You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

funroll-loops ago

Take a look at the post/comment history of /u/she and /u/moe

With control of /v/askvoat (huge default sub) and /v/subverserequest (carte-blanche to hand over any sub to their cronies) it looks like we're in for the reddit-treatment.

sneakybells ago

Let's not start a witch hunt. Unless there's evidence of abuse, we can't just start publicly persecuting people based off their opinions and that goes against everything Voat stood for, which was freedom of expression.

Please, let's chill it with the McCarthyism. SJWs aren't boogeymen.

CrowTRobot ago

let's chill it with the McCarthyism

That pretty rich since the tactics of SJWs come far closer to McCarthyism than those of people of the anti-censorship crowd.

sneakybells ago

This isn't anti censorship though, this is anti-sjw. Unless we have evidence of abuse, this has nothing to do with censorship. All it is is someone voicing an unpopular opinion and getting punished for it.

CrowTRobot ago

this is anti-sjw

And? They're free to talk here if they wish, but if they (or you) expect to not be met with hostility after what has occurred on the other site, you're living in a dream world.

All it is is someone voicing an unpopular opinion and getting punished for it.

Free speech gives you the right to say it without it being removed by moderators, it doesn't mean everyone upvoats it the heavens. If you find yourself on an unpopular side of things, come to terms with the consequences, or win the argument.

sneakybells ago

You're absolutely right, you're allowed to say whatever you want but you cant claim to be anti censorship if youre asking for the exodua of someone solely based on their opinion wothout evidence of abuse.

CrowTRobot ago

if youre asking for the exodua of someone solely based on their opinion wothout evidence of abuse.

And I haven't asked for that, but neither should those who have shown an extensive history of malicious intent expect to be received with open arms in a community that is founded on the antithesis of their beliefs. And you can absolutely be anti-censorship so long as the comments of those people are not taken down by the powers the be. Free speech != safe space

sneakybells ago

Malicious intent? That sounds a lot like a thought crime. Unless there's concrete evidence of abuse, there's nothing to see here.

CrowTRobot ago

Malicious intent? That sounds a lot like a thought crime.

Only if declining to give your wallet to a dude with an extensive record of theft is also a thought crime. The concrete evidence of abuse is the path of reddit over the last 6 months. If they happen to share the views of those on reddit, then I recommend that is where they go. Unless, of course, there is a reason to stay here.

sneakybells ago

This why we have public modlogs. Do you really think the community would stand for that if they saw blatant censorship? If we have no evidence of abuse then its literally a witch hunt. If you only stand for free speech when it's convenient for you then you don't stand for free speech. It's an all or nothing deal.

Also, that's a terrible analogy. We're not talking about one person here. we don't know this person's history.

CrowTRobot ago

And you won't find and instance where I didn't stand for free speech. In fact, I've said repeatedly in this thread that they're free to post. They aren't free from the consequences handed out by the community of the site.

And we have the history of both of the users in question at the top of this post. We have their entire post history, and if people go though that and come to the conclusion that they are SJWs, then, the concerns of this there are absolutely merited.

sneakybells ago

If they're sjws why dont we have any evidence of mod abuse?

CrowTRobot ago

Because they haven't had a chance to work their way into that position yet. Not that it hasn't been tried. One of the users in question has shown to be a fan of political correctness and a skewed definition of racism--both of which are hallmarks of SJW ideology. And that is the point of the thread.

sneakybells ago

What position? Super mod? Look at how many threads this whole scandal as spawned. The anti-sjw sentiment is strong and this includes me. As soon as they start deleting things they don't find kosher, we'll know about it thanks to the holy modlog.

This place was about tolerating opposing view points and protecting free expression. Unless we have evidence of their ideology infringing on that, then their ideology should be irrelevant to whether or not they're a bad mod, mod abuse should be the only indicator of that. Anything more is premature and foolhardy. We're a small enough site already, we don't need to cannibalize ourselves.

CrowTRobot ago

sneakybells ago

There wasn't really a question there though. Do you think this is soapboxing? ie using /v/askvoat as a place to broadcast their ideas

CrowTRobot ago

There wasn't really a question there though.

A meta discussion about the moderation of a sub does not have to be in the form of a question, regardless of the title of the sub.

And if that's soapboxing, then we might as well leave voat now, because that's what every attempt at mod criticism will be classified as.

Also this: https://voat.co/v/AskVoat/comments/401746/1733058

sneakybells ago

If you want to complain about a mod or mod abuse, I don't think /v/askvoat is the place to do it. Go to /v/conspiracy, we love that shit.

CrowTRobot ago

Yep. That's a brilliant place to discuss people blatantly abusing their powers. You want to start ignoring the obvious, that's on you. I won't.

sneakybells ago

It's a brilliant place with lots users who are already paranoid. If you want momentum, that's the place to be. And don't knock them, /r/conspiracy were the first people to make their trek from reddit when they were deleting things of /r/worldnews and /r/technology which later led to the creation of /r/undelete. They were the first responders and I should know, I was there and I still remember when this place was whoaverse.