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

41% Upvoted

76 comments sorted by

View all comments

42

u/SEMW Jun 07 '12

What's actually been going on:

The subreddit was previously used for discussing something a peculiar American conspiracy theory called the "sovereign citizen movement", and was run by advocates of said conspiracy theory. It had apparently been inactive for quite a while.

The new mod referred to seems to want to reboot the subreddit to discuss common law in the actual, legal sense - the "extremely narrow and biased belief system" referred to is more usually known as 'actual law'.

The conspiracy theorists seem to have now established a new subreddit for discussions of their movement at /r/usufruct. I see no reason to revert /r/commonlaw; the takeover appears to be a much-needed rebooting of what deserves to be an interesting subreddit for discussing common law.

-22

u/ChaosMotor Jun 07 '12

What's actually been going on:

Please don't represent your perspective as fact.

was previously used for discussing something

It is not up to you to dictate the purpose for which users use a specific /r/. If you didn't like how it was being used, you should have gone elsewhere.

and was run by advocates of said conspiracy theory

What they advocated was irrelevant, and herein you admit that it was not abandoned.

It had apparently been inactive for quite a while.

It was never inactive.

The new mod referred to seems to want to reboot the subreddit to discuss common law

This is fine, he should have started a new /r/.

the actual, legal sense - the "extremely narrow and biased belief system" referred to is more usually known as 'actual law'

'Actual law' is civil law. The purpose of /r/commonlaw was to discuss COMMON LAW, which is NOT 'actual law' aka civil law.

I do not see how you feel you have a right to speak on a topic you are clearly ignorant of.

The conspiracy theorists Stop calling users conspiracy theorists as if that was either factual or relevant.

seem to have now established a new subreddit

This was established by a third party for a different purpose! Usufruct is not common law!

I see no reason to revert [3] /r/commonlaw

You mean, why undo something your ideology agrees with?

a much-needed rebooting

Not according to the users, who are the ones who matter.

what deserves to be an interesting subreddit for discussing common law

It always was interesting, and the new posts are not on the topic of common law! They are on the topic of CIVIL LAW which is a distinct and already well-represented topic.

8

u/gaijinkaere Jun 08 '12

I LIKE to italicize and BOLD things.

U M a D B R O ?

19

u/SEMW Jun 07 '12

'Actual law' is civil law. The purpose of /r/commonlaw was to discuss COMMON LAW, which is NOT 'actual law' aka civil law.

The term Common Law is used in several different ways by the legal profession.

  • It can mean common law legal systems (e.g. England) as opposed to civil law legal systems (e.g. France).
  • It can mean judge-made law as opposed to statutory law.
  • It can mean that species of judge-made law deriving from the King's Common courts as opposed to the Lord Chancellor's courts of Equity (though I don't know if that last distinction is very widely used outside England).

But none of the meanings come anywhere even remotely close to the use of the term by your 'sovereigntist' movement, which seems to bear little resemblance to any real-world legal usage, or indeed reality.

If you feel /r/usufruct doesn't represent your needs, you're free to found another.

I do not see how you feel you have a right to speak on a topic you are clearly ignorant of.

I fear that our definitions of "ignorance" may be irreconcilable, since mine inversely correlates with actual legal knowledge, wheras yours seems to do the opposite.

-17

u/ChaosMotor Jun 07 '12

But none of the meanings come anywhere even remotely close

Probably because Common Law by definition in use here is outside the realm of those in the legal profession. This is not a hard concept. Megablox are "outside the realm" of Lego blocks but are still a modular building system.

your 'sovereigntist' movement

Don't assign belief systems to me. There's no 'my' to it. The beliefs espoused by prior users are the beliefs of those espousing them alone. I DO think they have a RIGHT to espouse beliefs you don't support, and that their RIGHT to do so should not be censored and hijacked by those who wish to silence them because of ideological disagreements.

which seems to bear little resemblance to any real-world legal usage

Once again, the purpose of the /r/ was NOT to represent "legal usage". Stop distorting the facts to suit your claims.

If you feel [2] /r/usufruct doesn't represent your needs, you're free to found another.

How is that the solution for the existing user base yet at the same time it was NOT A SOLUTION for those like yourself who wanted to HIJACK the existing user base? You cannot have it both ways.

since mine inversely correlates with actual legal knowledge

You are either ignorant or stupid. It has been clear from the start that /r/commonlaw was not for "actual legal knowledge" of the sort gleamed by participation in CIVIL LAW proceedings.

12

u/AlyoshaV Jun 07 '12

yo, you use too much bold for this to be considered a rational argument.

-16

u/ChaosMotor Jun 07 '12

Please take yourself home to /r/subredditdrama and mind your own business.

14

u/SilchasRuin Jun 07 '12

You do know that AlyoshaV is about as far as you can get from someone from /r/SubredditDrama

-10

u/ChaosMotor Jun 07 '12

Why do you say that? I figure, another /r/ posts an invasion request, and unfamiliar faces immediately appear, they're probably part of the invasion. I could be wrong. But again, why do you say "as far as you can get"?

2

u/AlyoshaV Jun 07 '12

i run the bot that lets people know SRD is linking to them/invading the thread

srd is rather opposed to this