Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

4

TheLegendaryBirdMonster wrote

what other votes on meta have you rigged/manipulated?

0

ziq wrote (edited )

There was no vote to make her a spambuster. There was no vote to end her term. Appointing her to the role was an emergency action on my behalf because voat trolls were ruining my life by keeping me up all night deleting their child porn from raddle.

2

Tequila_Wolf wrote

My long contribution to leftous's post, which came before reading this. So far as I understand, the things ziq's linked to in this post are accurate.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

I'm willing to eat a lot of shit to make things right here, but shiningwing's claims are just malicious and spiteful. I handled her abuse of power and refusal to stop telling everyone she was an admin in the most diplomatic way I could with my limited social skills.

She wasn't ever appointed to be an admin, wasn't listed in the wiki, wasn't a mod on f/meta, and was specifically told 'you are not an admin, this is just temporary'.

There was no vote to remove her, simply a thread created to bring to everyone's attention what the problem was so I could revoke her temporary privileges without creating ML Vs Anarchist drama. It took me weeks to finally de-admin her because everytime I brought up the subject, she would tell me about her awful IRL troubles and I'd feel bad and put it off.

She censored and banned someone for 'equating the Holodomor with a genocide'. I was flooded with messages demanding to know why she was getting away with that type of thing. Raddle is not a place for that kind of censorship. 99% of us are anarchists ffs.

It was completely my mess to clean up since I chose to appoint her a temporary spambuster while voat was filling the site with kiddie porn. I handled it in a passive aggressive manner (using alts to shift the 'blame' from me), mainly because she was emma's friend and I didn't want to strain their relationship. But I did not manufacture a vote to remove her from the admin team. She was never on the admin team and was never meant to stay spambuster after the raids stopped. I only put it off so long because I was trying to spare feelings. I used alts to broach the subject publicly because I wasn't getting anywhere talking to her about it privately.

3

[deleted] wrote

1

jadedctrl wrote

let's be clear here, for one /f/communism was an ML sub at the time undeniably

There were no rule that said "MLs only, challenge ML viewpoints and you'll get banned." There was a good amount of material that wasn't ML-specific— it seemed totally catch-all. If it was ML-only, it wasn't expressed.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

/f/communism was an ML sub

It was not an an ML forum, I took steps to ensure that by appointing an ancom to the mod team when an ML was added and getting the ancom (nodefunallowed) to change the rules when the ML tried to make talking ill of Stalin a crime.

I told the mods very directly that f/communism is for ALL communists, not just MLs and banning ancoms without reason would be grounds for dismissal. Please don't poison the well because she's your friend.

When you de-admined shiningwing, you again did it on your own accord

She was never appointed as an admin. She was a temporary spambuster that was only given banning privs temporarily while we were being raided. I didn't need anyone's permission to remove them. Stop poisoning the well.

Edit: I removed no MLs from the forum. In fact, I modded two of them.

2

[deleted] wrote

1

jadedctrl wrote (edited )

There was a vote to make it absolutely explicitly catch-all— since there was so much ambiguity around it. Everyone assumed it was catch-all before the banning. Up until that single action, it was functionally and seemingly catch-all.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

I've repeatedly explained that her permissions were temporary and only 'admin'-like because of the limitations of the software. The software considered her an admin, so I needed to de-admin her to remove her privileges, but she was never officially or unofficially appointed an admin.

She was made a temporary spambuster, but that position was never added to the postmill code, so she was able to use an 'admin' badge, which she did repeatedly - even though she was told again and again, before and after taking the position, that she wasn't an admin.

You're deliberately obfuscating to confuse the issue.

yeah but we had to have a vote on whether or not /f/communism should be for all communists if you remember? because at the time it was an ML sub, that vote however did pass and no-defun and a few others were modded to /f/communism

Not how it happened. I appointed nofun at the exact same time as I appointed Tito and specifically told them it was to maintain a balance and ensure Tito wouldn't exclude non MLs. Stop spreading misinformation.

0

[deleted] wrote

5

Tequila_Wolf wrote

the only people who took offense to shining calling herself an admin, probably by referring to the role the software considered her to be, was you though.

On this point - I was concerned about it as well and had been for some time. So far as I understand, so was emma. I don't remember anyone else but I wasn't expecting to need to and there may well have been.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

Raddle was never full of MLs. The forum in question was all but dead before I appointed tito and nodefun as mods. I can literally count the number of MLs that ever posted there on one hand.

The vote was initiated by nodefun after I asked them (using defasher) to take action because the tankie mod was making up sectarian rules.

2

[deleted] wrote

0

ziq wrote (edited )

/f/communism is part of raddle. Count the MLs that have been here - Sudo, tito, josefstallman (mlm), shiningwing... maybe a couple more that posted once or twice and quickly left. That forum had very few posts at the time. If tito and josef posted a few articles to an otherwise bare forum, the forum isn't 'full of mls'.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

I really do apologize to ShiningWing, for being nice to your face, and then passive aggressively saying what I really felt about your actions with the alt. It was a horrible thing to do to you, and I take full responsibility for it, but you have to own up to your own part in what unfolded too. You know you were never meant to be an official admin, and I didn't manipulate any vote to remove you. You were never meant to keep those privileges for as long as you did - but taking them from you when you were having such a hard time seemed cruel; so I kept putting it off.

3

throwaway3295634 wrote

Uh, so there's multiple things I could respond to here, but... why wasn't your first response just to talk to me about it? Why was your first response to use an alt that's personally attacked me in the past to start a vote to force me out of the role without my input? What's the more cruel action here?

-2

ziq wrote

You know why. Every time I tried to talk to you, you told me you were suicidal.

There was no vote, you were never appointed an admin.

I'm too old for this shit.