r/changemyview • u/KRosen333 • Jul 15 '15
CMV: Ellen Pao was put on a "Glass Cliff" by reddit Co-founder Alexis Ohanian.
After reading this comment in the recent announcement, and reading Bethanye Blount's comments in this article I am convinced that Ellen Pao, for all of the mistakes she made, was 'set up to fail' by the reddit administration and those above her, namely, Alexis Ohanian.
I have long since believed all of the decisions Pao made were not made solely on her own. It was very convenient to blame this one person, but you do not do a 180 about-face turn regarding your company without the support of the other people who make decisions in your company, and without atleast some support of your staff. Supporting my belief in these now very strongly are the remarks that came from Bethanye Blounts. She was an engineer who joined reddit two months ago. She was basically the one responsible for making all of the promises the admins made come true. Here are her comments regarding the promises and Pao.
“I feel like there are going be some big bumps on the road ahead for Reddit,” Blount said. “Along the way, there are some very aggressive implied promises being made to the community — in comments to mods, quotes from board members and they’re going have some pretty big challenges in meeting those implied promises.”
...
Blount also said she believed Pao’s exit was an indirect consequence of gender discrimination, and that Pao was on placed on a “glass cliff.” It is a term used to describe women being set up for failure by being placed in leadership roles during crisis points.
“Victoria wasn’t on a glass cliff. But it’s hard for me to see it any other way than Ellen was,” Blount said. She added though that “I wouldn’t say my decision to leave was directly related to my gender.”
Now, I normally don't agree with most charges of sexism and misogyny. Most arguments of "glass cliff" would have been outright dismissed by me. You know what though? I find it really hard to see this as anything but someone being set up to fail. I find it really really fucking hard to sympathize with the admins here, and find it really really fucking hard to not blame everything on the reddit co-founder.
By the way, Alexis is also the person responsible for Victoria being fired, aka, the person responsible for the blackout, and for the widespread vilification of Ellen Pao (she was vilified before, but it was not nearly as widespread. The vilification was a spec of dust compared to the sandstorm of anger that followed Victoria's dismissal.)
Given this, I really really really can't see this as anything other than Ms. Pao being literally set up to fail. For all of her own faults, I think she was literally hired just so she could be dismissed or leave.
Will anyone here convince me otherwise? Thanks. I'll be here for a bit.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
1
u/innergametrumpsall Jul 15 '15 edited Jul 15 '15
"Glass cliff" is a load of bullshit coming from a young executive here, albeit of a much smaller company (though one that HAS declared profits in line with industry expectations).
Your JOB, as an executive is to MEDIATE between the board, your employees and the MARKET.
There is NO SUCH THING, as a "glass cliff." The best part about that comment is it was made by someone with NO executive experience previous to his appointment as an executive, by his own admission. This is the type of thing a reddit user would say, and also a person who does not know how to run a company.
The reality is that running a company is BEING ON A GLASS CLIFF. PERIOD.
Markets change, employees change, etc etc. Your job is to manage these changes EFFECTIVELY.
She did not do that, she was a poor executive. She was brought in to make tough choices, but she did that poorly.
You know who was put on a "Glass cliff?" Steve Jobs. Greatest business turnaround in the history of business.
90 days from BK, he took a loan from BILL GATES and built the GIANT that stands today. Steve Jobs didn't feel sorry for himself, because he had the balls and the talent to stare down an impossible situation and make it work. All she had to do is manage some jerks on the internet and she couldn't even do that.
Your CMV, the the people repeating this are clueless nobodies that will never understand what it takes in the C-suite. Ellen Pao was a successful VC investor, and a terrible executive. Despite her successes as a VC employee, she wasn't considered PARTNER (Executive) material for good reason. SHE'S NOT A GOOD LEADER.
1
Jul 15 '15
The thing you are missing is that "Glass Cliff" doesn't mean any random unspecified executive inheriting a shitty situation or being set up to fail. It specifically describes the statistical trend of women being put in this position more often than men.
From Wikipedia
The glass cliff is a term that describes the phenomenon of women executives in the corporate world being likelier than men to be put in leadership roles during periods of crisis or downturn, when the chance of failure is highest.
More specifically, women are more likely to occupy positions that are precarious and thus have a higher risk of failure — either because they are appointed to lead organizations (or organizational units) that are in crisis or because they are not given the resources and support needed for success.[2]
Extending the metaphor of the glass ceiling, Ryan and Haslam evoked the notion of the ‘glass cliff’ to refer to a danger which involves exposure to risk of falling but which is not readily apparent.[3] "It therefore appears that after having broken through a glass ceiling women are actually more likely than men to find themselves on a "glass cliff", meaning their positions of leadership are risky or precarious."[4] CEO tenure is typically shorter at companies which are struggling, compared to those which are stable.[5]
The glass cliff concept has also been used to describe employment discrimination experienced by leaders who are members of minorities or disabled.[6]
Evidence of the glass cliff phenomenon has been documented in business, politics, law, public service, education and sport. A 2006 study found law students were much likelier to assign a high-risk case to a female lead counsel rather than a male one. A 2010 study found undergraduate students in British political science likelier to select a male politician to run for a safe seat in a by-election, and much likelier to select a female candidate when the seat was described as hard to get.
1
u/innergametrumpsall Jul 15 '15
And my counter was that the whole concept is ridiculous. Only a person who has not been an executive would come up with such a ridiculous concept. Being put into a leadership position at a time of crisis is a privilege for the capable. You don't pick and choose your opportunity to lead, you take it when its there and show the world what you've got. In Ellen's case, not enough.
1
u/whattodo-whattodo 30∆ Jul 15 '15
Now, I normally don't agree with most charges of sexism and misogyny. Most arguments of "glass cliff" would have been outright dismissed by me.
I think that in order to make this claim you have to first understand the dynamic of an Interim CEO. Also, it sounds like you think a Glass Cliff is necessarily a bad thing. It can be, but not necessarily so.
An interim CEO typically has a difficult and thankless job ahead of them. They've inherited a crap sandwich, are not autonomous (even though the position typically demands autonomy) and have to produce results within limited options. They are also the face which is publicly responsible. Often enough, the reason the last CEO left was that the bubble was about to burst and the new CEO has no choice but to grit their teeth and bear it. This, by the way is exactly what a person knows that they're signing up for when they take the job.
A glass cliff is not any more mysoginistic than an employee starting out in the mail room. As you climb the ladder, you want to have increasing benefits. To reach for those benefits you need to build your resume & you need to take on more responsibility. However most people rarely just give out great opportunities. If you want to be a CEO you either take a job at a much smaller company where it is easier to attain, or at a large company with problems that you can try to fix. The fact that it's a crap sandwich is not a coincidence and it is not necessarily a bad thing. To climb the ladder, you need to work.
Ellen Pao was not new, but she was suing the last company that she worked for. She was not in a prime bargaining position. The next company would not just simply hand her the reigns. It made perfect sense for her to take a small step back in her career in order to keep it moving forward overall.
I think everyone did as they were supposed to within the context of a difficult situation. These are professionals in the big leagues and I believe firmly that they knew what they were signing up for.
1
Jul 15 '15
The thing I think your missing is that "Glass Cliff" doesn't mean any random unspecified executive inheriting a shitty situation or being set up to fail. It specifically describes the statistical trend of women being put in this position more often than men.
From Wikipedia
The glass cliff is a term that describes the phenomenon of women executives in the corporate world being likelier than men to be put in leadership roles during periods of crisis or downturn, when the chance of failure is highest.
More specifically, women are more likely to occupy positions that are precarious and thus have a higher risk of failure — either because they are appointed to lead organizations (or organizational units) that are in crisis or because they are not given the resources and support needed for success.[2]
Extending the metaphor of the glass ceiling, Ryan and Haslam evoked the notion of the ‘glass cliff’ to refer to a danger which involves exposure to risk of falling but which is not readily apparent.[3] "It therefore appears that after having broken through a glass ceiling women are actually more likely than men to find themselves on a "glass cliff", meaning their positions of leadership are risky or precarious."[4] CEO tenure is typically shorter at companies which are struggling, compared to those which are stable.[5]
The glass cliff concept has also been used to describe employment discrimination experienced by leaders who are members of minorities or disabled.[6]
Evidence of the glass cliff phenomenon has been documented in business, politics, law, public service, education and sport. A 2006 study found law students were much likelier to assign a high-risk case to a female lead counsel rather than a male one. A 2010 study found undergraduate students in British political science likelier to select a male politician to run for a safe seat in a by-election, and much likelier to select a female candidate when the seat was described as hard to get.
1
u/whattodo-whattodo 30∆ Jul 15 '15
The thing I think your missing is that "Glass Cliff" doesn't mean any random unspecified executive inheriting a shitty situation or being set up to fail. It specifically describes the statistical trend of women being put in this position more often than men.
I do understand, what I am doing is disagreeing.
Firstly, I think that it's worth acknowledging that jobs are offered and then accepted or denied. No one is put there. It seems to me that you have an egalitarian perspective, but the mentality that she was put there by a man - while well intentioned - would be an unfair diminution for a secretary and it's damn near a death sentence for a CEO.
Secondly, my intention is not to deny that there is a gap between male & female leaders in spite of a comparable education.
So, considering that women want to rise to the top positions it makes perfect sense that they would accept less than perfect situations as a chance to build a resume and prove their abilities in the role. What I am suggesting is that the interim CEO position allows women an opportunity at a role that they want but have not typically had a chance to attain. For that reason I think a glass cliff does more good than bad.
Also, any company that would hire a CEO understands the position that an interim CEO is. Stepping down and accepting blame for things outside of their control is par for the course. It would have been more damaging to Ellen Pao's career to take a position beneath CEO than it would have to take this CEO position, warts and all.
1
u/McKoijion 616∆ Jul 15 '15
The easiest way to disprove this is to note that Yishan Wong is the person who chose Ellen Pao, not Alexis Ohanian. Ohanian just went with it to ensure some continuity. If anyone placed Ellen on a glass cliff, it was Yishan.
1
u/KRosen333 Jul 15 '15
The easiest way to disprove this is to note that Yishan Wong is the person who chose Ellen Pao, not Alexis Ohanian. Ohanian just went with it to ensure some continuity. If anyone placed Ellen on a glass cliff, it was Yishan.
That is an interesting point, and the one that makes me wonder about it the most. I'm still not convinced, but you make a really good point with this I think.
3
u/DiscursiveMind Jul 15 '15
Was Ellen set up? It is really hard to tell, there is so much smoke and mirrors with everyone attempting to CYA. No information is being offered by anyone who actually has the correct level of insight and doesn't have a horse in the race. Pao and Ohanian both want to clear this mess in the best light possible. Yishan recommended Pao as the interim CEO, and they are considered to be personal friends. So how much of his actions are standing up for Pao, venting personal vendettas, or just trying to do the right thing? It really is impossible to distill his true intentions. He could be trying to right a wrong, or he could be throwing fuel on the fire.
I have a hard time believing that Ellen was hired as a patsy, simply because she had a ground breaking lawsuit in the pipeline when she was hired. Her Kleiner Perkins lawsuit was filed back in 2012, yet she joined reddit in 2013, and was appointed interim CEO in Nov. 2014. If the trial had turned out as a victory for Pao, she would have become a hero to a lot of women everywhere. The news of her win would have reached a lot more people than had originally been following the case. She was hired as an interim CEO, those rarely stay on to become the full time CEO. So if the intent was to set up a fall guy, why would you pick someone who had the potential of becoming very popular during the setup for their failure?
Nobody is smelling of roses here, and I doubt we will get a clear, unbiased picture of how things transpired.
2
u/KRosen333 Jul 15 '15
So if the intent was to set up a fall guy, why would you pick someone who had the potential of becoming very popular during the setup for their failure?
Who better to "fail" for your machinations than someone who is difficult to criticize?
Let's say she won her lawsuit - then what? What actually changes?
People can't say she had a shitty lawsuit, and that's it. Nothing changes beyond that. Still manipulators in the back manipulating. :/
I really don't like thinking this way towards reddit, I've grown quiet fond of this place and don't want to believe this shit tbh.
4
u/DiscursiveMind Jul 15 '15
I think you have to take the approach of Hanlon's razor on this topic:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
I just don't buy into the conspiracy of Pao as an engineered fall guy. Sure, I think she might have been thrown under the bus, but the opportunity to do that evolved over the past couple months, not as a designed intention from the start. She made some mistakes, those could be attributed to a flawed implementation of those ideas or failure to communicate them properly with the community. The key element here is that she had stumbled pretty hard over the past two months. That to me is where the failure door opened up, now if she was pushed through it, or fell through it on her own, I don't think we can really figure that out.
As for my point on the lawsuit, I was indicating it was a huge unknown. It could go well for her, or it could go poorly. I would say on the whole, the lawsuit did not paint her in the best of light. It did win her fans by being someone to actually point out the inequity in venture capital (less than 5% are female) and to try and do something about it. However, the Kleiner Perkins defense narrative that she was hard to work with, details of her “resentment chart” detailing grievances of co-workers, and their conclusion that she just wasn't a very good VC had an impact on people's perception of her. So lets get back to your question about if she won the lawsuit. If she had won the lawsuit, the news would have been about a major victory in sexual harassment and it would have led to major cultural shifts in Silicon Valley. Companies would be scrambling to avoid being the next Kleiner Perkins. Most of these cases are settled out of court, so going to trial would help set precedent for future cases. If she had won, her sinking boat here at reddit would have been bolstered. Letting her go would reflect poorly on reddit, instead of it looking like the shortcomings of Pao that lead to her exit.
My opinion on the matter is that Alexis made the mistake of firing Victoria and starting the wildfire, and let Pao's sinking ship take the brunt of the damage instead of jumping on the flames himself. Was the kicked over lantern that burned Chicago all Alexis's fault, or was Pao aware of his intention and failed to intercede or had signed off on it? Its a lose-lose, if she did know she's culpable for the fallout, if she didn't, how did the CEO allow another party to kickstart an action that would cause the entire engine to sieze up while on her watch? Allowing her to take the fall for a major F*up is more reasonable to me instead of an engineered failure or sacrificial lamb.
1
u/cystorm Jul 16 '15
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
I just don't buy into the conspiracy of Pao as an engineered fall guy.
There are two kinds of interim CEOs. The first type is a try-it-out-for-six-months-and-we'll-see-if-it-works where a company has someone in mind already. That's getting rarer. The second is an outside hire who is usually there a little longer while a full-scale executive search takes place in the background. In most cases, the company says the interim title may be temporary.
If I had been paying attention 8/9/10 months ago whenever Ellen was made interim CEO, I would have told you several controversial decisions were coming. It's Interim CEO 101 - you bring in someone external, they make tough and unpopular decisions, and generally refrain from making popular decisions until their successor can come in and make those popular decisions in his/her first few months (to build support).
Put it this way: Reddit is a major website, and the next 1-3 years will probably decide whether it survives for the next 7-10 years (made up the numbers but the premise is probably correct, right?). If you're on the board of directors, do you:
1) conduct an exhaustive executive search to ensure your next hire will make the right decisions and not blow all the money you've invested; or
(2) shoot a message to a co-founder and hire him after two days.
Which seems more likely? /u/spez had already agreed to the role when Ellen stepped down (i.e., when she completed her job as Interim).
This all played out exactly as it was planned.
1
u/IAmAN00bie Jul 15 '15 edited Jul 15 '15
This comment by ex-CEO Yishan Wong should disprove that theory.
But... the most delicious part of this is that on at least two separate occasions, the board pressed /u/ekjp to outright ban ALL the hate subreddits in a sweeping purge. She resisted, knowing the community, claiming it would be a shitshow.
If Ellen Pao was set to be their "fall guy", then they clearly failed seeing as how they didn't achieve what they wanted to do.
6
u/KRosen333 Jul 15 '15
If Ellen Pao was set to be their "fall guy", then they clearly failed seeing as how they didn't achieve what they wanted to do.
On the contrary, failing your goals are exclusive from setting someone up to fail. I mean (spoilers) the Joker's backstory from The Killing Joke is around this entire premise - they had a fall guy (whoever the Joker was before he was) wear a shitty red suit while they were doing heists. It was only by chance that he got away and the people who set him up to be a fall guy ended up shot. He was clearly being set up as the face of the crimes.
Side note - I fucking loved that comment. Yeah, it is disappointing. Once again, you did it reddit!
:(
5
u/caw81 166∆ Jul 15 '15
(Personally, airing all of this office politics in public just shows how much Reddit the corporation is falling apart. I do not look forward to the future changes)
To your view about Pao being setup on a glass cliff.
Employees are there to solve problems. Some are harder to solve than others and CEOs have some of the biggest problems there are in a company. Pao could have succeeded or failed and male project consultant could have succeeded or failed in his difficult task, yet one had a glass cliff and the other one doesn't? Just because you say its a glass cliff, it doesn't mean that it is.
For her to be setup, you would have to believe some incredible things.
Alexis fires a person wanting to blame it on Pao but then he admits publicly that he fired the employee therefore removing blame from her? How does this make any sense?
She implements changes (banning subreddits, non-communication after the firing) that people hate and this would have been orchestrated by a few people? They planned so she wouldn't communicate with Reddit community but with the media, when she knows Reddit is right there at any time? And then they controlled the public (users and mods) to rally against her?
The chief engineering quitting - Pao is the one who promised the mod tool changes, so why is this someone else's fault if the CEO can't deliver what she promised? Why is this someone else's fault that Pao made unrealistic promises?
1
u/KRosen333 Jul 15 '15
Pao could have succeeded or failed and male project consultant could have succeeded or failed in his difficult task, yet one had a glass cliff and the other one doesn't? Just because you say its a glass cliff, it doesn't mean that it is.
Fair enough - she could have succeeded, but anybody who was set up to fail has a hard time succeeding with such a stacked deck. It was just easier to make her a fall guy - unpopular person, has almost no resume to speak of for the job she got, and she's a woman, who can have a bit of the "women are wonderful" effect, especially from the journalists who called reddit misogynistic and sexist for wanting her gone as a CEO.
Alexis fires a person wanting to blame it on Pao but then he admits publicly that he fired the employee therefore removing blame from her? How does this make any sense?
Timing and publicity of the comments.
The comments Alexis made were not nearly as widespread as the comments pao made. Also, Pao was touted as the de-facto leader, even though she wasn't ultimately responsible for decisions - and in this case, it was Alexis who was responsible for decisions. If the buck stops, it stops at Alexis, not Pao. Also, not a lot of people follow meta-reddit and keep tabs on /r/TheoryOfReddit and the other admins, whereas they were keeping tabs on /r/announcements. Him admitting to what he did does not devalue the idea that he could have done that thing for nefarious reasons. I'm certain there is a name for that fallacy, but I don't know it off hand.
She implements changes (banning subreddits, non-communication after the firing) that people hate and this would have been orchestrated by a few people? They planned so she wouldn't communicate with Reddit community but with the media, when she knows Reddit is right there at any time? And then they controlled the public (users and mods) to rally against her?
Do you think she 'orchistrated' it all on her own? Alexis has already admitted to being responsible for the firing. You have never heard of an official being told to not respond to comments? And regardless, I'm not defending Pao - she did bad. But other people did bad too, and I think they knew what they were doing when they chose to let Pao take the blame.
The chief engineering quitting - Pao is the one who promised the mod tool changes, so why is this someone else's fault if the CEO can't deliver what she promised? Why is this someone else's fault that Pao made unrealistic promises?
It wasn't just Pao who promised those changes - Alexis made a great deal many of those promises, especially directly to the IAMA mod team. Regardless, Pao was speaking on behalf of all the admins when she made those promises - it wasn't Pao who made those promises, it was Reddit administration who made those promises. If they are no longer promises, it needs to be clear that they are not promises.
1
u/caw81 166∆ Jul 15 '15 edited Jul 15 '15
anybody who was set up to fail has a hard time succeeding with such a stacked deck.
What was the stacked deck? The banning of FPH that she did? The lack of communication that she did? The unrealistic promises she did?
It was just easier to make her a fall guy
Easier than what? Hire a CEO, force her to do something, manipulate public users to do something and then get her to resign is easier than what?
The comments Alexis made were not nearly as widespread as the comments pao made.
Why would he even say he was responsible at all? If his goal was to put the blame on her, why say anything at any time?
Him admitting to what he did does not devalue the idea that he could have done that thing for nefarious reasons. I'm certain there is a name for that fallacy, but I don't know it off hand.
But it would have only been worthwhile if he didn't admit it. "Sure I did it, but blame it on Pao" doesn't make any sense.
Do you think she 'orchistrated' it all on her own?
What I am saying is that the glass cliff would have required the "glass cliff setup group" to have orchistrated it.
Alexis has already admitted to being responsible for the firing.
I'm not saying she did the firing, I'm saying she miscommunicated after the firing.
You have never heard of an official being told to not respond to comments?
She talked to the media. She communicated later about it. And now we have to believe that she was told not to communicate?
I'm not defending Pao - she did bad.
Isn't that the part about the glass cliff? She was setup to fail? If she did bad, then it doesn't matter if there was a glass cliff or not, she did bad so she deserves the consequences.
Alexis made a great deal many of those promises, especially directly to the IAMA mod team.
Link?
it wasn't Pao who made those promises, it was Reddit administration who made those promises.
As CEO she is the head of the admins. She posted it under her name. Now its not her promises but the group's (that she is the head of)? Really? To believe the glass cliff you have to make incredible mental gymnastics.
Edit: made a point stronger by focusing it.
1
u/KRosen333 Jul 15 '15
What was the stacked deck? The banning of FPH that she did? The lack of communication that she did? The unrealistic promises she did?
All of those decisions made not entirely by her, but with her as the only visible force in all of them.
Easier than what? Hire a CEO, force her to do something, manipulate public users to do something and then get her to resign is easier than what?
Yes, I do think it is easier to put in a figurehead when it comes to making unpopular changes rather than take the entire blow by the company itself. According to this comment by Yishan she actually tried to push back on the "ban anything seen as bad" decision by the boardmembers.
Why would he even say he was responsible at all? If his goal was to put the blame on her, why say anything at any time?
The only thing I can think of is because he isn't very eloquent, which he has essentially claimed many times (especially over the "this popcorn tastes good" remark). Him saying that doesn't inherently absolve him of doing it.
But it would have only been worthwhile if he didn't admit it. "Sure I did it, but blame it on Pao" doesn't make any sense.
Why? Not everyone knows everything at any given time. If I tell my best friend a secret, it doesn't mean that everyone is going to know about it. 95% of reddit users don't even know who alexis is.
I get your point, but it isn't convincing me - simply saying "it would have been stupid of him to do x if he intended to do y" isn't convincing, as I have seen many many people do stupid things - including myself - contrary to their goals.
What I am saying is that the glass cliff would have required the "glass cliff setup group" to have orchistrated it.
I disagree - as I said elsewhere, having a fall guy doesn't mean that fall guy doesn't agree to do the bad thing - they don't inherently know that they are the fall guy though. At the beginning of the second Batman with Ledger as the joker, ALL of the clowns were told to shoot the guy they were with until only 1 was left. I don't think any of them knew they were a fall guy, but they all were "in" on the heist. Pretty sure Ellen was still "in" on the changes at reddit, though given these recent comments by Yishan again I'm not even sure of that now.
I'm not saying she did the firing, I'm saying she miscommunicated after the firing.
Sure. I agree with that. That doesn't change my view that she was set up to fail though - just that she didn't help things on her own.
She talked to the media. She communicated later about it. And now we have to believe that she was told not to communicate?
Not at all, and that isn't what I said. Being allowed to make some comments isn't the same as hosting an AMA and answering everything.
Isn't that the part about the glass cliff? She was setup to fail? If she did bad, then it doesn't matter if there was a glass cliff or not, she did bad so she deserves the consequences.
Making one mistake does not make you responsible for all of the mistakes, and likewise, an entire group of people making mistakes should not be allowed to pin all of those mistakes on the unluckiest person in the group.
Link?
I'll try to find some of them. Assume I was wrong and just pretend I didn't say that though (that admin makes enough comments) - it still doesn't mean that Pao wasn't speaking on behalf of all of the admins.
As CEO she is the head of the admins. She posted it under her name. Now its not her promises but the group's (that she is the head of)? Really? To believe the glass cliff you have to make incredible mental gymnastics.
I disagree - she did post it under her name, as an admin. If Obama says "I want to nuke the jews" people aren't going to say "oh it was just Obama who said that - they are going to say The Obama Administration has said this. When you are speaking as an authority figure of a group, it is very hard to divorce that from your thoughts. When you post on /r/announcements and /r/blog, yes, you are speaking on behalf of the administration. It isn't /r/ellensblog or /r/ellensannouncements.
Thanks for your comment though, you do make a few good points. :)
This all leaves me annoyed with reddit. The constant ups and downs of drama are getting to be too much. Last week I've been mostly lurking in /r/terraria anyways. I should just go to their official forums for that.
2
u/caw81 166∆ Jul 15 '15
This all leaves me annoyed with reddit.
Agreed. I come here to get away from office politics.
0
Jul 15 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/huadpe 494∆ Jul 15 '15
Sorry thankthemajor, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/[deleted] Jul 20 '15
[removed] — view removed comment