For almost three weeks now I have been unable to view my comment mentions and only been abke to access messages thru manual typing the address I to the bar.
Today in my voat dev submission on the issue I accused him of the exploit and he proved it just moments ago by making a comment with my name ping in it and the deleted the comment upping my mention name icon to 10.
He has admitted before on the strike thru debacle and now he has done this shit again. I ask that @atko and @puttitout deal with this once and for all with @sanegoatiswear and his shit. It obviously didnt work with warnings.
Please can you also fix the problem.
Here is the screenshot after he deleted the message. All atko or puttitout needs to do is match the time with his submissions to the server and see he did this.
https://i.sli.mg/1o2aR0.png
view the rest of the comments →
SaneGoatiSwear ago
libel/slander is breaking u.s. law, @atko and @puttitout at what point will you hold users accountable to u.s. law? this user has consistenly committed this crime against me, with abandon.
Goater ago
No libel law can hold someone accountable for making anonymous accusations against another anonymous username.
User X saying User Y is a faggot is legally protected free speech that nothing can be done about, thankfully.
Mark A Smith, 43, saying that Tom W Jones, 37, uses sub-spec insulation in his roofing jobs, is libel that could be acted upon, again thankfully.
Memorexem ago
Yeah. No. First. Slander is spoken. In print it's libel.
If Mark a Smith said Ol'Tom Jones used subspec insulation - and he did - then there's nothing he can do. It's the truth. I can also say that I think he's a cock munching faggot, and it's still not slander because you clearly expressed an opinion.
You have to state falsehoods that you attempt to disguise as truths that affect their social standing or livelihoods. That's the difference.
Even if you do take them to court, the pressure is on you to provide proof that it caused you damage.
Goater ago
What are you trying to rebut?
I *didn't define libel or slander, my point was more to do with you can't take anonymous usernames to court.
Also, if it's written online it would be defined as print, therefore libel, so I was right in specifying just libel law.
Second, you've come to the exact conclusion that my examples were meant to provide, why do you think the extra detail in the second example was there?
Memorexem ago
Yet that points to the exact opposite? That says I can sue a person for any disparaging remarks. I was specifying to you that the statements must be untrue, not simply negative.
Then the whole him saying it, versus writing it, would be slander, not libel, etc so on so forth.