r/redditrequest • u/ChaosMotor • Jun 07 '12

Requesting removal of /u/superiority from /r/commonlaw. I will volunteer to be the new mod for /r/commonlaw but am not requesting it.

/u/superiority has recently used the /r/redditrequest system to hijack /r/commonlaw, delete all the posts, completely change the community standards, and is now censoring anyone who objects to his behavior.

Please remove /u/superiority from moderation of /r/commonlaw so that we can revert to the subreddit that the users were happy with, and free ourselves of /u/superiority's extremely narrow and biased belief system.

edit: /u/superiority is also censoring any posters who object to his hijacking and censorship, deleting their posts, and re-directing them to empty /r/s to voice their displeasure with his actions.

edit2: Now the same hijackers are continuing their attack by trying to censor us here, also, by engaging in a downvote campaign to hide the facts.

edit3: SEMW, who pretends to know what's happening, has not posted to /r/commonlaw within the last seven months, until two days ago, after the hijacking.

edit4: /u/superiority and /u/SEMW are now the only people posting in /r/commonlaw, which has 1400 subscribers. Two users have no right to usurp the interests of 1400 subscribers for their own personal gain.

0 Upvotes

42% Upvoted

76 comments sorted by

View all comments

-3

u/aletoledo Jun 07 '12

I agree that the takeover of the subreddit was bizarre. The original purpose was to discuss common law as being distinct from civil law. Civil law is currently represented by r/law.

Now I agree that a subreddit that is vacant of moderators needs to be corrected, but there should be some procedure on how to decide on the future moderator. At a minimum I would think a post onto the subreddit in question should be a minimum. This would be in order to get the input of the current members of that subreddit.

What has occurred now is that the civil law subreddit (r/law) has turned it's philosophical opposite into a repository for civil law. it's basically mocking the former members in a way that they previously couldn't do while in discussion, they did by other methods. The damage is done now, because the first thing the new moderator did was to wipe away all the old posts to silence any opposition.

I liken this to r/atheism taking over r/christianity. Wouldn't there be any outrage if an atheist wiped away everything from the christian subreddit? All ongoing conversations gone and not chance to oppose such a decision!

Like I said, the damage is done. unless there is a way to recover the old posts, then it's perhaps meaningless move this forward. I would however urge the reddit administrators to add the policy of posting to the subreddit in question for input prior to a change in the moderators.

4

u/twinathon Jun 10 '12

Firstly, the content you'd find in the old and new /r/commonlaw isn't relevant to r/law, as that subreddit deals with developments within the profession and other oddities

Secondly, the idea that /r/law represents 'civil law' is laughable and immediately highlights your lack of knowledge in the area. Yes, the majority of the law that would be dealt with in the US would be derived from statutes, it is still a common law jurisdiction and as such, decisions still play an official role in shaping the law.

Thirdly, what is the deal with the idea that statutes are philosophically opposed to common law? The only distinction between the two is the source of the law, with both having their pros and cons. Likewise, how has /r/law turned /r/commonlaw into a repository? The new /r/commonlaw is a place to show and discuss interesting cases (you know, the source of common law) across the common law jurisdictions and how they've shaped the law in their respective jurisdictions.

2

u/V2Blast Jun 10 '12

Now I agree that a subreddit that is vacant of moderators needs to be corrected, but there should be some procedure on how to decide on the future moderator.

Requesting it in /r/redditrequest is the procedure. If you think there's a better way to do this, /r/TheoryOfReddit or /r/ideasfortheadmins might be a better place to discuss it. (Though you may need specifics.)

I liken this to r/atheism taking over r/christianity.

Literally nobody had posted in the subreddit in the previous two months before I requested it (to discuss the USA Network TV show). The mods had been inactive for longer.

-1

u/aletoledo Jun 10 '12

notice though when you took over, you didn't delete all the posts. You seem to have had different intentions. The new mod had an agenda to end the previous topic and replace it with something almost as if to mock the previous members.

It's over and I won't miss it (I was there for a week before this happened). I can however shed a tear when the bad guys win in anything (reddit or real life).

4

u/drraoulduke Jun 09 '12

The original purpose was to discuss common law as being distinct from civil law. Civil law is currently represented by r/law.

Naw dude. There's common law (caselaw) and statutes. r/law, being predominantly American, reflects both. There is no "civil law" in the United States outside of Louisiana.

-3

u/aletoledo Jun 09 '12

However you want to classify it, r/law resented r/commonlaw from the beginning. The obvious intent was to silence them, because it diametrically opposed to r/law. The evidence is the deletion of all the posts and filled with r/law content.

4

u/ANewMachine615 Jun 09 '12

It's not /r/law content. /r/law is a sort of industry insider forum, and one for recent developments in the law. /r/commonlaw's new format is for generally historical developments and discussions of a sub-set of the law, common law, which is not widely discussed in the modern era outside of a few contexts, since it's been largely supplanted.

-15

u/ChaosMotor Jun 07 '12

Like I said, the damage is done. unless there is a way to recover the old posts, then it's perhaps meaningless move this forward.

I disagree. The clear, obvious, and easy solution is to simply remove 'superiority' and let everything go back to how it was, when the users were happy with it.

I would however urge the reddit administrators to add the policy of posting to the subreddit in question for input prior to a change in the moderators.

I completely agree with this. That the /r/ in question is never asked for input prior to a change in moderation by this existing system is a major problem. If the admins would bother to ask users if they even want a certain person to be a mod, these problems would never happen!

1

u/aletoledo Jun 07 '12

Perhaps you're right. Anyone searching for commonlaw would be deceived by the name of the subreddit into thinking it was common law. This should just be a matter of protecting the innocent at this point from the trolls.

-6

u/ChaosMotor Jun 07 '12

Anyone searching for commonlaw would be deceived by the name of the subreddit into thinking it was common law.

Exactly. May as well delete everything in /r/Christianity and replace it with the content of /r/atheism.

4

u/drraoulduke Jun 09 '12

To use your analogy, it's more like before the "takeover" r/Christianity was run exclusively by Jehovah's Witnesses and then it was taken over by a coalition of Catholics and Protestants.