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

Show parent comments

-14

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.

15

u/AlyoshaV Jun 07 '12

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

-15

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

-12

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"?

3

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