On Mod Removal from v/videos (videos)

submitted ago by PuttItOut

@THC was removed as moderator from v/videos for the following reasons:

  1. Used a @system subverse as a personal platform

  2. Defacing the subverse CSS

@InnocentBystander was removed as designer on v/videos for maliciously modifying the subverse CSS in response to @THC's removal.

We decided to leave the sticky up since @THC felt so strongly about this that he would consider using a @system sub as a soapbox an acceptable course of action.

@Cynabuns doesn't have the power or authority to remove moderators and neither did she request either of you to be removed.

Bottom line is you thought v/videos was your personal subverse to do with as you please. You had issues with Voat asking for Janitors on @system subs and had issues when admins stepped in due to poor handling in the past.

You forced us to remove you and I'm more confident than not that this is the outcome you desired and why you did what you did.

On the paging limitation for those interested: https://voat.co/v/voatdev/1389285/6738688/10

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

CrazyInAnInsaneWorld ago

Fair enough.

On the matter of holding them responsible, I readily admit perhaps I am misreading this, but I took this statement...

The main reason why one was especially needed here was due to the community blaming @cynabuns.

To mean that because there were several posters directly slamming Cynabuns, that for some reason, this made Atko and Putt directly culpable to issue a statement claiming Cyna's innocence. Atko and Putt mentioned from the beginning that the Janitor position would not have mod privs, and it wasn't until this drama happened that people started (at least that I saw) slamming Cyna for acting as a mod, despite what logic tells us is possible, and despite Cyna's protestations to the contrary. I didn't see any direct reason for them to comment on the idea that it wasn't Cyna that de-modded THC. Simply Atko or Putt claiming responsibility would have been sufficient for me. The idea that either of them have to alter any statement they give, not that they were obligated to in the first place, but still...simply on the grounds a bunch of dramamongers are flinging shit around, seems ridiculous on its face.

But, as I said, it's entirely possible I misread that, or the subtext behind it.