think- ago

We were not privy to those events. Just the outcome.

Therefore I think a sticky where Putt explains what happened from his point of view would be a good thing.

And we are still faced with reality that all you have to do is put "srayzie" into a search field and you will see those 3 images.

They are only in Google cache right now, she deleted all three on her Twitter and her YT account.

@srayzie @PuttItOut @Vindicator @Crensch @SandHog

SearchVoatBot ago

This submission was linked from this v/AskVoat comment by @kevdude.

Posted automatically (#43352) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.

WhiteRonin ago

Oh, publicly available can mean a lot of things. Court records, monitoring services, yellow page look up sites and such.

I am not talking about Srayzie style of Twitter information.

I’m talking about user X123456yz <gibberish made up user name> as an example. Or even my own username that gets tied to a real name style dox.

I am not talking about Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

heygeorge ago

"Saying mean things" vs "borderline dox"?

No. “Mod over-reach” vs “Admin over-reach”. Protecting Voat from becoming Reddit 2.0.

heygeorge ago

This sounds really half-hearted compared to the drubbing you gave @middle_path for banning a pest from his subverse.

Perhaps MP could instead have used a suggestion to update the subverse rules.

Snailracer ago

I think Srayzie is a good person who is being harassed because of her service to the community as a mod.

sguevar ago

I agree with you. And I will stand by her side against the harassment. But the approach taken to defend her wasn't right and it is compromising Voat.

WhiteRonin ago

Posting information not found on Twitter, Gab, etc is a dox. We are talking real name and address. If SSN etc is posted that is beyond a dox.

Transmitting professional business information is not a dox. I need a mechanic - go to billy bobs on Main st isn’t what I’m talking about.

Providing name, address, ssn and such isn’t cool.

WhiteRonin ago

Both are good examples.

What and where is the line?

WhiteRonin ago

We are talking real name and real address like my post stated.

What happened to srayzie is not what I’m talking about.

WhiteRonin ago

We need also a TOS for doxing and trading of dox information via Voat.

SandHog ago

He's (((shook)))

NOMOCHOMO ago

For sure, I get that you're speculating.

That said, I don't think @PuttItOut will reverse the ban.

What makes you say this? If there was no "doxing" and Putt has to obey a DCMA, wouldn't he just remove the post per

"(3) remove any of your User Content from voat."

Why Permaban vs suspension or temporary suspension?

NOMOCHOMO ago

"You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity."

So does that include our research in v/pizzagate? We seem to be operating under the impression that Putt is okay with republishing/organizing information re: famous elites.

@vindicator

I'm not "concern-trolling". I'm sure bad-actors are, but do we know of any a current back-ups/mirrors of our sub?

Vindicator ago

Yes, research is safe. Although Podesta and Alefantis successfully orchestrated the scrubbing of slimg -- wiping out a lot of our copies of their Facebook and Instagram posts using the DMCA early in the investigation, since they had created the content and owned the copyright.

It's my belief that was a wrong interpretation of that law, since journalistic investigation generally qualifies as "fair use" and no one was making money off of it. But I don't really understand these issues and the law hasn't been around very long.

Epictetus_Hierapolis ago

This is really low effort. You should try using reason and logic next time. Sorry.

sguevar ago

You should try using reason and logic next time.

Please go ahead and elaborate on the matter. For the justification of my post was done privately to avoid any more public drama hoping for a better resolution of this situation. But by all means go ahead and illuminate me on where I missed reason and logic. Please amuse me.

Epictetus_Hierapolis ago

You should really just give up. Delete your account. Go back to reddit. Sorry.

sguevar ago

I have never been into redshit nice projection but you are unable to see where you are wrong and apparently are too afraid of stating where did missed logic and reason XD

Epictetus_Hierapolis ago

You sound like English is your second language. You should genocide yourself. Sorry.

sguevar ago

You sound like someone without any real argument and that does a poor attempt to trigger someone else just to feel better about himself.

But you are right English is a secondary language as French is for me for my main language is Spanish.

However that is beside the point here. You stated that I missed logic and reason on my post. I ask you to elaborate and amuse me with your opinion and all you have done is throw evasions because you can't sustain your own stupidity.

Have a nice day little (((fella))).

Epictetus_Hierapolis ago

I mean, if you can't figure it out yourself there is probably no hope for you. Sorry.

sguevar ago

Evasions is all you got, have a good day my (((fellow voater))).

MadWorld ago

Just an update, @Obrez's ban was justified. Putt did double check.

sguevar ago

This is disappointing. Thanks for the update.

MadWorld ago

Meanwhile I went to poal to check out. It seems that they are celebrating their victory over Putt's recent actions. I wonder how many of those faggots remember that AOU created the spamming of /v/aww subverse to drive userbase to their platform.

sguevar ago

As stated on the group message we have a chance to fix this if we act now and work together.

MadWorld ago

:-) Hello!!! Check the banlog!!

https://archive.fo/TK200

@Obrez

sguevar ago

I am freaking happy right now!

Obrez ago

Awesome. I noticed a bunch of other folks seem to have had their bans reversed too, thanks for talking to putt.

SandHog ago

Ha, I'm pretty proud of that one. It fits perfectly.

zyklon_b ago

BERN MUDPHAKR BERN

FREE @TRIGGLYPUFF

kneo24 ago

The argument could be made that only @srayzie has the right to post personal information about herself. So @trigglypuff could have linked to whatever post/comment @srayzie had put up but was out of line posting it directly themselves? I put the question mark because the logic here falls apart.

Where is that line drawn though? Sean Sweat, aka @TexasVet would use this to fuck everyone he could in the ass, despite him sharing his personal information all over the place. If you make your business public, and then go out of your way to share here it on Voat, it's no sensitive. That's just my two cents.

antiliberalsociety ago

Not only did he himself post it, he deleted the post to hide the fact that he did it so he could play victim and get his adversary banned. The law states anything voluntarily uploaded to the internet isn't doxxing. I don't yet know the details on Triggly, but from the sounds of it she linked to exactly that.

zyklon_b ago

wanna be in my army?

ScrubbinOutOldBlue ago

In that case, good fellow, the hussie, @gothamgirl, beckoned me with her digital footprint. Exclaimed outright that I could release whatever information I possessed either directly from her, or from Voat at large. While the lass was obviously bluffing, the words exist.

Gothamgirl ago

Why do you think I care what you have stalker? I don't fear you or anyone...

ScrubbinOutOldBlue ago

Then I have your permission to drop all information pertaining to you onto this website?

Gothamgirl ago

You have my permission to choke on a bag of dicks.

ScrubbinOutOldBlue ago

And you will play your part beautifully. One day I shall make a collage of how you were used to keep Trigglypuff banned and I will post it to /v/lovely!

ScrubbinOutOldBlue ago

oe so @gothamgirl leads me to her an i share dat is ok? she tole me! and vote 2

not dox she tole me to spill de beenz even doh she wus bluffin

Gothamgirl ago

You can share this one of Srayzie

https://m.imgur.com/j4QQdOt

argosciv ago

Well, I'd be lying if I said I'm not highly amused by the turn of events, but I also can't fault your reasoning.

If @PuttItOut does deem a lifting of the ban to be warranted, I would at least hope that it's done in a few days minimum, just to let the bitch stew -- that said, she's probably already back on an alt anyway, so whatever.

At least the situation is being monitored.

zyklon_b ago

i got all ur info n.u gettin it

Shizy ago

You have no clue who all has your info.

Vindicator ago

Did you use your keen-eyed prairie nigger tracking skilz for that Zyklon?.

It explains so much.

zyklon_b ago

indeed take shit i make up serious and the plan be clear

Vindicator ago

Except that wasn't posted in SBBH, was it? That was posted in r/AskReddit.

ScrubbinOutOldBlue ago

Neu dawksing sey u?

https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3245038/18860160

@kevdude think is ok?

xenoPsychologist ago

what is this, reddit? i usually dont care about the drama, but it seems to have gone too far.

lets_get_hyyerr ago

Seriously, this is Reddit tier garbage but I suppose this is just Voat going through its cleansing phase that it goes through sometimes. Every once in a while the bubble bursts. I just sit back and watch.

ScrubbinOutOldBlue ago

HAS GON TU FAR COMRADE https://voat.co/v/ProtectVoat/3245038/18860160

I SAY BRING BACK TRIGGLY AND I DROP WAHT I KNOW OF GOTHAMGIRL U LEIK? IS SAME

xenoPsychologist ago

that is completely preposterous! whats wrong with your problem??

ScrubbinOutOldBlue ago

I NO RITE?

GONE TO FAR I MUST HAVE LICENSE TO DROP WHAT I WAS GIVEN AND CPS NUMBER FOR ABUSED KIDS

Or, you know, triggly could stay banned like the zyklon niggerdick taking whore she is.

xenoPsychologist ago

GONE TO FAR I MUST HAVE

yoda? is that you? wtf m8?

its gettin too darn dramatic up in here, dagnabbit!

ScrubbinOutOldBlue ago

WAHT IN, I SAY WHAT IN TARNATION IS GOIN ON HERE?

YOU HAVE EXTRA BREAD TODAY FOR CONFUSION COMRADE

xenoPsychologist ago

WAHT IN, I SAY WHAT IN TARNATION IS GOIN ON HERE?

if that aint the question of the century, then a different question is.

YOU HAVE EXTRA BREAD TODAY FOR CONFUSION COMRADE

your bread has successfully confused me. you were better off with the milkshake, even though getting rid of all the boys from your yard afterward was a huge hassle.

ScrubbinOutOldBlue ago

WHAT IS MILKSHAKE COMRADE? IS THAT CODE FOR DOXXING KIDS TO PEDOS?

xenoPsychologist ago

what goes into a milkshake is a mystery, but i dont think it has anything to do with kids, except that they sometimes drink them.

ScrubbinOutOldBlue ago

ZYKLON THE MILKSHAKE DOXXED HIS GIRLFRIENDS KIDS TO THE PEDOS OF VOAT

xenoPsychologist ago

ya alls be crazy these days, yo. trippin-er than a hooker.

sguevar ago

You will need to check most of the recent posts on PV about the implied users. I am too tired to give you a summary.

Right now I am just pleading for the wisdom of the user that has the power to end it. That is all.

xenoPsychologist ago

ive seen more of the drama posts than id care to, so im approximately up to speed, give or take some details. this just all seems beneath goats. we are supposed to be better than that!

antiliberalsociety ago

You know who else does that?

Hillary. "This is not who we are!" Trying to blanket statement speak for all others. Some things need to get hashed out in public, especially when it's a prominent user in an unprecedented situation like this.

xenoPsychologist ago

thats really not a bad point, and ill consider it. i just thought we werent flaming twats. i thought we, of all people, were smarter.

antiliberalsociety ago

How is public debate not smart? I agree if it's simply he said/she said that will never get anywhere, then yes it's pointless. But the fact remains someone got banned for it, stemming the debate. Just because this "drama" doesn't affect you now, doesn't mean it won't later. Trying to prevent another reddit from happening requires this debate. At the moment we have an admin willing to listen, but his actions as of late indicates changes are on the way.

xenoPsychologist ago

its not the debate, its the drama. the debate about the drama is fine, but its approximately two posts in a sea of nerd rage. i was talking about the drama. dunno why you changed the subject to the legitimate debate tucked away behind the nonsense.

antiliberalsociety ago

Which drama are you referring to, pre or post bans? The drama pre ban is shit tier IMO but post bans are inevitable. Most that complain about drama refer to the debates.

xenoPsychologist ago

yeah, im not complaining about the debates, theyre okay. its all the "wah wah, look how this person was mean to me!" nonsense.

antiliberalsociety ago

That's why I don't SBBH

xenoPsychologist ago

heh, yeah.

sguevar ago

Agreed with you there!

NiggerVirus ago

Can we EAR fuck? Seriously, please?

NiggerVirus ago

I think voat is a little too extreme for you. You should probably find a safer space to hang out.

sguevar ago

I appreciate your intake on this, and maybe we can find a common ground on this. But at this point the one that has power to put all of this to rest is @srayzie.

She has the power on whether this ends now or not. I hope she does use it wisely for I would see this ban as dangerous defeat to what Voat represents.

Regarding your question mark I make the same argument, any post done from twitter, screencap of personal accounts of other people including President Trump for that matter can be considered as doxxing under that logic.

I don't agree with it. If the pics were on public domain they do not infer a doxxing otherwise the posts that @antiliberalsociety has done on @TexasVet would also infer said behavior and their not because they users themselves linked them and are on the web. They are material that can't be use for profiteering we can agree on that but they can't be considered doxxing of any kind.

WhiteRonin ago

Google “Srayzie” oops I dox’ed her! Fuck don’t click on that link!

Vindicator ago

any post done from twitter, screencap of personal accounts of other people including President Trump for that matter can be considered as doxxing under that logic.

Not exactly @sguevar and @kevdude. The difference here is that srayzie asked that it be taken down. I believe under the DMCA, that mandates @PuttitOut remove it. Under that logic, since srayzie asked Triggly to remove the content and she refused, that then put Triggly in violation of the law Putt has to abide by. I could be wrong about that.

I believe there are additional circumstances at play, here, as well, if @Srayzie linked to that prior to the incident involving NeonRevolt several months ago where several different accounts were posting messages all over various social media asking for help doxing her. They also threatened to rape her in front of her kids.

I am pretty sure the DMCA considers the creator of the images to retain copyright and recognizes their legal right to request sites remove their images, text, music and any other content they created...whether they posted it or not.

Perhaps @cynabuns knows more about how DMCA requirements might apply, here.

ooberlu ago

I believe under the DMCA, that mandates @PuttitOut remove it.

DMCA only applies to copyrighted work. It's highly doubtful that Srayzie copyrighted her selfies.

Once she uploaded her pics onto Twitter, they fell under the category of "content submission" according to Twitter TOS. Said pics then became considered fair use within public domain. They are not protected.

Putt removing them is within his rights as site admin. But her selfies are not protected under copyright law, nor does DMCA apply here.

Vindicator ago

DMCA only applies to copyrighted work. It's highly doubtful that Srayzie copyrighted her selfies.

I absolutely guarantee she copyrighted them.

Copyright is created the moment a work is created. You don't have to register a copyright (though you can).

Once she uploaded her pics onto Twitter, they fell under the category of "content submission" according to Twitter TOS. Said pics then became considered fair use within public domain. They are not protected.

This would be equivalent to saying an author gives up copyright to any publishing house that prints his book, which is not the case. Rights are licensed to the publisher -- and they pay for them, establishing a contract. Twitter doesn't even have that claim.

I find it hard to believe the idea that Twitter has some magical right to any creative content users post. Otherwise, every musician, artist, photographer or author who used Twitter to promote their work and communicate with their fans would lose the rights to their copyrighted material. There would be no celebrities on Twitter, and Twitter would fold. I don't buy it.

Show me the court rulings that allow Twitter's TOS to overrule an individual's rights over content that they have created.

ooberlu ago

Copyright is created the moment a work is created. You don't have to register a copyright (though you can).

This is an incomplete fact. It’s misleading to state this without acknowledging why it is important to register a copyright.

Lack of copyright registration gives you no legal copyright ownership over created work. You would be required to go through the burden of proof and show evidence that it was yours and you created it if the issue of infringement came up in court.

Once you register and are granted a copyright, you possess ownership over use of said work. You can't legally have one without the other in a court of law. It's assumed that if you establish your copyrights, that you have registered for ownership. It would be pointless to assert a claim without legally following up to stake said claim.

This would be equivalent to saying an author gives up copyright to any publishing house that prints his book, which is not the case. Rights are licensed to the publisher -- and they pay for them, establishing a contract.

I'm not addressing authors, I'm addressing copyright as it pertains to this person's photos and her use of social media to upload photos.

Twitter doesn't even have that claim.

You are correct. They do state that you own your content. Please see here.

BUT and this is a huge BUT that most people do not understand! They also state that you agree to grant Twitter the right to use and distribute your content globally, freely and without compensation. Please see the following:

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use. Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals, may be made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services.

TLDR on that last paragraph:

  • You grant fair use, worldwide, royalty-free licensing right to Twitter for any content you submit.

  • Twitter will distribute your content worldwide.

  • Don't expect to be paid by Twitter.

  • Don't expect to be paid by any company or individual who wants to use your content if they found it through Twitter.

You can find the exact italicized paragraph under Section 3. Content on the Services

I find it hard to believe the idea that Twitter has some magical right to any creative content users post.

Believe or deny what you want. It's written in plain text. I have not only linked it for you, I have copied and pasted it for you.

The clause I cited above is pretty standard in most User Agreements/Terms of Services/Privacy Agreements for corporations. It's a legal way and roundabout way for them to grant themselves fair use to free content on a public domain without having to pay licenses, pay royalty feed, receive written prior permission, etc.

We're been in a digital age of content marketing for at least a decade. What better way to get free digital content than to have a platform by which millions of users willingly and eagerly submit their thoughts/ideas/works? All you have to do is insert a little clause that most people don't even bother to read to understand what their rights are.

Otherwise, every musician, artist, photographer or author who used Twitter to promote their work and communicate with their fans would lose the rights to their copyrighted material. There would be no celebrities on Twitter, and Twitter would fold. I don't buy it.

Artists, musicians, photographers, etc who have excellent management and representation are always advised to copyright and/or trademark (through registration) their work prior to publishing onto sm platforms. They understand that it is used for promotional purposes. But the smart ones take care to legally protect their work.

Vindicator ago

Thanks for explaining all that.

Obviously Twitter and other platforms would need the right to distribute, since the content is on their platform, which they are making available internationally.

Do Twitter or Voat's TOS rights also require that content creators allow other subscribers to freely use and distribute their work? That's the real issue, here.

A Voat user took content owned by a different voat user and embedded it in the CSS of their own subverse here on Voat without her permission, Twitter's permission, or Voat's permission. Do the TOS useage rights actually apply to the user who does not own the content?

ooberlu ago

Thanks for explaining all that.

You're welcome.

Do Twitter or Voat's TOS rights also require that content creators allow other subscribers to freely use and distribute their work? That's the real issue, here.

WRT to Twitter, "requires" is not the correct term in this case. But yes, it does state in Twitter's TOS that you agree to allow others to freely use and distribute your work.

WRT to Voat, you also agree, albeit indirectly. You also release Voat from liability of any submitted content.

See here:

We take no responsibility for, we do not expressly or implicitly endorse, and we do not assume any liability for any user content submitted by you to Voat.

A Voat user took content owned by a different voat user and embedded it in the CSS of their own subverse here on Voat without her permission, Twitter's permission, or Voat's permission. Do the TOS useage rights actually apply to the user who does not own the content?

A few things:

First, no permission is required from either Twitter, Voat or the user. The content has no copyright ownership and has been available in the public domain. It is free to use without fear of lawsuit from infringement under the Fair Use of copyright law.

Secondly, an argument can be made that what was done with this content falls under parody. Parody is highly protected under the First Amendment. So even if it was copyrighted, laws governing free speech grant fair use for the sake of parody.

Lastly, this statement on Voat again: We take no responsibility for, we do not expressly or implicitly endorse, and we do not assume any liability for any user content submitted by you to Voat.

Welcome to the internet. Best to not submit any information that is unprotected or that you care to have ownership over. It's a losing battle and more trouble than it's worth.

think- ago

Show me the court rulings that allow Twitter's TOS to overrule an individual's rights over content that they have created.

I don't know about Twitter, but this is the what the Voat User .Agreement says -

"Content

You retain the rights to your copyrighted content or information that you submit to Voat ("user content") except as described below.

By submitting user content to Voat, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform, or publicly display your user content in any medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so. You agree that you have the right to submit anything you post, and that your user content does not violate the copyright, trademark, trade secret or any other personal or proprietary right of any other party. We take no responsibility for, we do not expressly or implicitly endorse, and we do not assume any liability for any user content submitted by you to Voat."

. Fair Use applies to any content that is created in the context of education or journalism.

i.e. you can use copyright material like pics if you want to do a video about the Q movement, or write a newspaper or blog article about it.

Vindicator ago

So Voat's User Agreement gives Voat copyrights to a user's content, but it does not give other Voat users the right to use that content against the permission of its creator, correct?

think- ago

Yes. Certainly in the context of a sub like /shitsrayziesays imo.

Although I'm not sure whether DMCA would apply if somene posted a research post in a sub like v/pizzagate.

Like 'Ten Pizzagaters who have incfluenced the Q anon movement' or something along the line. In this context, a pic of @srayzie once posted by her to Twitter might fall under 'fair use'.

Damn, we need a @Pizzagatelawyer who would know! ;-)

@HugoWeaving @PuttItOut

WhiteRonin ago

This is actually a Twitter issue since they have bing and google access and srayzie pops as the number 1 hit!

She didn’t DMCA twitter, google or bing did she?

Vindicator ago

I don't know. All I'm saying is, asking for her copyrighted material to be removed probably activated the DMCA.

antiliberalsociety ago

You first must obtain said copyright. From what I understand, links to 3rd party accounts were posted, that she herself controls. If it was creating such a problem, she could easily remove the content herself. Voat never hosted said content.

Vindicator ago

Voat never hosted said content.

Yes, Voat did. They put the pictures of her as the banner of subverse, using CSS.

You first must obtain said copyright.

Wrong. Copyright exists from the moment original content is created, and is wholly owned by it's creator unless the person gave up the rights to their creation through a pre-existing contract (i.e. a ghostwriter). It's not like a patent or trademark.

RockmanRaiden ago

Thanks for your methodical explanation of things.

Vindicator ago

What would be the fair use argument in this case?

antiliberalsociety ago

Voluntarily uploaded to the internet without intent to make a profit, no profit was gained in its use on Voat

think- ago

Voat never hosted said content.

Not true. The moment Trigglypuff copied @srayzie's pics to her new Voat sub, Voat hosted the pics.

@PuttItOut was obliged to take them down per DMCA when @srayzie requested it.

If Trigglypuff had linked to @srayzie's Twitter, or one of @srayzie's tweets with her thumbnail pic, that would have been a different matter.

@PuttItOut might want to consider adding a clause to the Voat User Agreement that copypasting somenone's pic from social media is not allowed (as opposed to merely linking to it), or something along the line. That would clarify the matter.

Currently a bunch of people who are not part of the harassing gang seem to be genuinely confused why publicly available info like Twitter pics constitute doxxing.

Maybe Putt could do a new sticky. ;-)

@Vindicator @Crensch @SandHog

antiliberalsociety ago

You skipped the part of needing to actually apply for a copyright, under fair use if Trig didn't make money off of it, it's fair game. DMCA was never a part of this situation, but it's been resolved regardless.

SandHog ago

I expect he will before too much longer. It's interesting seeing people playing internet lawyer and defending someone who was attempting to use her free speech in an effort to silence someone else's. Given the context of the situation that is exactly what was happening irregardless of the intent.

think- ago

This is what the Voat User Agreement says -

"Keep Personal Information Off Voat: You agree to not post anyone's sensitive personal information that relates to that person's real world or online identity."

Based on the term above, you could argue that the pic were 'sensitive personal information relating to @srayzie's online identity' (on Twitter).

Imo it just needs to be clarified.

https://voat.co/help/useragreement

@PuttItOut @Vindicator @Crensch @kevdude

think- ago

@kevdude @theoldones - please see parent.

WhiteRonin ago

Hmm, then we need to also talk about the GDPR - cookies and user data storage. Too many people expose problems care info that needs to be wiped from Voat servers.

sguevar ago

I have addressed the matter privately at this moment. Let's hope a healing process can start.

Vindicator ago

A sentiment I endorse.

I do think it's important for goats to recognize legal limitations that may constrain Putt.

sguevar ago

This doesn't change the fact that I am pissed about what @zyklon_b did and is planning to do but I will not let him corrupt the essence of Voat by having one user burnt.

WhiteRonin ago

It’s not just him. Lots of fuckery is going on both sides.

Vindicator ago

Well, he says he's not done yet: https://archive.fo/8Im0v

And for the record, this is not the first time.

@Gothamgirl and a sockpuppet that sounds very familiar attempted to take advantage of the death of a pizzagate researcher whom I had had to ban months before for refusing to follow submission rules, to stir drama and fan claims I was somehow responsible for her death last summer. This involved death threats that were waved off as "performance art."

@Crensch exposed the shit show here. But it was srayzie's evidence against GG and Jem777 (the Voat name of the woman who died) in my defense that put a stop to the disinfo fuckery. There was a group demanding I be demodded; as the O, he had to step in. She claimed to have pictures of v/pizzagate mods chatting in chatroom with pedos. Knowing what this group likes to do with CSS, it wouldn't surprise me if they had cobbled together some jpg to that effect. But she knows she will get banned from pizzagate if she doesn't link directly to the supporting source material for claims. Gothamgirl's shitstirring and lies were so bad we considered giving her a username flair.

Anyway, @Zyklon_b's fuckery did not occur in a vacuum. This group of thugs has attempted to destroy v/pizzagate as well. Voat should know.

SearchVoatBot ago

This comment was linked from this v/whatever submission by @Crensch.

Posted automatically (#43653) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.

zyklon_b ago

E-THUGGIN IS MORE THAN JUST A HOBBY IS A LIFESTYLE

Vindicator ago

Obviously. Especially for desperate Redditors with erectile dysfunction who want to destroy Voat.

zyklon_b ago

ask muh m8 @andrew_jackson boutn @whiteronin

1990

zyklon_b ago

sguevar ago

Fuck you faggot, you don't care for her at all.

zyklon_b ago

unban @trigglypuff and the war ends

sguevar ago

Faggot your war will end I can assure you of this but what you a re doing is not because you care about her.

zyklon_b ago

It will end NOW if @trigglypuff is unbanned

sguevar ago

I am sure it will end faggot, you done enough. Now shut the fuck up because right now you have no word on the matter. You are only digging your hole deeper.

zyklon_b ago

@trigglypuff this cuck faggot says i got u burnt. pm him the reason.

@sguevar shut your ignorant mouth cause you know ZERO of what is really happening. whiteknight.....

sguevar ago

Fuck you faggot, man up and stop fucking around.

zyklon_b ago

i did man up and this what happened...

@andrew_jackson @niggervirus @rotteuxx he said man up

Shizy ago

Punk bitch! 🤣

NiggerVirus ago

Just stop letting him draw you into these little arguments. Ignore him or make fun of him, do not engage in this manner. Personally if it were me I would EAR fuck him.

kneo24 ago

Ear fucking is outdated. Go for philtrum fucking.

NiggerVirus ago

No one who's ever EAR fucked would say that. Tilt your head and let me show you

kneo24 ago

Time to upgrade your game, bro. People are leaving you in the dust with new techniques and speakers while you sit there fucking ears and shit posting.

NiggerVirus ago

I can't change my game because it's not a game. I fuck EARS and listen to surround sound and that's all I ever do. Sometimes I fuck my mom.

sguevar ago

No you didn't and you still haven't. You can't even accept that all this shit started because of you and only you.

zyklon_b ago

How did i make trump be pro israel or get the GA mods to promote the (((plan))) that is why?? please elaborate as to how i control ZOG and psy ops?

watch him deflect with personal attacks or just ignore.

@expertshitposter @andrew_jackson @cheeseboogerhimself DESTROY

sguevar ago

How did i make trump be pro israel or get the GA mods to promote the (((plan))) that is why?? please elaborate as to how i control ZOG and psy ops?

How is this related to your fucking harassment and stalking of a user just because you don't agree with her views and opinions? How is this fucking related to your attempt of brigading and manipulating others with even creating alt accounts to do such things?

watch him deflect with personal attacks or just ignore.

Nice try ZB, the one deflecting on what I am saying is you not me. You are no knight against the ZOG or the psy ops you are a tool of (((them))) used to start fires where your masters find it entertainment.

Care to explain how is this related to what I have said before or are you going to fucking deflect?

SandHog ago

It's just one of the many jewscuses he uses. He is full of them.

  • ALL IS SATIRE
  • It's just jokes
  • They are the ones attacking me
  • I'm the victim here
  • If they stop responding to my attacks I'll stop attacking them

He also appears to be planning on doing the same sort of thing with pizzagate.

sguevar ago

It honestly pisses me off that he is so reluctant to accept his responsibility on all this and though I do not support the harassment that took place, I can't accept the ban on Triggly. As I said it before the power to end this lies now on srayzie's hands (no tag on her because I have done enough tags today and I know she is really stressed). But again the previous post to her twitter account was made.

Fucking shit I honestly tired about this matter that seemed it could easily be resolved but a fucking junkie decided to burn the house instead...

SandHog ago

They are putting Putt in tough spot and it is harming the integrity of Voat. Does he just let them tear apart subs on whim? Or does he have to start banning people? They are really putting him between a rock and a hard place and I think it likely that it is intentional. More people need to wake up to what is going on. Everyone on Voat should be rejecting and condemning this behavior because if it is left unchecked it will inevitably change Voat for the worse.

sguevar ago

Agreed, as @kevdude said, a new update TOS should be put in place and this is now perfect opportunity to work on a new process for bans. But again, the ban on Triggly is uncalled for and if it remains then Voat will be compromised.

You can consider me a concerned troll here but I am simply trying to reason with the parties here. Objectivity must remain on this situations and if we can't work through them then I fear what will happen to Voat.