I posted the sticky in the first place because I wanted to inform the users of a major change that was not expressed just done. I only linked to putt's answer so those could see the question posed and answer given to make up there own minds. I did hope that people who notice and ask questions so that a full answer would be given. I did not hope to get removed from my modship.
Regarding Putt's submission I will respond.
Used a @system subverse as a personal platform
I did do that and in hindsight was the wrong approach, I should have made a video and then stickied it.
Defacing the subverse CSS
I activated a floating banner that has been historicly used many times before, starting when I created "Original Content Friday's", it was designed to open up the new page of /v/videos if clicked. It was also used to urge users to go to new and upvoat stuff rather than staying on hot. I did change the banner to look like this, I did not deface the css or inhibit any usage of the sub whatsoever. I do think it's strange they allowed the banner before (yes for video related) but now it's defacing css?
@Cynabuns doesn't have the power or authority to remove moderators and neither did she request either of you to be removed.
I suspect the admins sent her to make the request knowing that if they asked I would have complied, and when I responded how one would expect me to respond to @Cynabuns given our history they used that as their tool and reason to remove me.
Bottom line is you thought v/videos was your personal subverse to do with as you please
Untrue. I always advocate that it belongs to the /v/videos users and they should be in control of it entirely, even above you admins.
You had issues with Voat asking for Janitors on @system subs
Also false, I had an issue here with @AOU requesting janitor status as he was the only one, and one doesn't have to look far as to why I would have objected to that.
had issues when admins stepped in due to poor handling in the past.
I don't know what you're referring to in this exactly, please elaborate and I'll answer.
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.
I did not want removed, but I will admit that not having that weight is nice for a change. I do think that you wanted to remove me ever since you said this specifically, "A point worth noting, when we act on a system sub we have a history of purging mods." As well as you stated you don't have input on system sub rules in this comment. Dispute it, if it's untrue please.
To Atko's Comment:
I don't take kindly to people who point a gun at my face and make demands
When did I demand anything? Citation needed, please prove me wrong.
Some of you may hate me for stirring this shit up, and for that I apologize. I truly and genuinely only wanted to inform users of something that I thought was being intentionally left in the shadows in hopes no one would know.
view the rest of the comments →
vaginaenvy ago
Thank you. It's so rare nowadays for people to own up to their mistakes.
In view of this, I think it would be appropriate for you to at least temporarily lose moderatorship, if only to set a precedent of concrete consequences for misbehavior.
Chiefpacman ago
Put isn't our fucking baby sitter. He doesn't need to put mods in timeout for showing dissent. Thats exactly what reddit does. He called this 'malicious' editing of the CSS, which it clearly was not.
The admins have had an issue with users like THC for a while. I think they're making an example of him.
Should have been handled better, but admins needed to brush this one under the rug. Sticky was up for how long? Its already gone.
vaginaenvy ago
It's not for showing dissent, it's for using mod powers to push their message. Regardless of whether you agree with the content of the message, the method by which the message was propagated was -- by THC's own admission -- inappropriate.
Enforcing site policy is exactly what admins are for. Mods who abuse their power get demodded.
Chiefpacman ago
Push their message?
A banner notifying users of a new rule (that was not made aware to the user base by the admin's); is pushing a narrative?
THC did not 'admit' that what he did was wrong at all. He said he should've made the sticky a video. This post is literally him making his case, not admitting fault. At least read it all if you want to argue man.
Am I wrong or is that word for word what the reddit ceo said a year and a half ago?
vaginaenvy ago
It was not (afaik, maybe I'm missing something) topical to /v/videos. If it were notifying users of a change made by the /v/videos mods, that would be appropriate, but site-wide issues should go in meta subs like /v/voat. By analogy, imagine if the change were made by ICANN or USG; it would still affect most/all users, but pushing a particular news item in an off-topic subverse because this is important and people should know about it is a terrible precedent; any subverse could be taken over by politicancer at any time.
Hitler ate sugar.
I believe 8chan's policy is to allow board mods to do basically whatever the hell they want, but that's not what I understand of Voat policy based on https://voat.co/v/introductions/1350015. Maybe it's different for pulling messages vs. pushing messages?
Chiefpacman ago
You're right, it shouldn't be the videos moderator's job to notify users of a new site wide rule. It should be the admin's job. They failed in this.
Luckily at least one of our system mods doesn't want the admin's dick. The only reason any of us know about this rule, is because of this fiasco.
vaginaenvy ago
True.
Chiefpacman ago
Yeah well that won't stop it from getting buried
Pre-conceived opinions > facts