this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2010
232 points (78% like it)
321 up votes 89 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

comments

iamanogoodliar 118 points119 points 4 months ago* [-]

Little does anyone realize that the entire purpose of this was to increase traffic to r/Pets. Once again Saydrah has been successful.

MWAHAHAHA!!!

HonkyTonkHero 26 points27 points 4 months ago[-]

I could care less about someone spamming Reddit, it happens everyday, but I was excited when i saw there was a /pets!

AtomicDog1471 17 points18 points 4 months ago[-]

couldn't care less

FTFY

djepik 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

InsensitiveTroll -4 points-3 points 4 months ago[-]

he can't care less... so he can care more and more? so he does care? does he or doesn't he?

wrathofcain 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

Where are the Grammar Gestapo when you need them?

Ass_monkey 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

No, he could care less.

This is clearly stated.

exotics 6 points7 points 4 months ago[-]

you may or many not also be interested in http://www.reddit.com/r/animalwelfare/

we need more subscribers and posts..

HonkyTonkHero 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

Awesome, I'm now subscribed to both. Thanks.

neoronin 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

Your username should read "Inaileditright"

SirTin 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

I'm certain that you're lying.

Scarker 0 points1 point 4 months ago[-]

You bastard.

tailwarmer -1 points0 points 4 months ago[-]

Adding r/pets to my frontpage now

Kardlonoc 35 points36 points 4 months ago[-]

Good job.

fatty-mcfatass 49 points50 points 4 months ago[-]

There always seems to be this scolding of the masses for not wanting Saydrah around whenever an explanation about banning her is posted. Why is that?

Why do other mods feel like they have to defend her AND scold everyone else when they explain they are banning her as a mod? Why not just announce you are banning her and just leave it at that?

centipeed -4 points-3 points 4 months ago[-]

It's because this mob mentality is akin to a witch-hunt, and to everyone who doesn't care one way or another about Saydrah, the behaviour is worrying.

By which I mean, the mods "scold" the masses because they're trying not to encourage this sort of behaviour. If everyone who has been outspoken during this episode instead sent a private message to a moderator, then suddenly the moderator would have hundreds of messages in his inbox about Saydrah, and I daresay he'd take it far more seriously than a thread full of mouth-frothing.

avmaier 10 points11 points 4 months ago[-]

this mob mentality is akin to a witch-hunt

How so?

All that the large majority of people ask(ed) for was the she gets removed from her privileged positions of power to avoid abuse.

She's the one who threw around names ("shitheads").

centipeed -4 points-3 points 4 months ago[-]

And I'm saying that the large majority of people should have asked for it through the proper channels (Private messages to a moderator) rather than creating a public scene.

Also, when you say something like "She's the one who threw around names", it suggests that she's the ONLY one who threw around names, which is an absurd suggestion.

If it isn't suggesting that, and you're just stating that one party out of hundreds threw around names, then it seems a bit redundant.

misterFR33ZE 8 points9 points 4 months ago[-]

I think transparency takes precedence in this case. Also, creating a public scene is barely even working, so why should anyone believe one person complaining to a mod via PM would do anything? For the record, other than some snarky remarks I've been pretty indifferent... just thought I'd weigh in.

centipeed -3 points-2 points 4 months ago[-]

Also, creating a public scene is barely even working, so why should anyone believe one person complaining to a mod via PM would do anything?

If a single person sends an eloquently worded request to a mod, asking them to look into a situation for which they provide adequate background material and suggestion of wrong-doing, and then that mod doesn't bother to respond or pay attention to it, then there are more mods at fault than just Saydrah.

Although I'm not even suggesting that as a solution. I think it's perfectly acceptable for someone to start a discussion in which they present the facts, and then ask anyone who cares to send a message to the moderator on the subject.

What I can see absolutely no use in is having hundreds of people voicing their disgust whilst spouting often incoherent or illogical claims. It's like everyone is pulling our their personal soapboxes, and along with being unnecessary it clogs up the website for the people who care little.

misterFR33ZE 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

If a single person sends an eloquently worded request to a mod....then there are more mods at fault than just Saydrah.

I don't disagree and who's to say that didn't happen? And if it did what would you propose next?

Anyway, I've seen 4 posts on the front page for this and it doesn't "clog" up anything like you say. There's still the new tab and the hide button.

It's like everyone is pulling our their personal soapboxes

Welcome to the internet. I realize you may just be blowing off some steam, but I am not it's defender.

rchase -2 points-1 points 4 months ago[-]

You're right on. People have lost their minds about this issue. I'm not advocating a spammer being a moderator or moderators abusing their powers for personal gain, but I've not been convinced we are even talking about a spammer. (Please don't try to convince me again either, it's just stupid, and I've already read the whole stupid fucking saga.)

Most of it is kids with way too much time on their hands. They really should be doing their homework or going outside or something.

But when it moves off the web and into real life, then people have crossed the line. There are very few situations in which it would be considered even remotely appropriate to track people (and their families) down at their homes. Allegedly abusing moderator privileges on a public forum is not one of those situations.

avmaier 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

people should have asked for it through the proper channels (Private messages to a moderator) rather than creating a public scene.

I think that abuse of mod power is severe enough to go public.

And your answer does not rally help me understand the "witch hunt" analogy. Nobody is asking for her death. Most people are very civilized in voicing their criticism. Some people used names, but so did she.

What worries me is that the connotation of "witch hunt" is somewhat sexist and adds to her victimization attempts. She did something wrong. And people post about that on a forum. No harm in that (and if there were criminal actions indeed, there is a real world justice system in place to take care of that).

"She's the one who threw around names", it suggests that she's the ONLY one who threw around names

Point taken.

But it is fair to say that her calling 90% of reddit (i.e. us) shitheads has significantly contributed to the escalation. As far as I know she never apologized for that statement.

centipeed 0 points1 point 4 months ago[-]

I'll admit that my use of the phrase "witch hunt" is probably due to the small minority of complaints that fall into the "idiotic" category. Of course, there are people calmly and logically stating their views, and these people would never take part in a witch hunt.

Also, her lashing out (The "shitheads" remark) is entirely understandable. She was treated unfairly by a number of people, even if the majority didn't make use of her personal information or start saying hurtful things. Even if fifty people acted viciously towards her, that is a lot of hate for one person to handle.

Regardless of any of this, what I'm really trying to say is that while I have no problem with outing wrongdoing publicly, it's far too easy for it to go too far. Groupthink and mob mentality are scientifically demonstrated concepts, and they show that large numbers of people are capable of doing things none of those people would do alone. I just don't like the thought that people are being unfair in delivering their "justice".

fatty-mcfatass 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

...her lashing out (The "shitheads" remark) is entirely understandable.

I have to disagree. A moderator is supposed to show maturity and restraint. Basically, not act like the lowest-common denominator on reddit who would call everyone else that.

It might have been a 'lot of hate... to handle'. But that's when she should have been the better person than the 'shitheads' and either stepped back or taken a break.

avmaier 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

her lashing out (The "shitheads" remark) is entirely understandable.

I disagree. Calling 90% of reddit shitheads is not justified because a select few made unfair or hurtful remarks. It is offending and insulting and problematic if done by someone with moderator privileges (she said that she always knew that 90% of reddit are shitheads).

Groupthink and mob mentality are scientifically demonstrated concepts

Well, democracy ain't perfect but it still is a darn good system.

producerism 31 points32 points 4 months ago[-]

lets just hope the rest of the reddits follow suit to purge this cancer once and for all.

ani625 18 points19 points 4 months ago* [-]

Namely /r/askreddit and /r/iama. I can't see that happening.

Edit: This has been done now.

hrtattx 6 points7 points 4 months ago[-]

well those are self only subreddits so she can't really whore there. but yes, i agree, she should be purged from the earth.

gjs278 -1 points0 points 4 months ago[-]

lol really? you want someone killed because they submitted a link about dog food on a social networking site?

gjs278 -1 points0 points 4 months ago[-]

you couldn't see it happening? well you're wrong, so I'm downvoting you. I got downvoted for being wrong about saydrah and just saying we should wait for the facts, so fuck you, you're wrong about her not getting removed as mod in those subreddits, enjoy your rage-downvote.

ebcube 7 points8 points 4 months ago[-]

Stop calling it a witch-hunt. This whole thing is not against Saydrah, but for Reddit.

She has [for what reason I still don't know] misused her power as a moderator

We all know the reason.

privatepyle82 15 points16 points 4 months ago* [-]

Great decision and timely action neoronin. This certainly takes r/pets out of the drama and focuses on your original objective.

However, I hope that the result of this outing of her abuse of power doesn't just stop here as she moderates several subreddits. More discussion on AskReddit here:

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/bffyl/dear_askreddit_should_saydrah_be_left_alone/

Ass_monkey 16 points17 points 4 months ago[-]

Notice no bots have downvoted this submission?

You know it's bad when the bots are on our side.

Korben82 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

They depend on the system to exist. This thing even endangers the bots daily bread!

quintios 7 points8 points 4 months ago[-]

I guess what will be telling is if she continues to be a valuable member of the r/pets community.

Metallio 7 points8 points 4 months ago[-]

Of this, I am curious. Time will tell.

bluequail -1 points0 points 4 months ago[-]

Boy, I hope not. I hope she doesn't waste her time contributing to such an ungrateful bunch.

exotics 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

How the heck do Mods get removed.. I found an underused Subreddit.. with a Mod who hasnt been here for over a year.. http://www.reddit.com/r/Horses/

I would love for that person to be removed.. and replaced.. I would do a fine job.. demand better hay and more grain!

bluequail 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

Hell, we have the equus subreddit going. Do you want to mod in there? You are doing a jam-up job in livestock. :)

exotics 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

I never saw the equus one.. sure put me in!

bluequail 0 points1 point 4 months ago[-]

added!

[deleted] -1 points0 points 4 months ago[-]

Fuck yeah! Grain!

MisterSquirrel 9 points10 points 4 months ago[-]

There's no need to read her mind and find out her motivation. She can't be trusted as a moderator, simple as that.

If it was all just a "witch hunt" last time around, why do you suppose we are now finding out that this moderator has proven she can't be trusted? Mistrust is a hard thing to repair, often for good reason.

InfinitelyThirsting -4 points-3 points 4 months ago[-]

Maybe because the witch hunt really hurt her, because it was baseless, and so now, when it had finally settled down, she got accused of spam for a legit comment, she did something stupid?

Was she wrong? Yes. Was the original comment also wrong? Yes.

locuester 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

I'll volunteer. No conflict of interest at all! I work here.

:S

SonataNo8 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

I volunteer to mod if you haven't chosen anyone yet.

Guest101010 5 points6 points 4 months ago[-]

Thank you for this message. It's important that this is done for the right reasons, not for the 'witch-hunt'. If she really did abuse her moderator power, she should not be a moderator, but she should not be removed just because she answered a question with an appropriate answer that she happened to have some connection with. That's what really makes a spammer: The lack of anything constructive in the link they submit.

JewStyleKungfu 11 points12 points 4 months ago[-]

I have several problems with your comment. Let me know if any of them seem unreasonable.

I'm going to start here:

That's what really makes a spammer: The lack of anything constructive in the link they submit.

No. Spamming is not "failing to include anything constructive in your contribution." "Spam" is when you your link contains a disproportionate amount of ad-space, or your submissions are disproportionately frequent.

she should not be removed just because she answered a question

Absolutely right.

It's important that this is done for the right reasons, not for the 'witch-hunt'.

Right again. He should have paid absolutely no attention to people vehemently demanding that Saydrah be removed as a moderator. He should have listened to why they wanted her removed, he should have seen that she had a clear conflict of interest as a moderator, and he should have seen this coming.

Guest101010 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

I agree that my definition of spamming was a bit short-sighted, but that's what I think of when I think of spammers: People who post link after link referring back to their own website which offers nothing of value to the conversation/subreddit.

Imagine someone, on the other hand, who worked for a digital camera company and linked to his company's website repeatedly, but only in the correct contexts and with valuable information that adds to the discussions. Someone like that should be 'allowed' on reddit because they add value and expertise to the conversations and applicable subreddits.

As for your last point, isn't that exactly what happened? People rallied against Saydrah, she was caught abusing her mod powers, and she was removed from her position as moderator. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe this is the first time she was actually caught abusing those powers.

Thanks for the insights. Sorry if my posts aren't that cogent; I'm in desperate need of sleep.

JewStyleKungfu 4 points5 points 4 months ago[-]

Someone like that should be 'allowed' on reddit because they add value and expertise to the conversations and applicable subreddits.

I see exactly what you mean, and I agree with you. That's actually exactly how I see Saydrah. She should be a contributor, and people should consider her valuable to reddit. The only arguable problem with her is that she's given the authority to ban and unban submissions. It hurts reddit's credibility.

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe this is the first time she was actually caught abusing those powers.

I don't know of any other cases where she's clearly abused her power, but I think allowing her to be a moderator kinda set her up for this in the first place. I don't think this particular abuse of her power here had anything to do with her conflict of interest. I think the posts that she deleted hurt her pride, and her emotions got the best of her. Because she has that conflict of interest that came out a couple weeks ago, some redditors were watching her like a hawk, and they took her mistake and blew it out of proportion.

So she did get removed as a moderator, but I think it was for the wrong reason entirely, and I think all of this drama could have been avoided if the sub-reddit administration went to Saydrah when the issue came to light and discussed the situation politely with her.

exoendo 5 points6 points 4 months ago[-]

dont you see though how the "witch hunt" got it's start? it started precisely for these type of reasons resulting from the lack of character and ethics of saydrah . this is nothing new.

watermark0n 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

ZOMG I JUST RANDOMLY SAW YOUR UN I'M SO EXCITED

BTW, why do they keep calling it a witch hunt? Saydrah is like the perfect spammer. She got friendly with all the mods over all the years, and now they're all on her side. Even when they remove her for clear, obvious spamming and randomly deleting people critical of her, they do so in a conciliatory fashion. This is how corruption happens.

exoendo 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

they call it a witch hunt for god knows what reason. most of the hate directed at her is pretty justified imo

joedonut 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

I'd agree with the base of your 'motivation' comment. Too many people are using the word spam and it seems inappropriate based on a cursory examination of the thread that brought me here. I'd say the same about the last spate of Saydrah threads as well.

The term "spam" meant (and still does to many) unsolicited bulk email, where the emails are usually also substantively similar. This was later expanded to include netnews postings, and may have later expanded to substitute web forum postings as well.

This is not what I saw of Saydrah's postings. She may or may not have profited in some way (other than the warm fuzzy feelings of contributing to a community) through or by her postings. She may have engaged in astroturfing, but I don't think she was spamming.

If I were to (attempt to) apply the term of art "spam" to Reddit fora, I'd think that multiple substantively similar posts providing no content (does not advance discussion &c) or provides substantively similar content repeatedly, would be the heart of the application.

I do not think that has happened in this case, but freely admit I've made no exhaustive study.

I don't follow any forum on Reddit closely enough to have anything other than a hindsight and common-sense based view about banning Redditors, so will not comment upon that aspect of this kerfuffle.

retardcity 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

  1. Words change
  2. You and everyone else knew exactly what was meant by the word

joedonut 0 points1 point 4 months ago[-]

To your first point, yes they do. But in the instant case I think the definitions haven't changed and the distinction here may be particularly important.

To your second point, no, not at all. The use of "spam" made me go look at posts, albeit briefly. This showed me that it doesn't seem as if spam is what occurred, but rather something else.

node_n 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

Good move. How the hell did she go from such a 'community member' to someone you have to protect yourself against?

And how many people actually have their own downfall video?

"My Fuhrer... Saydrah... Saydrah has been removed as a mod from r/pets."

ad_hominem_sucks 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

Hilarious video! Much better than the actual controversy!

node_n 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

I had tears running down my cheeks when I watched it during ShitStorm I.

JewStyleKungfu 0 points1 point 4 months ago[-]

I was going to applaud the administration of /r/pets for doing the right thing and removing Saydrah's moderator powers, but after seeing your explanation I'm disappointed.

It was very clearly established, by the community, that she had a conflict of interest. At that point, I would have removed her moderator powers. Absolutely no hard feelings were necessary, despite the intensity behind what you're describing as "'off with her head' rants." There's no arguing that people were overreacting about the situation, but it's not difficult to see that there's a valid point beneath their internet-rage.

It looks like you're going out of your way here to tell the community that you deliberately ignored them and waited for her to bite you in the ass, but you're not going to pass judgment on her until you watch a video-replay of her biting you in the ass.

Keep in mind that I haven't said anything to degrade her contributions to reddit. I recognize that she's a valuable contributor. That's precisely why she shouldn't be a moderator, and yet I see most of the subreddit administrations that include her touting that as a reason that they won't remove her.

neoronin 13 points14 points 4 months ago[-]

You are wrong in your interpretation. She was doing most of the work in r/pets [which has a very small base] and I didn't see any reason for her not to continue what she was doing [which is mostly spam-filtering or releasing the occasional good links from the spam filter]

When the first controversy blew up regarding her, I seriously didn't care. What she is doing elsewhere didn't particularly affect this sub-reddit.

But I cannot accept the blatant misuse of power.

JewStyleKungfu 9 points10 points 4 months ago[-]

I'm confused.

When the first controversy blew up regarding her, I seriously didn't care. What she is doing elsewhere didn't particularly affect this sub-reddit.

Are we talking about the latest controversy, where we found out that Saydrah can actually get money for people upvoting her submissions?

If we're both talking about that controversy, then it looks like you're saying that it doesn't affect this sub-reddit to have a moderator who can get paid for people visiting the links that they provide.

Now, I'm not saying she did get paid. My objective here isn't even to accuse her of getting paid for her reddit contributions. I'm just saying that the potential to get money for banning or unbanning submissions would cause me to say, "Sorry, Saydrah, you're a valuable member of our community and I hope you don't have any hard feelings if we prefer you to just stay a contributor."

neoronin 3 points4 points 4 months ago[-]

We are talking about the only controversy that "matters now" which is her banning of comments against her.

All this talk about she getting paid for her submissions or she getting paid for upvotes was something that I didn't follow that much.

But you need to understand the potential to earn money in pets is next to nothing [if not nothing] and I do not have any hard evidence of her actually earning some money by her submissions or moderation in Pets. So why would I take any action against her?

Now that we have evidence of her blatant misuse of her powers, the fault would be with me if I didn't remove her. So I did.

JewStyleKungfu 0 points1 point 4 months ago[-]

So yes, you are actually saying that you don't think it affects this sub-reddit to have a moderator who can get paid for people visiting the links that they provide.

I respectfully and solidly disagree with you about that, but at least we understand each other now.

InfinitelyThirsting 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

Why would it matter? I'm curious to know.

She promotes good sites, not commerical shit like Iams or Science Diet. What's the problem?

JewStyleKungfu 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

I never claimed any fault with her contributions to reddit. The only problem is that she's a moderator. The record of her actions as a moderator isn't public, so neither of us would be able to cite any claims we made about her history as a moderator. To give you a fictional example, off the top of my head, of how she could subtly abuse her power and hurt the community:

A user messages the moderators of /r/pets to inform them that, unfortunately, one of his submissions was caught by the spam filter. It's a post about picking out the right dog food for your dog. She deliberately ignores the message, does a quick search of Associated Content for stories on the same topic, and within a few minutes submits a post that she can slip right past the spam filter.

I'm not standing by the feasibility of the scenario, but it outlines how it could make a difference.

The easiest thing is just to remove her politely.

Rhode 0 points1 point 4 months ago[-]

link

This is what neoronin is referring to.

JewStyleKungfu 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

Well, that was why she was removed as a moderator, but that's not the controversy I'm talking about.

I was talking about the one that blew up over this comment to Saydrah.

Rhode 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

Right, I'm tracking. This is the question you asked:

Are we talking about the latest controversy, where we found out that Saydrah can actually get money for people upvoting her submissions?

The answer to the question is No, she was not ousted as a mod because of the conflict of interest or because of profiteering, etc.... She was ousted because she inappropriately banned comments.

akkibaba 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

Ay man, you got the result you wanted in less than 24 hours. Neoronin did the right thing. Quit yer bellyaching.

JewStyleKungfu 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

If everybody quit their bellyachin, reddit wouldn't be much of a community. At least I try to make my bellyachin as clearly communicated and free of animosity as I can.

kochier 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

I'd volunteer as a mod, I know I don't spend much time in this sub-reddit now, but what a great reason to spend more time here (plus I just found this reddit a few weeks ago), I have experience moderating forums, and have failed in my attempts to start up several sub-reddits.

ContentWithOurDecay 1 point2 points 4 months ago[-]

There is no witch-hunt, Saydrah is a selfish spammer.

ReiToei 0 points1 point 4 months ago[-]

Great, now remove her from reddit.

neoronin 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

Why am I reminded of the He-Man shouting "I have the Power" in front of Castle Grayskull.

Lu-Tze 0 points1 point 4 months ago[-]

I have never been to this sub-reddit before but thanks neoronin for a very balanced and responsible stance. Hope you find a replacement moderator.

hiii 0 points1 point 4 months ago[-]

How did she become a mod of so many reddits in teh first place?

cloondog 8 points9 points 4 months ago[-]

She surfed reddit like it's her job, because, well, it was her job.

InfinitelyThirsting 2 points3 points 4 months ago[-]

By participating.

hiii 0 points1 point 4 months ago[-]

a lot of people participate.

dmightx -1 points0 points 4 months ago[-]

Or better question why?

[deleted] 0 points1 point 4 months ago[-]

Hahahahahaha!!!

Get the fuck out of here!

WOOOHHOOOO!

This is making me so wet.

Bugs_Nixon 0 points1 point 4 months ago[-]

meglet 0 points1 point 4 months ago[-]

What does someone say to get banned from a community like r/pets? I don't understand the whole ban thing in general. I looked on Reddit FAQ, maybe I missed the explanation there but I just didn't see it.

vancebs 0 points1 point 4 months ago[-]

Looks like the dogs won this battle.

cv1 -1 points0 points 4 months ago[-]

ban her

tsteele93 -1 points0 points 4 months ago[-]

ban her with fire!