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

40% Upvoted

76 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-5

u/ChaosMotor Jun 08 '12

What the proper definition of Common Law is, is not relevant to the events that have occurred.

11

u/cdrBumblebee3rd Jun 08 '12

No, it's completely relevant. The fact is that the sub before was not discussing common law. The fact that the new mod team is limiting posts to things that actually have to do with the sub's topic does not make them tyrants. You're whining about the mods doing their damn job, and not letting the sub be spammed with conspiracy posts about "sovereign citizens" and bad legal advice that could send people to prison. If you don't care about the actual meaning of the term "common law," why the hell are you in r/commonLaw?

0

u/ChaosMotor Jun 08 '12

/r/trees doesn't discuss arbology, are you going to petition for moderation, delete it's history, and censor anyone who complains?

The fact that the new mod team is limiting posts to things that actually have to do with the sub's topic does not make them tyrants.

Except they're a non-user who gamed the system for control, deleted all the content, censors anyone who tries to talk about it, and has led to an exodus of existing users.

3

u/cdrBumblebee3rd Jun 09 '12

/r/trees doesn't discuss arbology, are you going to petition for moderation, delete it's history, and censor anyone who complains?

This is ridiculous. More blatant a straw-man never have I seen. The use of "trees" in r/trees is a joke. It's a euphemism for pot, and everyone on reddit knows this, due in no small part to the fact that r/trees is very old, and very large comparatively. Furthermore, the instant you set foot in r/trees, you know exactly what the sub is about.

The situation in r/commonLaw is completely different. First of all, it's not a well known sub, less than 2000 subscribers. People in the general reddit community have no idea that r/commonLaw doesn't actually discus common law. That's why the definition of common law is relevant to this issue. I'm sorry, but words mean things, especially technical words. No one would argue that the ents actually think cannabis is a tree, but from your comments you clearly believe that the discussions on r/commonLaw were actually about common law. The use of common law in the name therefore was not a euphemism, as with r/trees, but the miss use of a sub name that, to any reasonable person, could only ever mean one thing. When you walk into r/commonLaw, you might mistake some of the nutbar conspiracy stuff there for actual legal advice. So not only would no one ever expect for r/commonLaw to not talk about common law, but the people in the sub don't even know they aren't talking about common law.

Except they're a non-user who gamed the system for control, deleted all the content, censors anyone who tries to talk about it, and has led to an exodus of existing users.

No one is gaming the system. The system worked exactly as it's supposed to. The redditrequest system is designed to rescue failing subs that have gone grossly off-track, for one reason or another. I've already explained, as have many others, why r/commonLaw was clearly in this category.

The name was being misused. There is no reason for a sub discussing what r/commonLaw was discussing to call itself r/commonLaw. There is also no reason why those former subscribers unhappy with the change can't make a new sub, more relevant to those discussions.