those aren't posts where someone's being disciplined, or where rules are being discussed.

Keeping personal conduct separate from professional/moderator conduct is a trait rarely seen and one that should be valued more than it currently is.

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.

4
3

[–] Kaysic 4 points 3 points (+7|-4) ago 

Y'know, I really love this macro. Also, being demoted to "it" is funny in an ironic way, I suppose.

So, you're saying that you shouldn't be required to provide proof of your accusations because... I'll try to disprove your proofs? That's kinda the point of argumentation. You make an assertion, I ask for evidence of that assertion, you back up your claims with logic and facts.

What's worse, you immediately assume I'm hostile, and will "attack" your proofs. Because I don't immediately take your claims as fact, I must be "the enemy." This is a juvenile, moronic, and downright dangerous mindset to hold - you're no better than the SJWs.

2
2

[–] 1293993? 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago 

Its no use dude. Using logic isnt going to help. It's obvious what's going on.