has keys to castle to ban users and sites (and has been found on one occassion to have banned a user without providing sufficient evidence (5 yt links, with a 7 minimum for ban)
has keys to castle to ban users and sites (and has been found on one occassion to have banned a user without providing sufficient evidence (5 yt links, with a 7 minimum for ban)
So, your best actual evidence of shill-ness is possibly one time when he didn't ban someone correctly? We all make mistakes in places of power. It's those that continue to make rampantly bad decisions that we need to look out for. Not someone who may have banned one guy t some point for the wrong reasons.
talks to admins off voat
codes voat
So because he contributes to Voat, he's a shill? I've talked to the admins before too. Not to the extent I suppose, but regarding certain issues before. Does that make me a shill?
Let's do the same for you, real quick:
Is really annoying and posts obnoxious stuff all over voat
staunchly pushes his own agenda on others, forcing everyone to put up with him
makes grandiose claims (not all of which are wrong), but often fails to source his statements.
Man, you're not looking so good you shill...
I'm not saying you're actually a shill, but if you use this same logic against yourself you come out as a big shill.
i'm glad someone's taking my 30 second off-the-top-of-my-head response to task
no really, wait for the mega post. you heard it here second.
yeah bro no worries "he was gonna post more," or "he did post more i just didn't cap the rest of the yt links"
sure. i have a higher standard in mind for the fucker that can ban users with near no oversight from the entire site
because he contributes
first of all, she.
second of all, these are just circumstantial. because someone was standing at a bank robbery doesn't make them an accessory of course not. why would you presume me to be making such a statement?
let's do the same for you
that's quite a different thing you got there. not the same at all.
point out disinformation tactics or fallacies i use, and that i do it consistently, then you can call me a shill. because then i would be shilling.
also
what agenda?
the truth?
that is an idea
not an agenda.
get your baseless personal attacks right, oh blind one.
view the rest of the comments →
OhBlindOne ago
I've never really had an issue with what you post, but @Cynabuns is not a shill and does not deserve to be called out.
SaneGoatiSwear ago
runs in the circles of known sjws
runs in the circles of known shills against voat
talks to admins off voat
codes voat
has keys to castle to ban users and sites (and has been found on one occassion to have banned a user without providing sufficient evidence (5 yt links, with a 7 minimum for ban)
conversely
has warned about malicious attacks against voat
notified voat of henrycorp
participated in stopping a rogue v/politics mod
... do you want me to go on?
mafia bosses
raped and tortured and murdered the innocent
gave lots of money and aid to the other innocent
so there's an argument there that cynabuns and mafia bosses are good people.
sure.
OhBlindOne ago
So, your best actual evidence of shill-ness is possibly one time when he didn't ban someone correctly? We all make mistakes in places of power. It's those that continue to make rampantly bad decisions that we need to look out for. Not someone who may have banned one guy t some point for the wrong reasons.
So because he contributes to Voat, he's a shill? I've talked to the admins before too. Not to the extent I suppose, but regarding certain issues before. Does that make me a shill?
Let's do the same for you, real quick:
Is really annoying and posts obnoxious stuff all over voat
staunchly pushes his own agenda on others, forcing everyone to put up with him
makes grandiose claims (not all of which are wrong), but often fails to source his statements.
Man, you're not looking so good you shill...
I'm not saying you're actually a shill, but if you use this same logic against yourself you come out as a big shill.
SaneGoatiSwear ago
i'm glad someone's taking my 30 second off-the-top-of-my-head response to task
no really, wait for the mega post. you heard it here second.
yeah bro no worries "he was gonna post more," or "he did post more i just didn't cap the rest of the yt links"
sure. i have a higher standard in mind for the fucker that can ban users with near no oversight from the entire site
first of all, she.
second of all, these are just circumstantial. because someone was standing at a bank robbery doesn't make them an accessory of course not. why would you presume me to be making such a statement?
that's quite a different thing you got there. not the same at all.
point out disinformation tactics or fallacies i use, and that i do it consistently, then you can call me a shill. because then i would be shilling.
also
what agenda?
the truth?
that is an idea
not an agenda.
get your baseless personal attacks right, oh blind one.