There is a saying here in Costa Rica, "No one is a 100 USD bill to be liked by everyone", but we can all agree on a peaceful coexistence at Voat

There is a saying here in Costa Rica, "No one is a 100 USD bill to be liked by everyone", but we can all agree on a peaceful coexistence at Voat (ProtectVoat)

submitted 5.4 years ago by sguevar

I know many of you don't like my postings regarding my faith and many of you don't like me perse for being so obnoxious to you regarding it, and yet I have managed to keep a more open mind than those that criticise my faith for leaving their choices between them and God.

That said, I have always looked for a more objective approach on many conflicts I have seen here at Voat and I have always tried to defend those that I think deserve to be, specially under false accusations thrown by others. I may not know them face to face but I have come to appreciate their online persona in a personal level.

I respect many of you and appreciate your efforts in keeping this community growing through your respective subverses, in keeping this community safe with denouncing the ill intentions of other users that come here to attack our credibility and our freedom to express ourselves. But always with proofs and evidence of said matters.

I may not like certain users here, but I will not look to accuse them of any wrong doing to the community for expressing their own views. And we all have a right to say it as well as to express our opinion on other users' views.

I have always argued against the use of alts for it leads to dishonest behavior. I will always be against using them even when myself have been falsely accused of using alts as a way to discredit my views and opinions. That said, I know for a fact that those that tend to throw said tantrums at me are basically projecting what they are doing themselves. Why? Because differently to what I have done, they are unable to prove such accusation.

There is no proof of such thing, at least with me and the admin of this site can investigate and see that is the case. The only thing that he can see is that my IP addresses change due to work related matters (VPN at work), my phone and my computer at home.

So as I once said to someone here that accused me of engaging in what he probably was doing: The one that owes nothing, fears nothing.

I am tired of watching this drama getting out of hand. Which drama you may ask? Well I am talking about the drama between v/GreatAwakening, v/SBBH and even the one created by our own admin @Puttitout regarding his builder and destroyer posts that have come to not do what he intended. As while he recognizes certain builders of this site, one of which I am reluctant to see as a builder as he passes his time to delete posts and comments to avoid being seen as the full of shit he is and to create a manipulative online persona with ill intentions, he argues that those that downvoted his post are considered destroyers themselves for downvoting it. Well my dear admin, I publicly admit that I downvoted your post for such implication you did and because of the fact that I disagree with at least one of your recognitions there. If for that you consider me a destroyer, then so be it. But I honestly couldn't care less your consideration on said matter.

Now this doesn't mean that I do not appreciate the effort that you put in this site Puttitout. But even when I do so, I will still keep a critical eye to your labour because it has to be put on check sometimes. This so your labour can improve and benefit the community in a whole as you have intended many times but in some occasions have failed to do so.

No one is perfect and no one can pursue perfection, we can only strive to be the best we can be in hope to see the positive results of our actions not for our own gain but for the gain of Voat itself as a community.

My call for a review on a certain ban that I feel in me happen unjustly and unjustified have not been answered. u/Obrez doesn't strike me as an ill intended user. He doesn't strike me either as a user that cares for having alts and hence I do have to put a respectful demand on the evidence that justifies his ban or that he is reinstated to Voat's community and the vote manipulation badge removed from his profile.

I have learned that even if many of you do not hold dear my faith in your side you know that I wish you no ill and you have come to respect me as I have come to respect you. This is because I am no judge of anyone and will never be. When I share the Word of God know that my intention is not to judge you but if you feel that I am, know that I am not. Your judge, to my eyes will be God and only God, hence His Word can pass judgement to you. My duty is to defend it and share It's truth. Your choices are yours only and I will not impose anything differently for I leave them between you and God.

I will however express my disappointing on some users that I thought wouldn't engage in the use of alts and yet new evidence has come forward showing that they do. I will obviously leave the choice to said users if they want to keep on using them or not, but I will strongly recommend that the use of alts doesn't do them any good as they attack their own credibility by having them.

I will defend SBBH of accusations that they are cancer to Voat because I know they are not. I may not agree with some of their owners but I do not see them as a cancer subverse for I think that a good ole' trolling is necessary to strengthen the skin of some Voat users that are too delicate and new users for that matter.

I will defend GreatAwakening because they have a right to manage their sub as they see fit respecting of course the global rules of Voat and hence applying bans when they are justified and and with evidence of the matter: Repeat disrespect to their sub rules and Voat's rules also.

So I do defend their right to defend themselves from the effort of some of the SBBH to attack them. As I defend the right of the SBBH community to say they don't respect them in their own sub. Both sides need to learn some restraint in the way they are engaging this deal and know that in the end they are due to coexist in Voat's community.

In conclusion I propose that from now on, whether on private or public subverses when a ban is going to be applied it has to be done with a previous post showing the evidence that justify said ban:

The repetition of the offenses.
The sending of warnings of cease and desist.
All links and screenshots must be archived to prevent editing or deletion from the users proven to engage in ill behavior that earned their ban.
A user accused of said behavior has also a right to contest it so an open channel must be opened for the appeal and a promptive response must be given within a certain period - 24 to 48 business hours.

This must also be applied to Voat's global bans. So, Puttitout, if you find this to be way too much work for you please find users that you know that will be objective and you trust that can assist you on said matter so this can be handle better and you can decentralize the banning process.

Is time to put this to rest and move on.

52 comments

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

MadWorld 5.4 years ago

he argues that those that downvoted his post are considered destroyers themselves for downvoting it.

No, I believe he said that those downvoters also happened to be the vote manipulators, to which those names were already obtained, as the outcome of his detection algorithm. In other words, those were the vote manipulators. What you just said could be misinterpreted as if the action of downvoting that submission caused the labelling of destroyers.

Well my dear admin, I publicly admit that I downvoted your post for such implication you did and because of the fact that I disagree with at least one of your recognitions there. If for that you consider me a destroyer, then so be it. But I honestly couldn't care less your consideration on said matter.

I thought about it afterwards, and I agree with you in that Putt should not have looked at who downvoted that submission. He shoud not have done it outside of the administrative reasons, such as investigation of potential vote manipulation. Votes are sacred to us. In this case, his curiosity has created a minor fear among the voters. This played right into the hands of those who have sought to destroy Voat. So those real enemies will be using this as attack vector to drive other users away from Voat.

Now this doesn't mean that I do not appreciate the effort that you put in this site Puttitout. But even when I do so, I will still keep a critical eye to your labour because it has to be put on check sometimes. This so your labour can improve and benefit the community in a whole as you have intended many times but in some occasions have failed to do so.

I think Putt should define the boundaries that he should not cross. So when other factors, such as emotion and curiosity, are overdriving his brain, he can go through the check list and refrain from making spontaneous decisions... It sucks to be an admin, especially for the one who has the principle to do the right thing.

I will however express my disappointing on some users that I thought wouldn't engage in the use of alts and yet new evidence has come forward showing that they do.

In this drama, I think the reason for the use of alts to shitpost was to separate the main accounts that have to uphold their integrity and the perception of certain public image, and the alts that can be used to fully express themselves without damaging the image of the main accounts.

I will defend SBBH of accusations that they are cancer to Voat because I know they are not.

There are good goats on the SBBH list; however, there are also accounts that look suspicious.

So I do defend their right to defend themselves from the effort of some of the SBBH to attack them. As I defend the right of the SBBH community to say they don't respect them in their own sub. Both sides need to learn some restraint in the way they are engaging this deal and know that in the end they are due to coexist in Voat's community.

If everyone would adhere to the subverse's rules and stick to the boundaries, those dramas would have being greatly minimized. Having said that, both the regular users and the mods should stand by the rules, no exceptions. And before a particular user is banned, mods should reflect on the subverse rules, without letting their emotions determine the outcome...

In conclusion I propose that from now on, whether on private or public subverses when a ban is going to be applied it has to be done with a previous post showing the evidence that justify said ban...

I think we have discussed this topic sometime back, somewhere around the time before that @bob333 deleted his account. But nothing came of it...

link

sguevar 5.4 years ago

I think Putt should define the boundaries that he should not cross. So when other factors, such as emotion and curiosity, are overdriving his brain, he can go through the check list and refrain from making spontaneous decisions... It sucks to be an admin, especially for the one who has the principle to do the right thing.

I agree with you there. He needs help to do so. There is nothing wrong with asking for it.

In this drama, I think the reason for the use of alts to shitpost was to separate the main accounts that have to uphold their integrity and the perception of certain public image, and the alts that can be used to fully express themselves without damaging the image of the main accounts.

I disagree with you here. Even if your description of their intent is correct, context is everything. Shitposting with the same account on a context in which shitposting is in order should not inflict in an account's credibility. and @srayzie and @shizy should be entitled to shitpost as to post credible posts in their subs and others with the same account.

Those that take the content out of context can easily be proven full of shit afterwards and actually builds up an account's credibility.

There are good goats on the SBBH list; however, there are also accounts that look suspicious.

I also agree with this.

If everyone would adhere to the subverse's rules and stick to the boundaries, those dramas would have being greatly minimized. Having said that, both the regular users and the mods should stand by the rules, no exceptions. And before a particular user is banned, mods should reflect on the subverse rules, without letting their emotions determine the outcome...

True but now we are faced with dealing with the matter with a different approach.

I think we have discussed this topic sometime back, somewhere around the time before that @bob333 deleted his account. But nothing came of it...

Which means that there needs to be a discussion promptly on how bans need to be handled, both on subs, public and private, and Voat in a whole.

I also haven't receive any response from @Puttitout regarding u/Obrez. And I know he is too busy with a lot of pms and pings regarding this whole deal. Which also prove the need for Putt to ask for help to users that he trust to be objective and can handle the creation of the new process in an orderly fashion.

I need to see evidence that u/Obrez's ban is justified. Otherwise I respectfully demand a vindication from Putt and that he is reinstated without the badge that he was given.

This has gotten out of hand, and one could argue it was the algorithm etc, but the action was taken by Putt. So he is responsible for this.

Again, I appreciate him and his effort to keep Voat running. And I will always defend Voat against any ill user that comes to destroy what it represents but this also means that the admin needs to be held accountable also, as sucky as it may sound and be.

I wish no ill to Putt nor anyone here at Voat, including the faggot full of shit @virge that thinks I will let him manipulate the community at his own will.

link

MadWorld 5.4 years ago

I need to see evidence that u/Obrez's ban is justified. Otherwise I respectfully demand a vindication from Putt and that he is reinstated without the badge that he was given.

I think I might be able to shine some light on this user. This account is somewhat active, with fairly regular threshold. Other than one obvious spike, I cannot tell anything unusual about his voting pattern. So it is possible that he targeted someone in the early April. If it was a low level targeting, only Putt would have enough info to make the conclusion.

https://i.imgtc.ws/KahD6bn.png

link

sguevar 5.4 years ago

This is the message I got from him yesterday: https://imgur.com/a/NqoZ7RS - sorry for the imgur link but imgoat is banned and the one you used is forbidden from my work place - error 403.

If the activity is regarding the constant war he had vs u/theoldones that would mean that my constant attempt to show u/virge as the full of shit deceptive faggot he is would also be considered as vote manipulation.

Hence I need more data and I agree with you @Puttitout is the only one that bring a light on this. However I thank you for the effort to bring this up. But you know that spikes on activity is not enough to determine vote manipulation and hence does open the door for a reasonable doubt on the user.

Thanks again!

link

MadWorld 5.4 years ago

Interesting exchange, he appears sincere and does not strike me as a vote manipulator...

link

sguevar 5.4 years ago

I don't know if you recall but he was the reason why I created the post of Objectivity is important on protect voat a while back.

The willingness he has had to defend himself and even ask for help doesn't strike me as suspicious either. I have said it before, even when someone has the odds against him and keeps fighting for his defense by providing proofs of his statements shows a valid cause and deserves to be defended. One could argue that he is one heck of a LARP like one of those CIA trained guys but I honestly doubt it.

I think he means well and has no ill intentions.

Hope you can extend this to Puttitout as again, none of the comments I have ever made to him have been answered about this or other matters. So I guess I am not on his trusted parley but this needs to be reviewed.

link

MadWorld 5.4 years ago

I don't know if you recall but he was the reason why I created the post of Objectivity is important on protect voat a while back.

The willingness he has had to defend himself and even ask for help doesn't strike me as suspicious either. I have said it before, even when someone has the odds against him and keeps fighting for his defense by providing proofs of his statements shows a valid cause and deserves to be defended. One could argue that he is one heck of a LARP like one of those CIA trained guys but I honestly doubt it.

Yes I remember that time.

Hope you can extend this to Puttitout as again, none of the comments I have ever made to him have been answered about this or other matters. So I guess I am not on his trusted parley but this needs to be reviewed.

You might be getting the impression that he responds to "trusted users" quicker than others. But that is not true. I have sent questions to him, but he rarely replied back. It is most likely because he is extremely busy, and the fact that his inbox is constantly been flooded by @TerdWilson's army of alts.

link

sguevar 5.4 years ago

You might be getting the impression that he responds to "trusted users" quicker than others. But that is not true. I have sent questions to him, but he rarely replied back. It is most likely because he is extremely busy, and the fact that his inbox is constantly been flooded by @TerdWilson's army of alts.

I see. Well thanks anyway.

link

theoldones 5.4 years ago

oh wow.

there are several things i have to say about that message.

link

sguevar 5.4 years ago

You can address u/Obrez when he gets reinstated if in fact he is reinstated.

I am just simply stating that the activity he has can't be argued as vote manipulation with the graph that @MadWorld provided. So in that case I need more data. This user deserve to have this defense, I would have done it for you too if it was the case as I did when I proved with your reactions the fact that you didn't know that you had posted suspicious links as per Mad's post.

I know you know I have no ill intentions with this, but I find it weird that both guilty and innocent appear to be put into the same wave of bans due to the algorithm which implies it may be defective and needs correction or as I proposed on the post that a new process for bans is created decentralizing the decision from the admin to reduce the risk of uncalled bans and that it provides the right for a defense to the accused also.

That is why I brought the message to light.